Question 9 is a veto referendum on the 2024 gun law (Chapter 135): a NO vote repeals it. But here is what does not change either way — Massachusetts still requires a license to own or carry, and safety training to get one. Repeal the law and the pre-2024 rules remain, among the strictest in the country: licenses required, safety training required, sales tracked, red-flag petitions in place.
The 2024 law adds burdens on lawful owners — serialization requirements, expanded bans, a real-time registry — without creating the training standard. Training was required before this law, and it stays required whether the law is repealed or not.
Learn the facts
As required by law, the statements describing the effect of a "yes" or "no" vote are written jointly by the State Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth.
A YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons.
A NO VOTE would repeal this law - and replace it with the law we had in 2023
This is important context. Voting "NO" on 9 does not eliminate gun laws in this state. It does not turn our state into a "constitutional carry" state. It simply brings back our prior law, which was well understood by gun owners and gun stores, had more concrete language, and was still pretty much just as restrictive. The main differences between the 2023 law and today's law are which accessories you could mount to a gun (e.g. which grips are allowed, which barrel shrouds are allowed, the ability to have more than one accessory, etc)
They did do that on purpose. GOAL has a few blog posts on the process they went through, trying to get the state to use neutral and concise language, that was consistent with other questions on the ballot. They didn't get much traction.
YES, keeps the existing laws in place with no changes. NO repeals the 2024 law.
u/HAV816 is correct that there would still be gun restrictions from prior to 2024, but they're very much misleading you on what a NO vote does here. NO is repealing the must recent gun law.
And to be clear, that 2024 law that was passed was done via emergency preamble, using a legal tool to deny opponents a remedy the constitution otherwise gave them was a BS move
This is such weird framing, and it feels deceptive.
You're correct that you should vote no if you're against the 2024 referendum. But if your objection to that law is that it exempts police, then you want MORE regulation rather than less, so you should vote YES. Then push for further laws to expand the existing restrictions to cover police (current and former).
It sounds like you're trying to focus on this loophole in order to convince people who want stricter gun regulation to vote for the opposite.
There is a reason Healy did not get any support for this emergency bill passed until she exempted police and retired police. I want equal regulations and not making it harder for law abiding citizens to be punished. The previous law already is the strictest in the country. This new bill is convoluted and messy and I absolutely do not like ICE or retired cops being exempt at all. You can disagree but that’s my take and I voted NO.
Edit: To add, I don’t own a gun. But I am infuriated that we will have a top tier of people who don’t have to follow this law. It’s wrong.
I agree no one should be exempt from the law. It is particularly ridiculous, IMO, that former law enforcement is exempt. (Though I wouldn't agree either way, I can at least see the reason some might want exceptions for current law enforcement.) But in the end, I'm for stronger regulation rather than weaker. If I were to change anything about the 2024 law, it would be to make it stronger by removing exemptions, not weaker by removing the original restrictions.
It’s strange to me that during a time in this countries history where we are at one of our largest civil unrest besides the civil war. Our president is talking about about running for an illegal 3rd term. They are coming for our public lands and national parks. He fired anyone who disagrees with him. This is just a few things. Our second amendment is supposed to allow us to be armed in a way that can protect us if needed.
People want to make it so we have such strict laws you cannot even own weapons to properly defend yourself from these people who don’t follow laws is the real problem.
If shit ever fully hits the fan you’ll be looking to others to save you. Whilst the whole state will be trying to protect themselves with pistols and hunting shotguns. While the bad guys have Assault rifles.
That thought scares the hell outta me. And I was never like this till about a couple years ago. But things have changed fast in this administration
As a progressive leftist: the Memorial drive incident completely debunks this legislation as effective. Dude had the exact kind of weapon that was banned.
Furthermore the fact that law enforcement can own many of the weapons that are banned for civilian ownership is completely unfair and puts weapons in the hands of the most likely domestic abusers, while further restricting civilians constitutional rights. I will be voting no on 9.
Additionally, a law abiding citizen used their personal firearm to disable the shooter, saving countless innocent people. Because of MA gun laws, the law abiding citizen was limited to a 10 round magazine on his pistol, while the criminal (who does not follow the laws) had magazines with an unlimited number of rounds and an assault style weapon. Do you think that law abiding people will continue to put their lives in harms way to defend innocent bystanders when they are forced to have less effective and less safe to operate weapons than street thugs?
