r/massachusetts • u/BetterMA-throwaway • 2d ago
Politics Clearing up some misconceptions about No on 9
So last Wednesday I attended a ballot question forum out in Amherst (a hell of a ride out from Medford in the cold on a motorcycle, I tell you) to represent the "No" position on question 9, at the invitation of their Democratic Town Committee. While I enjoyed the opportunity to speak —and remain convinced that most “Yes” voters are misinformed but otherwise well-meaning— there were a number of materially false statements made at the forum by the “Yes” representative which are routinely repeated by other members of the “Yes” campaign and need to be challenged. The meeting format did not allow for direct rebuttal of the falsehoods, so I feel compelled to challenge them this way instead. I recognize that this is a very long post, but I think it's important that voters are fully informed about the actual facts when they cast their ballot.
Ch. 135 Prevents Gun Violence!
The first statement that needs to be addressed is that Chapter 135 prevents gun violence, and a repeal endangers people. This is patently false, on both fronts. Proponents of a “Yes” vote have pointed to recent shootings (from the shooting on Memorial Drive, to the most recent example of a young man in Reading who shot his mother over a disagreement) as evidence of why we need Chapter 135, an odd assertion given that the provisions of the 2024 law are in effect, and that the behaviors in each shooting that has occurred since the law was passed were already illegal under the previous law.
Speaking of the previous law, much of the “Yes” campaign’s messaging implies that the repeal of Chapter 135 would lead to a blood-in-the-streets, Wild West free-for-all, with no gun control regulations at all. This is either deliberate misinformation or reveals a woefully lacking understanding of how state law and the veto petition work.
The repeal of Chapter 135 would put us right back to the law as of August 1, 2024, the same legal framework (including the “Assault Weapons Ban,” despite the Yes Campaign's claim that this would eliminate it) that proponents have been saying for decades is responsible for Massachusetts having the lowest gun death rate in the country.
The “No” Campaign is funded by the NRA!
Next, the “Yes” campaign repeatedly claims that the “No” campaign is driven and funded entirely by the firearms industry and other out-of-state interests, like the NRA, conveniently ignoring that nearly 80,000 registered voters signed the petition to repeal and suspend the law. Once again, this is an odd assertion to make when you actually look at the publicly available numbers. According to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, contributions to the “Yes for a Safe MA” campaign committee total $841,092.30, while contributions to the “Civil Rights Coalition” amount to $508,727.90. The number of donations and the amount show a stark difference, though. While the “No” campaign received a $50,000 donation from Smith & Wesson (which was founded, and still has manufacturing, repair, and research & development facilities in Springfield, MA), and an additional $12,559.72 in individual contributions from “out of state” donors (the largest of these being $1,151.70), the “Yes” campaign received $50,000 from “Alliance for Gun Responsibility” in Seattle Washington, $25,000 from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (a subsidiary of Everytown), a substantially similar amount of funding, though less, obviously, in support of the repeal and a significantly greater percentage of it from individual donors.
This number, however, still does not accurately portray reality. “Yes” campaigners would insist that a contribution from Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts should count as a contribution from the NRA. All well and good, with $21,776 contributed, that brings the total “out of state” cash contributions for each campaign, so far, to $84,335.72 for “No” and a clean, neat, $75,000 for “Yes”. But what about “in-kind” contributions? The provision of resources and services that are non-monetary but have a definite cash value? Well, the amount for “No” is zero. Not a single penny of in-kind contributions. For “Yes”, though, there is a significant slate of out-of-state in-kind contributions; a whopping $44,395.63 from Everytown, apparently not content with a mere $25,000 cash donation, $3,350 from Giffords, and $1,080 (a pittance, comparatively) from Brady.
We also can’t forget average contributions. “No” has only 13 contributions greater than $5,000, with the $50,000 from Smith & Wesson being the largest, and the contribution from GOAL a distant second. The total number of contributions for “No” is 3,081, with an average of $165.19. Compared to “Yes,” 23 contributions exceed $5,000, with the highest at $400,000 from the Massachusetts Teachers Association; the second highest contribution, also from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, is $100,000, and one of Everytown's in-kind contributions ranks third at $39,900. While only six of the “No” top contributors are at or above $10,000, 13 of the “Yes” top contributors are at or above that number. The total number of contributions for “Yes” is 272, with an average contribution of $3,092.25.
In reality, the “No” campaign’s out-of-state donations amount to a mere 2% of total contributions. Even factoring in the “gun lobby”, that still amounts to a mere 16%. On the other hand, the “Yes” campaign’s out-of-state contributions alone amount to 17%, but their total contributions from special interest groups and organizations is a staggering $734,191.41, or 87% of their total contributions.
