r/massachusetts • u/HAV816 • 1d ago

Photo Question 9 cont…

Post image

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 Training was required before this law, and it stays required whether the law is repealed or not.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

507 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

63

u/mobilonity 1d ago

I don't remember, is No the one that upholds the law or the one that repeals the law?

128

u/OpenBookExam Plymouth County 1d ago

What Will Your Vote Do?

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.

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/research-and-statistics/2026-Information-for-voters/2026-ballot-question9.htm

19

u/McFlyParadox 1d ago

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)

2

u/Itstaylor02 North Shore 1d ago

Voting No.

24

u/aWanderingisle 1d ago

https://ballotpedia.org/Massachusetts_Question_9,_Firearm_Regulations_Referendum_(2026))

1

u/HappyRedFox 15h ago

The electronic registration requirement of the current law is particularly dangerous because it would tell a criminal hacker who has guns to steal.

1

u/Turtle887853 16h ago

It's so disingenuous for them to say the 2024 law prohibits "assault style firearms" implying that repealing this law would allow everyone to own an m249. Which by the way, I'd be all for. I also love how they say requiring serials when several of my antique/very old guns never had one.

44

u/truevalience420 1d ago

No repeals the law yes keeps it 

11

u/MediocreTitle 1d ago

No repeals the law.

13

u/singlemale4cats 1d ago edited 1d ago

Having to vote no to compel the state to take an action is backwards. A yes vote should be, "yes, repeal the law," not "yes, do nothing."

I wonder if they did that on purpose.

6

u/Lasshandra2 1d ago

Hmm. I suspect they wrote all 9 the way they did on purpose. It’s shameful to waste people’s time this way.

3

u/McFlyParadox 1d ago

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.

1

u/singlemale4cats 1d ago

You're not going to get that by asking for it. You got to sue them.

2

u/LowlyWoim 20h ago

The recreational marijuana question on the ballot follows that format as well. I guess at least they’re consistent in their obfuscation

36

u/GalumphingWithGlee 1d ago

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.

Unbiased reference: Ballotpedia)

29

u/djLobotomy 1d ago

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

5

u/Obeywithcaution413 Reppin' the 413 1d ago

https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/take-action/vote/voters-guide-2026-massachusetts-ballot-questions Does a really good job of explaining all the questions with a non biased take.

8

u/HAV816 1d ago

This one is going to bring a lot of people to the polls.

36

u/DisastrousCarrot2258 1d ago

You want to vote No if you are against the 2024 referendum which exempts police and retired police.

40

u/GalumphingWithGlee 1d ago

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.

45

u/DisastrousCarrot2258 1d ago edited 1d ago

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.

8

u/GalumphingWithGlee 1d ago

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.

3

u/Spare_Cook4574 1d ago

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

1

u/furysamurai72 10h ago

You really think, in this day and age, with the military tech that's out there, that you're going to fare demonstrably better against the police and the military than someone who doesn't have any guns?

I think the person that will survive the longest will be the one who is best at hiding and sneaking about regardless of what kind of weaponry they have had access to legally purchase.

But, back in the real world, where we exist right now and not where we might exist in the future during a hypothetical civil war where it's not right vs left but law enforcement vs non law enforcement, Children are still being murdered at school by people who didn't find it too hard to obtain a gun designed for carrying out as many kills per minute as possible.

I'll vote to enact any law that makes obtaining any kind of automatic or semi automatic gun more difficult.

And for all you whatabouters out there, I would also vote for any law making it more difficult to obtain a car and/or a license to drive a car. People suck at driving in this country almost as much as they suck at not killing people with guns.

1

u/Spare_Cook4574 5h ago

I’ll tell you right now it’s not going to be north vs south. It probably won’t even be our military vs the people or police vs the people. Let’s use our brains here and look at Jan 6. On top of the that with republicans on average having more guns. Yes I think I’ll fair just fine. You don’t know me or who my friends are or my training. But yes I feel confident with the right tools. I can definitely get my family to a safe place and chill there for awhile.

