Moms Demand Action Endorsement Puts Gun Policy Into Spotlight in Indiana House District 25

By Hoosier Enquirer Staff | October 16, 2026

I want your guns and your tax money!

ZIONSVILLE, Ind. — One of Indiana's Statehouse races has another issue for voters to consider: guns and taxes. The Dem. Stoner only wants to eliminate one, and it's not taxes.

Democrat Tiffany Stoner, who is challenging Republican State Rep. Becky Cash in Indiana House District 25, identifies herself on her campaign website as a Moms Demand Action “Gun Sense Candidate,” aligning herself with one of the country's most prominent organizations advocating stronger firearm laws.

The distinction matters in District 25, which includes Zionsville, Whitestown and portions of Boone and Hendricks counties. Cash defeated Stoner by only 64 votes in 2024, and the two candidates are meeting again in November.

Moms Demand Action describes itself as a grassroots movement seeking laws intended to reduce gun violence. It is part of the Everytown for Gun Safety network, a major national gun-control advocacy organization.

Among the policies Moms Demand Action advocates nationally are stronger background-check requirements and “red flag,” or Extreme Risk Protection Order, laws that permit firearms to be temporarily removed from people determined through a legal process to pose a serious danger to themselves or others.

For Indiana gun-rights voters, those positions raise legitimate questions about exactly what Stoner would support if elected to the General Assembly.

Indiana currently allows eligible adults to carry handguns without obtaining a state carry permit. That policy took effect in 2022 after a contentious legislative battle.

Interestingly, the debate did not divide neatly between gun-control advocates and police.

When Indiana lawmakers considered permitless carry, several major law-enforcement organizations — including the Indiana State Police leadership, Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, Indiana Association of Chiefs of Police and Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council — opposed eliminating the permit requirement.

Moms Demand Action opposed permitless carry as well.

That history makes sweeping claims that virtually all Indiana police would refuse to enforce gun-control proposals difficult to support. The more important question for District 25 voters is precisely which firearm restrictions Stoner herself supports.

Her Moms Demand Action designation provides voters with information about her general orientation on the issue, but it should not substitute for answers from the candidate.

Would Stoner vote to restore Indiana's handgun carry permit requirement? Would she support expanding Indiana's existing firearm-seizure provisions? Does she favor additional background checks on private firearm transfers? Would she support restrictions on particular semiautomatic firearms or magazines?

Those are questions District 25 voters deserve to have answered before Election Day.

There is also an important constitutional issue underlying the debate.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the U.S. Supreme Court has strengthened constitutional protections for firearm possession and public carry in a series of decisions. At the same time, the Court has recognized that the right is not unlimited and that some firearm regulations can survive constitutional scrutiny.

That means describing every proposal supported by Moms Demand Action as unconstitutional goes further than the law currently supports. Individual proposals must be examined separately.

But the same standard should apply to gun-control advocates. Calling a proposal a “gun safety” measure does not answer whether it is constitutional, effective, appropriately narrow or respectful of due process.

That is where the District 25 campaign can provide voters something more useful than national political slogans.

Cash and Stoner should state clearly where they stand on permitless carry, background checks, Indiana's firearm-seizure laws, concealed carry, magazine restrictions and proposed bans or restrictions involving commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.

The distinction is particularly important because this is no ordinary legislative contest.

Stoner came within 64 votes of defeating Cash two years ago. In a district that closely divided, even a relatively small number of voters motivated by Second Amendment or gun-violence concerns could matter.

Stoner's Moms Demand Action designation therefore deserves scrutiny — but scrutiny based on the policies she actually supports.

Indiana voters should know exactly what those policies are before deciding who represents House District 25 in Indianapolis.

Also, Stoner's position on property taxes also invites scrutiny in light of her own tax history. Public records show that five tax warrants totaling more than $19,000 were filed against Stoner, including more than $13,000 connected to property taxes. The records should be read according to their actual status — including whether the obligations were later paid or satisfied — but the history is relevant in a Statehouse campaign where taxation has become a central issue. Stoner opposes eliminating Indiana's property tax system, although she has said she supports other forms of property-tax relief and reform. That combination gives District 25 voters two records to consider: the tax policies Stoner advocates for Hoosiers and her own documented history dealing with tax obligations.

The race is a 2024 rematch, and contemporary voter guides confirm both the 64-vote margin and the current Cash-Stoner matchup.

Soureces:

WFYI

Tiffany Stoner campaign websiteIndiana Capital Chronicle District 25 voter guideMoms Demand Action on red-flag laws