There was an askUK thread not too long ago, and apparently "you can’t legally keep something like a baseball bat, knife etc by your bed because if you get broken in to, it seems premeditated on your behalf if you then maim or kill them."
So true. One of the things that bothers me about these laws is that it creates problems for law abiding citizens but does very little to stop criminals. Criminals don’t follow the law in the first place. They have their own network and supply chain. If you want to increase penalties for gun possession for convicted felons that’s another issue. Even the laws against convicted felons seems wrong. The law should affect felons convicted of violent crimes imo. The one regulation I think is good though is the safety course. Anyone who owns a gun needs to know how it works and what not to do (such as never pointing it at anyone unless you need to defend your or someone else’s life).
Gun laws will never be perfect but our state gun laws were already totally acceptable and fine before the 2024 laws. Voting No doesn't randomly backslide us away from that point. We had some of the strictest gun laws and our rates of gun-related crime were frequently among or the lowest in the country, and partly because of that we were often rated among the safest states in the country, I do not honestly see what the point of having the new laws even is and if both sides are coming to a strong agreement on this one, I'm with them
I'm also voting "No" as a liberal because I believe our laws should apply equally, regardless of chosen profession. Law enforcement officers should have to abide by the same laws as the rest of us and this law gives them a convenient exclusion.
Similar political position. I’m even pro some of the policies in the law.
What I am not for is the process that the bill was passed, without individual debate on the individual issues.
Red flag restrictions? Debate and vote on them.
Registration of 3D printed arms? Debate it and vote.
Omnibus bills that shoehorn too many extra gotchas and then saying “if you’re against one part, you oppose them all” is not how good law is made.
Process matters, and this law was a dead of night omnibus. I’m No on 9, but bring the individual components for full debate and let them stand on their own.
Can you eli5 the issue with the new laws that were put into place that you want repealed? I'm a leftist that wouldn't own a gun personally but believe in your right to responsible gun ownership. I am confused as to what the concern is with a system to track ownership and prohibit 3D/ghost guns. I'm honestly not being argumentative and really want to understand
I'm a lefty that owns and I'm voting no. Three big areas:
The gun registration that was proposed isn't online yet two years after this was enacted.
The live fire training can be an undue burden on people who don't live near a range (maybe they live in Boston and want to go for weekends in western MA). It's also not well defined two years later.
Law enforcement (active and retired) got a carveout on this law. As private citizens they can purchase weapons that are illegal for the rest of us.
There's some good stuff in there (red flag laws for example) that would help but as a whole it's not great. I'd love to see the legislature bring those back if 9 fails
I’m a little more right leaning but I’m glad to hear that!
You’re 100% right in that our gun laws were already very strict and we have a low gun violence rate.
Guns are everywhere in this country and criminals don’t care about the law and will get them anyways. Pandora’s box has been opened and there’s no closing it.
Laws this strict just affect law abiding citizens who would like to protect themselves.
Also have to take into consideration NH, which has basically no state gun laws, has lower gun violence than us.
I’m not opposed to the LTC process and background checks but the laws as they stand are too strict for law abiding people trying to do everything legally
I wish guns weren’t such a politically charged issue, every law abiding American with no severe mental health issues deserves the right to defend themselves
You're gonna find most leftists, not liberals, are more open to having guns responsible.
Anyway I'm also voting no.
Question on NH gun violence is it low per capita compare to the rest of the states, or just low. I'd figure for NH the gun violence would be more on the hunting side then, I dunno, armed robbery.
NH has about 3 times more gun violence per capita than Massachusetts. Of course in totality they have less but that's only because there's about as many people in Boston alone than there are in all of new hampshire.
It makes absolutely no sense to compare total number of gun deaths or gun violence incidents over the rates or per capita stats.
That is actually not true. MA have a higher gun violence per capita rate then new Hampshire. but NH has a higher gun death per capita due to the fact that gun death rates include suicide
Not to say suicides aren't horrible and tragic but you are more likely to be attacked with a gun in Massachusetts then New Hampshire and that includes per capita
The issue is these numbers often lump in suicides by firearm with homicides by firearm and count them as the same even though they're completely different problems.