So keep those numbers in mind the next time someone tells you the repeal effort is driven by major organizations and out-of-state elites, not real, local residents.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders Save Lives! (citation needed)
My counterpart representing “Yes” at the forum claimed, for the first time, that 24 lives have been saved in Massachusetts by invoking red flags since the law took effect in 2024. This is an absurd claim: it is impossible to prove, and equally impossible to refute. It rests on the assumption that the invocation is valid: that if it was deployed, harm must have been prevented. An argument that has historically been, and remains, the basis for deeply racist policing practices and is the favored refuge of internet bigots, who gleefully crow about “FBI statistics” while ignoring the underlying bias that leads to the creation of those statistics. The idea that a person could be permanently stripped of a constitutionally protected civil right due to a snap determination about their potential risk to themselves or others, made by a person with none of the expertise necessary to make that determination, affirmed by a deferential judge, is something that should horrify us and is anathema to a society based on a foundation of law. It should horrify us more when we consider that 15.9% of mental health professionals studied self-reported that they have threatened to permanently deprive a patient of their right to own firearms unless they agreed to voluntarily commit themselves.
Ch. 135 doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights!
Lastly, proponents of “Yes” also claim that Chapter 135's provisions clearly do not infringe on anyone’s rights because the number of licenses to carry issued since 2024 has increased by 17%. Their assertion being that if the law was truly restrictive, the number of licenses issued would surely have gone down.
This claim is so ridiculous that it’s almost offensive. One might as well claim that changes to Medicaid eligibility haven't disenfranchised anyone, since more people than ever are using its benefits. Only a fool would take a rising number as evidence that a law restricting access to something isn't meaningfully restrictive.
If anything, that number is an indictment of the law, and indicative of how restrictive the changes are. Liberal Gun Club has seen continually growing interest in training since 2024, and Massachusetts has been no exception to that trend. There are many factors that might influence this, but two spring to mind for me. First, Ch. 135 itself was likely responsible for some level of increased interest, with some who had not considered licensure before choosing to pursue it before the new restrictions took effect, or in fear that the process might become even more difficult in the future.
Second, the killing of Alex Pretti, and the White House’s insistence that he deserved to be killed for carrying a gun at a protest, galvanized many people to take up arms who otherwise might not have. Many saw an insistence by the current federal administration that anyone on the left should not be armed as evidence that, in fact, they should be. In similar vein, given the climate that we live in, with women, queer people (particularly trans people), and people of color under relentless assault, and with increasingly clear messaging from our state government that there is no real and substantial interest in offering protections to them, is it any surprise that the number of people looking to arm themselves would increase?
Were it not for the increased costs associated with obtaining a license to carry, and the difficulty finding a range to complete the live-fire requirement established by the new law (though the state has still failed to actually set a standard for them), it would not be surprising if that number were significantly higher than 17%.
In Conclusion
This list is far from comprehensive; there are many other claims made by the “Yes” campaign that fall apart under even the most casual scrutiny, including the claims that Chapter 135 bans 3D printed firearms (it doesn’t), that an Assault-Style Firearms ban is necessary because those kinds of guns are inherently more dangerous (they aren’t), that there was an urgent need for this legislation (8 “ghost gun” incidents and a consistent gun death rate of 3/100,000 in the last 13 years hardly constitutes an “emergency”), or that the law “clarified” regulations (the Firearms Control Advisory Board has repeatedly noted how confusing and difficult to enforce the new law is, and the state refuses to bring charges under its provisions to trial for fear of establishing clarifying precedent).
Whether these claims amount to misinformation or disinformation is up to you. But regardless of which side of Hanlon’s Razor you think this behavior falls on, it should be concerning that the campaign to maintain what many see as an infringement on their constitutional rights can’t get its story straight.
Our democracy is currently under attack. The federal administration has repeatedly made clear that they intend to pull out all the stops to interfere in and delegitimize the midterm elections. In a time when the threat of right-wing violence against vulnerable populations is increasing, at a time when our constitutional rights are being viciously eroded, we should not easily allow another to be undermined because of party line affiliation and false promises of safety. It is more important than ever that we exercise our rights, while we still have them; the ballot box and the cartridge box both. I strongly encourage you all to vote No on 9 this election.
129
u/Dannn_Gleeballs 2d ago
I’m a Latino living in this country, born and raised in Mass, I love this state, best state in the entire country in my opinion. I’m also a Democrat, and I don’t ever see myself aligning with republican ideals, especially with any Trump supporters. But the way this current administration is moving, and seeing how fascism is quite literally becoming a reality with ICE stopping anyone who even looks Latino, and killing citizens for no reason, I see no better reason for the 2A than I do now. Voting No on 9 doesn’t mean we’ll nosedive straight into a reality where we can place a gun into everyone’s hands. It means that us people who are responsible gun owners, don’t have to navigate a system that makes gun ownership unnecessarily difficult. I like the fact that, if ever, a rogue agent with no clear signs of identification, wearing a construction vest were to ever threaten me and my family, I have the means to defend myself. And that I have the ability to obtain that same kind of weaponry that those fascist agents have.
25
u/rackfocus 1d ago
I’m with you. I’ve been leaning towards no and as a Democrat that’s not what I would be inclined to do except I’ve read the arguments and I’m convinced that’s a better way to go.