But if you don’t think an ar style platform it needed for something like that you are sadly mistaken. Especially with drone warfare these days. Countless videos of Ukrainians shooting down drones with AR’s.

Also if you literally read my comments on this thread I’ve literally said make them harder to obtain with more training do not outlaw them.

It’s weird you came to say all of this to me like you wanted to tell me off or something and we agreed on pretty much everything. I can’t tell if you were coming with hostility that was misplaced or if you were on my side and I read into it weird. Either way I think we have more in common than you think. Making something harder to own is not the same as outlawing it

0

u/cjati 20h ago

At this point the second amendment won't even protect us. Little by little the government has militarized the police and bloated the military budget so if we ever did need to protect ourselves as the amendment intended we'd lose in a heartbeat and the government can continue to do what they're doing 😞

1

u/Spare_Cook4574 20h ago

So you think making it more strict for citizens to have access to weapons is the answer to this? I also fully disagree. Every state in America has a militia until the us adopted them into the national guard. States or citizen need to start creating and funding their own militias and enacting laws that benefit the people’s rights to defend themselves. Even if this requires going to training course for different weapons platforms. Having the ability to weapons thru training is always better than no weapons at all.

You chose a wildly nihilistic view and I’m unsure why.

1

u/cjati 19h ago

When did I say how I was voting? I've been doing a lot of reading and asking questions so I can understand. Pointing out the fact that the government has been strategizing against the people for decades doesn't means I'm yes on 9. And you said it yourself, the us has the national guard not the states and they continue to bulk up their army. The 2nd amendment as it was written isn't really possible anymore with the military as it is now. I'm not saying abolish it or make it harder for civilians to get guns. What we need to start doing is voting to change the trajectory the government is going or we're going to end up aauthoritarian government.

1

u/HappyRedFox 15h ago

You may not realize it, but you are arguing in favor of a military draft which has the advantage that those conscripted would probably refuse to fire upon their friends and neighbors.

1

u/Spare_Cook4574 5h ago

Gotcha I misunderstood your overall point.

I agree the way the military is today it would be very hard to tackle. But I disagree I think 2A is still possible. The militias are smaller but still exist. And hopefully we can build from there.

However, I do agree with need to start voting and enacting legislation that betters the masses and not the 1%

1

u/king_hutton 1d ago

Maybe they just want equal regulations.

5

u/GalumphingWithGlee 1d ago

Maybe, but I'm doubtful. I want equal regulations, that apply to both law enforcement and everyday citizens. But that isn't on the ballot. A "yes" vote gets me closer to it than a "no" vote.

2

u/king_hutton 1d ago

If these laws are repealed, is there still a discrepancy in regulation between LEOs and civilians?

8

u/RolandDT81 1d ago

Always has been. This just broadens it, further restricting what regular civilians can own while not affecting LEO in any way.

2

u/king_hutton 1d ago

Do you remember off hand what the differences are in terms of what’s allowed for LEOs and civilians if this law is repealed?

2

u/RolandDT81 1d ago

Prior to this law, LEO were already exempt from the assault weapons ban and the pistol roster, so they could essentially get anything that's legal in the rest of the country that is "illegal" for regular people (barring machine guns which require a separate federal license from the ATF). This 2024 law further restricted what law-abiding citizens could own and purchase, while exempting LEO from the new restrictions - thereby widening the gap between what's legal for Jon Doe and Officer John Smith.

2

u/king_hutton 1d ago

Thank you!

2

u/BroadCalligrapher639 22h ago

jfc that's scary. The amount of police worship in this country is disgusting.

3

u/Beretta92A1 1d ago

Correct. Cops should have the same laws as everyone else. I’ve seen them shoot, they’re generally far worse shooters than the average Joe/Jane of MA.

Nevermind there shouldn’t be classes of people where laws don’t apply to them just because of job title.