NH's gun deaths are largely from suicide, as is the case just about everywhere.
This is exactly right. Gun related Homicide rates are the lowest in the country in NH. NH along with Maine and VT, have some of if not, the least gun regulations and restrictions in the U.S. with the lowest gun crime in the country too. Correlation doesn’t equal causation, but it does show that gun ownership in and of itself doesn’t equate to gun violence.
I’m absolutely not maga by any means, but I tend to lean right on many issues.
I have always wondered why the gun control push was always from the left. The 2nd amendment is for everyone not just the right. I for one encourage everyone to shoot, left, right, gay, straight, whatever. It is your right as an American and if you don’t protect that right it will just be taken away 1 law at a time.
Probably because we’re tired of how mainstream it is for some dude to walk into an elementary school and end some kid’s lives. Guns are the leading cause of death amongst children, that’s a serious fucking problem. I’m not advocating for the abolishing of the 2nd amendment, and I think a large majority would agree, but there has to be something done about that; red flag laws or whatever. I’m honestly shocked why people can’t separate “we need federal laws to restrict access to firearms for high risk people” from “we should abolish the second amendment”.
Yeah after people were already killed and hurt. I’m glad a good person has a gun to stop something like this, but it’s unreliable. Certainly you agree that bad people shouldn’t have guns? Why does a good person having a gun absolve us of the responsibility of preventing bad people from having guns?
Yea I’d absolutely agree that we should do everything that we can to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. The problem is that you don’t know who is a bad person until they do something bad. Our state has a history of the courts throwing out firearm charges. Sure maybe they get another charge to stick, but we shouldn’t be arresting the same person for firearms related crimes over and over again. I would think that everyone agrees that something should be done about that.
Question 9 does nothing to accomplish that. It only burdens law abiding gun owners, and next summer when the Supreme Court releases its assault weapon decision parts of this will be overturned. Do you like the fact that all current and retired law enforcement, including federal (so ICE, FBI, etc) are completely exempt from this bill? They had to add the exemption in or it wouldn’t have gotten the support of the police union. How about the fact that we have some of the lowest gun violence in the country but Maura Healy declared a state of emergency due to gun violence and pushed this through?
And that guy saved many kids if the news is correct he saved 40 kids from getting hurt / killed and that’s why everyone except violent criminals should carry a gun. Stupid people are less apt to do something like this if they know it’ll end quickly for them. Look at London they can’t have guns so the criminals resort to stabbing people!
What is the answer? Not trying to come off like an asshole. I genuinely would like to know what you think it is.
The cat is out of the bag. We can’t just get rid of the 300+ million guns. By definition criminals don’t follow any of the laws on the books. Thank god someone had a gun in Oregon and was able to stop the deranged kid before he could take anymore lives. That kid used a Maverick 88 pump shotgun when he was killed they found 40+ more shells on him. That’s easily another 40 dead kids. Not a single regulation of question 9 would have stopped that.
if both sides are coming to a strong agreement on this one, I'm with them
I'm not sure where this came from. No, both sides are not coming to a strong agreement on this one. Here's a chart of what various Massachusetts political groups recommend. Two of these are left-wing (Mass Democrats and Progressive Mass), one right-wing (Mass Republicans), and one ostensibly non-partisan (League of Women Voters, though I'd argue they're closer to the left as well.)
As you can see, they have not come to the consensus you suggest, on a "no" vote. In fact, Mass Republicans are completely alone in recommending a "no" vote here.
That shouldn't prevent you from voting however you feel is best, but don't try to frame it as going along with a bipartisan consensus that never existed in the first place.
You're not wrong, but state laws can only do so much. The US will always have higher gun crime because of the 2nd amendment. The only way to try to improve that root cause is by changing the 2nd amendment, which is functionally impossible.
States pushing laws that potentially infringe on the 2nd amendment just open the door for expensive (taxpayer funded) legal challenges and those challenges are basically guaranteed to succeed in the current political climate.
Question 9 doesn't propose new laws. It's the same laws that have been in effect. This Question was put on the ballot by people who want to throw out the changes that were already made. A Yes vote means don't repeal the laws that were already passed. A No vote means throw out the changes that were put into effect in 2024 or whenever it was.