1

u/BroadCalligrapher639 21h ago

I fully agree with your statement, I'm just confused on which way to vote. Would a vote either way put a stop to this?

1

u/Beretta92A1 15h ago

No reverts back to how it was which is the preferred short term path. There’s still a long way to go in MA to Gen a more constitutional point though.

1

u/Historical-Ice9086 23h ago

No repeals it

-22

u/HAV816 1d ago

No keeps the current laws which are some the strictest in the country.

2

u/Nipple-Less_Cage-6 1d ago

Nice misinformation

0

u/HAV816 1d ago

It’s actually pretty basic info.

4

u/Nipple-Less_Cage-6 1d ago

It’s not. You are telling people to vote No to keep the 2024 law in place. No would repeal the law. Yes would keep it in place.

0

u/Alternative-Light922 1d ago

Why are you lying? How can we trust anyone with a gun who willingly lies?

6

u/HAV816 1d ago

Read. Do your research. This law does have a few positives but most of it is negative designed to tie your hands and mine.

2

u/georgecostanza37 1d ago

What part of this ties your hands? I don’t necessarily care about owning or not owning a gun one way or the other, but I tend to look at owning a gun the same way as operating a vehicle. All of those bullet points pretty much track for safer gun ownership and operation.

2

u/potato_lomein 1d ago

In keeping with your analogy, it would be like if we already had a strict driving test, but now they arbitrarily banned the sale of new Ford F-150s unless you’re a current or former farmer.

1

u/georgecostanza37 1d ago

An assault weapon does not equal a ford F150

2

u/potato_lomein 1d ago

Hey dude, it’s your analogy, I was just trying to work within it.

The Ford F150 is the most common car on the road in America. The AR-15 is the most common rifle in America.

Only letting current and former farmers get a Ford F150 is analogous to current and retired LEOs being exempted from the “assault-style firearms” restrictions.

Hope this helps!

1

u/Alternative-Light922 1d ago

I have. Have you? So you were not lying but just misinformed? Please explain.

1

u/BombasticAghast 1d ago

Where’s the lie? They are.

3

u/king_hutton 1d ago

No votes to repeal the law, not keep the current laws. Even with a repeal, they’re be some of the strictest in the country, but voting no is voting for a repeal.

-1

u/SparksofInnova 1d ago

I.e. a big reason why we have relatively low mass shooting numbers compared to the rest of the country

-3

u/HAV816 1d ago

Exactly.

-6

u/SparksofInnova 1d ago

I still think we should vote yes. Ghost guns going unregistered and unserialized is no good

3

u/BombasticAghast 1d ago

Already illegal

4

u/mmelectronic 1d ago

Most ghost guns are already illegal, ie defaced serial numbers, if they want to ban 3d printed lowers they should do that without attaching all the rest to it.

Either way the crime committed with the gun is illegal, posesing it without an LTC is illegal, and standard capacity mags are illegal, so “ghost” or not the DA can put someone away for a long time if they want under the old laws.

-7

u/HAV816 1d ago

I think ghost guns are a fad and one way or the other they won’t last.

6

u/king_hutton 1d ago

What an insane thing to believe.

2

u/BombasticAghast 1d ago

No on 9 all the way but this isn’t true, friend. The majority of current armed uprisings across the world are being fought with 3D printed firearms

1

u/CAB_IV 1d ago

I doubt this. People enjoy building firearms, and 80% receivers are a thing.

1

u/HAV816 1d ago

I’ve seen a lot of them fail. I don’t see it as a viable way to protect yourself. The only reason to make them is to commit a crime, but that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. There’s a lot of different grades of plastic out there.

1

u/CAB_IV 1d ago

Maybe if we're talking 3D printed frames/receivers, they might fail.

I wouldn't say the only reason to make one is to commit a crime. In many cases, historical imports are only economical in the form of a kit that has been demilled, usually with the receiver cut up.

I suppose you could work from 100% receivers.