When a ballot question is formed so that a "No" vote makes a change, and a "Yes" vote keeps the status quo, you know that the intent is to deceive the voters. I'm here to tell you that if you have to fool the voters to get your bill passed, it shouldn't pass.
" In order to stop this mass punching epidemic, those who want to legally protect their right to punching must register their fists and wear these handcuffs at all times not in a boxing ring. Serial punchers unaffected"
Weak analogy. Hands are useful for way more things than punching whereas guns really are only good at shooting. Handcuffs prevent hands from doing all the useful things additional to punching. And we’re supposed to emotionally recoil about being handcuffed so I see what you’re trying to do there.
I have an LTC but I don't own a gun and I can say that MA laws are already crazy convoluted, this ballot question would just continue the convoluted laws with as far as I can tell no change to actual safety. Mass already had very effective gun laws before the 2024 law was passed.
Edited cause the ballot question itself can be confusing
They didn't write that the question makes the law more convoluted, they clearly said that it's already convoluted. Re-reading, we understand Weslg96 is saying that repealing the law (voting no) would make the law less convoluted.
This comment makes me wonder if you understand what's on the ballot. Question 9 wouldn't put any new laws or restrictions in place. There was a new gun law in 2024, and this referendum lets you vote to keep the laws exactly as they are (YES) or repeal the restrictions added in 2024 (NO). Neither option adds new restrictions, relative to what is in place today.
The law went into effect quickly because Healey attached an “emergency preamble” because opponents were mobilizing to halt it. That was bullshit and I will vote no just for that reason.
I read through question 9 in that booklet sent out by the Secretary of State. All I can say is what a a piece of shit poorly written meant to confuse law. It must of been written by a bunch of poor trial lawyers who hope to make money on gun law cases for unsuspecting law abiding citizens who get caught in the tangled web this law weaves. Vote no
Liberal gun owner here. I am No on 9. If things ever get really bad (think civil war) I don’t want all the southern republicans to be the only ones with guns.
This is only a state law that takes away from Massachusetts citizens. Many of the “gun owners” you’re picturing are Democrats in your own state, who already did training, licensing, and jumped thru hoops to do it all legally.
It is nothing to do about whether you like guns or not it's about the democratic process gun owners got way more signatures than require the first time around to suspend the law the governor panicked and used her quote unquote emergency powers to activate the law instead of putting it to vote
It’s sad honestly to see so many people openly saying they want to restrict a right with vague standards and endless hoops for legal gun owners to jump through
Those very same people would lose their minds if a fraction of these restrictions were placed on another right, like voting, or even abortion
It’s funny to bring up abortion, because just like right wingers don’t believe access to healthcare should be a right, some left wing people don’t think that gun ownership should be a right.
We are arguing more for what should be, than what is.
Guns have the ability kill a lot of people. There are arguably a lot of hoops to pass through to legally drive a car as well and I don’t see people complaining about that.
At a risk of drawing ire, imagine if vehicle law said "In MA, possession of a vehicle with more than 2 of the follow is a felony: external toolbox, winch, trailer hitch, or grill guard."
Most people would think "oh, that's silly. there's perfectly normal reasons for all of those things." That's how the typical gun owner looks at the regulations toward barrel guard, adjustable stock, etc.
I'm personally quite curious why the Mini-14 isn't considered to have a barrel shroud. Like I guess because that part is made of wood its just furniture? Even though its literally shrouding the barrel. Probably asking too much logic of this whole thing anyway.
To me, these are the most important things to protect:
allowing school administrators and licensed healthcare providers to request that a court issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order; and
permitting courts to order firearm surrender when issuing Harassment Prevention Orders
If someone with a firearm is considered to be dangerous to those around them, there should be mechanisms to report the danger and attempt to remove any imminent threat.
These seem to be conveniently left out of all the arguments I've seen the past couple of days on related threads
It’s the classic case of a bill being too broad and conflating a decision on good measures like you mentioned with a decision on bad measures like changing restrictions and limiting gun owners ability to control their guns and use them safely/properly
That mechanism did exist before the 2024 law. Courts could order it. Police could order it. Harassment Prevention Orders already lead to firearm surrender.
It’s sad to me how many people automatically think that all guns are bad and they don’t care how it’s done only that their agenda is put in place.
The laws that were in place before 08/01/24 were some of the strictest laws in the country. We have always had low gun violence in this state. The laws that Maura Healey pushed through with an abuse of power leave a lot of grey areas and incompleted databases without giving anyone a clear avenue to facilitate these new laws.
Police officers were carved out of the law so that the law wouldn’t be challenged and mind you this is what they can buy for personal use. It has nothing to do with service it’s all for personal collection.
I have grown up my whole life with the fear of guns but as an adult I’ve learned that we shouldn’t let fear dictate our laws and that lawmakers shouldn’t be able to bend or change a law on a whim.
I believe this law should be repealed and we as a state can work a new bill if that’s what majority wants.
It saddens me that today’s politics are so blind to the other half of the conversation
I have the chuckle at the number of comments about guns being easy to acquire (legally.). It is a pain in the ass to get a firearms license.
It’s also interesting how many gun crimes are pointed to as a reason to restrict ownership. Those criminals were breaking ALL of the laws—adding more wouldn’t make an ounce of difference.
This crap is all virtue signaling in the worst way possible.
I think a lot of people are misunderstanding what voting NO on Question 9 actually means. It doesn’t mean everyone should be able to buy whatever gun they want and carry it wherever they want. It means repealing Chapter 135, not eliminating every gun law Massachusetts already had.
My biggest issue is that making life increasingly difficult for people who legally own firearms is not the same thing as stopping criminals from getting guns. People who commit gun crimes are already willing to break the law. Meanwhile, responsible gun owners are expected to navigate more restrictions, confusing regulations, and potential legal consequences just to own a firearm for sport, recreation, or personal and family protection.
If someone is following the law, getting licensed, and taking responsibility for their firearm, why should the state keep piling on additional burdens without demonstrating that those specific restrictions actually address the people committing violent crimes? I want gun violence taken seriously too. But I want enforcement focused on violent offenders, illegal trafficking, and people who pose genuine threats. Not on turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals over technical violations.
And at the end of the day, the Second Amendment is a constitutional right. Rights shouldn’t be treated as privileges the government can gradually narrow whenever it claims another restriction might make us safer. That same principle of protecting constitutional rights matters beyond the Second Amendment, too. We should be asking whether a law is effective, necessary, and fairly enforced not simply whether it makes exercising a right more difficult.
You can support public safety without assuming that more restrictions on lawful gun owners automatically mean less crime. Massachusetts already had substantial firearms regulations before Chapter 135. I’d rather see resources directed toward enforcing laws against people who commit violence than adding more red tape for people who are trying to do everything legally.
I wish that parts of this bill were kept in while other parts were repealed. I actually prefer the idea of safety classes and permits but I can't stand the excessive regulation on to specifics of what types of guns you can have or giving the state such sweeping powers to monitor and revoke your rights to own guns.
edit: I have been made aware that safety classes were in place before this law so my point is moot
There are already safety classes and permits though. All these new mandates will do is congest the already extremely limited public ranges we have in this state (because the state will not provide the funding for more to keep up with the demand) and make it even more expensive for people to get permits. This will eventually result in only the wealthy and well connected being able to exercise their 2A rights.
Amen. Amen across the board. That's not how politicians work at any level of our government though.
It's the same as the hunting rights... I'm a hunter, I am DYING to hunt on Sundays as a working dad. I realistically get about 6 hours every Saturday to hunt each week unless I take PTO. That time may disappear if my kids have sports Saturday mornings as well... State says they want to increase Hunter harvests; NEWS FLASH, the younger working guys, they're the more effective hunters, and you're limiting us.
Can we just talk about Sundays? I don't care about changing the easement, I don't care about crossbows, we can talk about those individually, and I understand the concerns over the easement... But Sunday? FFS people, 48 other states allow it, and it's BOW HUNTING people! Nobody's out there with rifles in MA.
I still teach safety classes in MA and they are still required regardless of repeal or not.
However charging people to exercise a right is foul and unconstitutional, and should be repealed in its entirety… but that’s not the current fight.
There is a shooting almost every single day in Brockton or Dorchester and guess what, it is never a licensed gun owner. Always someone with an illegal weapon with no license, so making the license requirements harder and making a registry does nothing to those who will choose to break the law anyways
The issue with Ch 135 isn’t totally what’s written. It’s HOW it’s written. It’s written on purpose to create a legal grey area where some law abiding citizens may be charged with illegal possession of an “ASW” that was legal when they purchased it.
The process is the punishment. The state doesn’t want these rifles or firearms in the state so they make examples out of people who have them.
I’m all for strict guidelines and guard rails around legal gun ownership. But we need common sense gun laws that don’t actively create more questions than answers.
Illegal guns in this state are coming in from New Hampshire. And most of the stuff in the law (serialization, “machine guns”, and “assault rifles”) were pretty already banned in the state.
This law was a political move that doesn’t actually make people safer.
I don’t even own a gun and I’ll be voting no on 9. Biggest reason being that this administration illegally shoehorned these gun laws against the will of the voters through an emergency measure. If they want to pass these laws, they should be done the right way.
The state has failed to define what the actual live fire requirements are in the past 2 years. The live fire "training" was to fire 10 rounds from a .22LR revolver at 30ft when I did it a few months ago. Sure, it lets someone experience what actually firing a gun feels like, but it doesn't do much more than that.
Because people with really old antique guns from the 40s-70s would have to deface and ruin their 1955 heirloom firearm and its finish by adding a serial number to it just to comply with some new law, even though the state already knows they have firearms since they are liscenced.
My father is a collector, and is all worked up about registering old firearms that aren’t antiques, but pre firearm registration. If it was just one or two I wouldn’t understand the annoyance, but he has more guns than people would think is normal so it’s a pain.
Fun fact about him is he is a far left voter too. He is happy for the background checks and such, just not the workload.
I have an old Civil War rifle/musket. It has been welded because it was captured, there’s no serial number on it. I don’t expect you to answer this for me but if you know the answer to this, but would this affect my civil war era rifle?
This guy is wrong. The law doesn't change the definition of an antique firearm. A muzzle loading firearm is still considered an antique and would not be subject the registration / serial number rules
Antique firearm'', any firearm or replica thereof manufactured in or prior to the year 1899 if such firearm: (i) is not designed or redesigned for using rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition; or (ii) uses rimfire or conventional centerfire fixed ammunition that is no longer manufactured in the United States and which is not readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade; provided, that ''antique firearm'' shall include any muzzle loading rifle, shotgun or pistol that is designed to use black powder, or a black powder substitute, and that cannot use fixed ammunition, unless the firearm: (a) incorporates a firearm frame or receiver; (b) is converted into a muzzle loading firearm; or (c) is a muzzle loading firearm that can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition by replacing the barrel, bolt, breechblock, or any combination thereof
That's just one part of the "emergency" bill that was passed without due process. That is what I think bothers people a lot more -- what other laws will Healey's administration deem an "emergency"?
And you expect that level of engagement over 6-12 hours given this sub’s usual traffic, it instantly having that much engagement reeks of brigading and bots.
Imagine Healey comes out and says "we are getting rid of the vaccination schedule for the state". A lot of people would be pissed and sign the petition. Now imagine she goes "well yoy want to petition, so im going to pass it with emergency powers so as the people of the state, you dont get a say". Thats what she did, just with a topic not popular in a blue state. She completed voided the power of the people in our state. She is a corrupt pos. FTR i am left leaning and am voting no on 9
I have small children in school and I routinely get a fleeting moment of fear that some angry kid shows up and shoots them to bits. Gun rights are an antiquated concept from pioneer days and a social ill in modern society. I’m voting yes.
"A teacher confronted the gunman, threw her cellphone at him and wrestled him for his firearm. The teacher was not injured in the confrontation, Krantz said. “She almost certainly helped prevent more bloodshed.”
The parent had a legally secured .40-caliber pistol in his vehicle, which he brought with him as he followed the gunman into the school and saw the teacher confronting him.
Krantz said the teacher’s intervention allowed the parent to kill the gunman."
I’m a leftist and an LTC owner in MA. The law as it is written is about as confusing and childish as it could possibly be. It’s like you asked an alien to describe a fish. That’s how jumbled the law is. Did you know the law doesn’t define a rifle as a gun? That’s the kind of stuff I’m talking about. So yea some far right guy doesn’t like it, but if you blindly just vote the other way, you’re equally part of the problem as any right winger is.
I’m pretty far left and I agree with Toby. I want universal healthcare, climate change addressed, equal rights for all, and common sense gun control, but this bill ain’t it. It’s a shit show. I think it needs to be repealed and rewritten entirely.
Im a liberal and am voting no on 9 for the following reasons. It is hard enough already and we have the best gun laws in the country you cannot purchase automatic weapons in this state and the legal gun owners are not criminals period.
This law would make it legal for anyone to take away a lawful citizens guns without a hearing or trial, anyone can falsely report a gun owner they dont like or politically disagree with and their firearms would be seized without cause.
This is not right this is a gross overstep to property and a step toward communism in my opinion if you value your rights to expression and your rights granted to you in the constitution you will vote NO on 9.
Transferable MG's exist that don't require special liscencing they have to have been made and registered before the 1986 Hughes ammendment. The cheepest ones are still nearly 10 grand.
Don’t even own a gun and I’m no on 9. Mass already had very strict gun laws. Some of the stuff in the new law is lunacy. I have friends who own guns and they are the most law abiding and responsible citizens I know. This law only hurts their ability to have this hobby and it potentially could make them criminals if they aren’t super careful. An armed society keeps our government in check. The law was written by people that don’t know anything about guns.
We should first teach logic reasoning skills from elementary thru high school.
Why do you need a ghost gun?
Saying no to ghost guns is one thing...pretty clear at that. Saying yes to that option needs to fill in the blank of utility and purpose, 'because _____.'
Why do you need semi and fully automatic guns?
Why stop there? Those guns initially were weapons of war. Grenades? Rocket launchers?
I know, how about armed drones? Have we gotten there yet, the right to fly a drone with a gun around personal property? Or that could be too restrictive. As long as drones avoid flight paths, let anyone fly a drone with a gun anywhere, because restricting that would restrict gun ownership?
To what well-organized militia do private citizens belong?
What's changed from the middle of last century when guns, esp in 'fly-over,' agricultural, and rural U.S.,...rifles mainly...were owned and used responsibly?
What is the acceptable number of children's deaths from guns per year in order for the extreme and unnuanced, "any restriction is a slippery slope to tyranny" faction of gun owners?
If more guns meant more safety then the U.S. would be the safest in the world. Instead gun deaths are 26 % higher here.
Virtually everything your addressing was already part of previously established MA. A know question 9 loses very little and leaves the door open to focus on the few parts of the law that make sense. This one does not.
Beware voter. No one should try and influence your vote. I urge you to read the ballot measures before voting. They can be intentionally confusing. This is bill is a repeal effort. Not repeal and replace. It states a NO will repeal the existing law.
People can distort the the effects a referendum vote will have. Putting opinions out as facts. Make your own assessment.
Republicans aren’t the only ones who own guns. Trust me, you’re going to want and need liberals to own guns when and if the shit hits the fan. All the people I know that own guns are Dems or liberal.
Whether or not our gun laws are some of the strictest in the country isn’t that meaningful if you feel that our country doesn’t have strict enough gun laws.
No, it's very meaningful because state gun laws are layered on top of federal ones.
As in, state laws add extra restrictions over and above federal laws.
For instance, there's no nationwide licensing requirement, but states like ours can add their own licensing requirements.
Also, a lot of the people who feel our country doesn't have strict enough gun laws don't even know what gun laws we do have. I've lost track of the number of people who tell me that we need federal background checks for gun purchases, then act flabbergasted when I tell them we have that already, and that the only exception is private transfers between individuals, which makes up a very small number of firearm sales per year. I wouldn't even mind closing that loophole (note that it isn't a loophole in MA, we do need background checks even for private transfers, and have before this new law was put into place.), but it would be nice if the people trying to argue in favor of restrictions knew enough about what they were arguing for to not undermine their own case.
Sure, but how does being more strict here (where gun violence is already low and we’re already strict) impact the states that are very loose on these things?
If we pass gun laws that are easily shown to be arbitrary and don't improve safety, it makes people who want gun control look unreasonable, which makes it less likely other states pass gun laws.
When one of these is legal, and the other one is considered dangerous, when they shoot the exact same bullets at the same rate, its a pretty clear visual that the rules are arbitrary:
The majority of people in the country want common sense gun law, and the majority of people do not want all guns banned. You want to come across as the first rather than the second, but rules like these make it seem like gun control people just want to ban everything, which is very unpopular with the general public.
I don’t think it’s going to be repealed, there’s too much literal propaganda being advertised
People think that the state was lawless before this 2024 Bill.
We already had firearm registration, red flag laws, required safety courses, and harsh “assault weapon” restrictions. If anything the new laws are more lenient in some respects, strictly out of ignorance on the state’s behalf
Thanks for the breakdown op. Pretty Sure I got what it was from the start but nice to see a lil breakdown. Anyone voting yes has to really get out more.
I was suspicious of that law when I saw it was 40 pages long in the ballot book. I still haven't made my way through all of it but knowing that the police were against it until it didn't apply to them is a strong incentive to vote no. Laws should apply to people equally.
The law arguably doesn’t work for the wrong reasons and it’s because illicit gun trade will always exist. Some of the proponents on the ballot are necessary for the future though like requiring training and such. But the whole thing in combination with cost of living is why people hate this state and are leaving in droves, cause they’re taxing and going after people’s hobbies.
Makes private ownership of a gun a hassle for regular people, but not for cops, retired cops, and your friendly neighborhood ICE agent who wants a little something extra to keep in their personally owned vehicles. The carve-out for these already-armed special interest groups is the only reason it passed — they want right wingers better armed than left wingers.
Fuck that. This is no time to make it harder for reasonable people to buy, use, and train with firearms.
But why though. You’re voting to take guns away from some of the most law abiding people in society. Doesn’t do anything to stop criminals. It only focus on the legal and lawful side of things, which does nothing. No disrespecting here, just wondering why
It’s the legislation of grey area enforcement. These laws don’t provide strict definitions of legality meaning the state can charge and enforce at its whim towards any individual or business that it chooses.
The state gets to define criminal activity on a case by case basis. Bonus points for this law being legislated under the guise of a phony 2024 state of emergency. Whether or not you’re pro gun, this is anti democratic and a scary precedent
A hassle? A responsibility is one thing.. but sticking it to “gun owners” or conservatives is the exact attitude we should be fighting against. It’s the haha librulz of the democrats?
Making it more of a hassle for lawful gun owners in Massachusetts, who already follow some of the most comprehensive and strict laws in the country, is idiotic.
You're looking at a bill that objectively makes you less safe, and makes safe gun owners into criminals in ways that the people who wrote the laws don't even understand yet, and are saying "HELL YEAH! THIS IS A GOOD IDEA EVEN THOUGH I'M UNINFORMED!"
But keep being an uninformed clown about important issues. Definitely not how we got a rapist grifter pedophile in the Whitehouse again.
What about the exceptions for current/former LEOs? I support all of these restrictions provided they are applied equally to everyone, which is why I’m voting no.
I can do that while not supporting the law being upheld in its current form. Massachusetts still has some of the strictest firearm regulations in the country. Repealing this law does not mean people run into the streets willy-nilly.
It originally did not have exemptions for LEOs it was actually amended by your representatives to specifically exclude them before being rammed through a closed door session of the state senate. It’s a feature of the bill not a bug
This logic is why other states will never pass gun control laws and firearms will continue to come from the rest of the country to here. If you make it clear you're not interested in reasonable gun control and will pass literally any restriction possible, people are going to dig in and vote against even basic gun control measures. Pro gun candidates campaign on ridiculous gun laws.
The majority of people are in favor of reasonable gun control, and the majority of people are opposed to banning all guns. If you propose the first rather than the second people are on your side, but if you're in favor of literally any restriction, you appear to be the second, and people will oppose you.
I dislike these comments because they show no fundamental understanding of what the 2024 law is, what this question is, and what happens if its repealed.
You just support police officers and them being fully exempt from the law.
Cops should be held to a much MUCH higher standard and unfortunately the opposite is true. Half these dudes are walking around with only a high school diploma. Uneducated and dangerous.
Remember that the state spends money if they need to prosecute someone. Confusing and poorly worded laws cost the state more money to prosecute, and have a higher risk of being challenged at the federal level.
65
u/mobilonity 1d ago
I don't remember, is No the one that upholds the law or the one that repeals the law?