4
u/muralist 1d ago
Is gun ownership doing anything to stop or impede ICE raids?
4
u/Facehugger_35 1d ago
It's impossible to say with certainty, but I think yes when I look at how things are going here versus how they went in other countries where authoritarians take over.
There's a very distinct lack of homes being entered at 3AM and people with gun rights being dragged off to blacksites, and I think at least part of this is due to the widespread presence of arms and strong castle doctrine laws in most of the country forcing authoritarians to slow down, which gives the people time to mobilize against authoritarianism.
Right now the regime is going after people not likely to be armed, and the cases where someone was armed the regime suddenly finds reasons to be elsewhere.
4
u/brickcarriertony 1d ago
Alex Pretti tried. He was outnumbered
11
u/stuckinsanity 1d ago
No he didn't. He specifically didn't. He had a gun and never tried to use it. He was just like everyone who says shit like this, posturing. Almost everyone who says this shit never actually has the balls (except for people like Willem Van Spronsen). Not even Pretti, the martyr for the cause, did what all these people on the internet claim they NEED the 2A to do.
2
-6
u/stuckinsanity 1d ago
This is such cope and larp. You're not gonna use your gun against ICE, stop posturing.
2
u/wandererarkhamknight 1d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapeCod/s/LFK0HnQ5Za
Toby is the guy driving this ballot measure. And he wrote the section for this measure in the election guidance book. Similar talking points.
46
u/ChanceWhole6565 1d ago
Great post..highly informative but I fear there won't be a repeal. My guess is the Supreme Court will find most of it unconstitutional in a year or so
→ More replies (4)40
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
Likely correct that the repeal will fail, but keeping people literate about the issue is always the right thing to do.
36
u/enry 1d ago
It's bad law. Active and retired law enforcement (groups that historically have high rates of domestic violence) are excluded from many of the provisions of this law.
There's ads in stores for guns that say "LEO only" because they're the only ones allowed to purchase, and that's in their capacity as private citizens, not their official duties.
23
u/C2thaLo 1d ago
I know its obnoxious but it proves the point, every time i see a post on this sub about a statie or town cop doing something they shouldn't be -like using flock camera to stalk their exes- I point out theyre immune from this law. They are allowed all the things the rest of us are prohibited from and no one has articulated how the sky will fall on day 1 if the law is repealed or at least has the loop holes closed.
Why should they have access to firearms the rest of us aren't allowed to have?
30
u/LackingUtility 2d ago edited 2d ago
It should horrify us more when we consider that 15.9% of mental health professionals studied self-reported that they have threatened to permanently deprive a patient of their right to own firearms unless they agreed to voluntarily commit themselves.
To be fair, this could either be horrifying or pleasing, depending on whether those assessments were accurate.
Edit: also, following your link, that's not exactly what it says:
A significant percentage of psychiatrists (36.9%) did not understand that an involuntary civil commitment triggered the loss of gun rights, and the majority of psychiatrists in states with prohibitors on voluntary admissions (57%) and emergency holds (56%) were unaware that patients would lose gun rights upon voluntary admission or temporary commitment. Moreover, the survey found evidence that psychiatrists may use gun rights to negotiate “voluntary” commitments with patients: 15.9% of respondents reported telling patients they could preserve their gun rights by permitting themselves to be voluntarily admitted for treatment, in lieu of being involuntarily committed.
This could also be phrased as "15.9% of mental health professionals suggested voluntary commitment as opposed to involuntary commitment in an effort to allow patients to preserve their gun ownership rights," and that doesn't sound horrifying at all, regardless of your position on the matter.
1
u/Emotional_Dot_5207 16h ago
Yeah, that is an incredible misrepresentation, intellectually dishonest.
It’s saying the patient is at a point where inpatient treatment is a foregone conclusion, but how they get there will affect them long term. The provider is explaining the implications and consequences that are relevant to that patient.
37
u/trickycrayon 2d ago
Look, I'm not a big believer in polls anymore but it's real hard to believe No on 9 has any shot.
Pun intended.
→ More replies (4)32
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
Sure, that's true, I'm not going to deny that. But I'm also not the sort of person to let lies stand, and I'd consider it a success if enough people vote "No" to demonstrate that it isn't just the "gun nuts". Current polling shows about half again as many people as own guns in the state are voting "No" or likely to vote "No". That's not nothing.
42
u/PCcarbone 2d ago
I appreciate your work. No on 9 seems like the best solution for question 9. It’s so hard to understand where we are at now if you are just looking at this for the first time. That’s the reason we are saying no on 9, it’s become so confusing to the point where we are asking our leadership to make things more clear for everyone to understand. A yes vote would make this law an extremely complicated thing to understand even for our law enforcement to enforce. But what do they care they are exempt.
53
u/Zevana19 2d ago
Interesting observation. All the insults and vile language is coming from one side, and it's not the "no on 9" side. It would sure be great if people could discuss the details of the OP's post and not just resort to insults and name calling.
8
u/hydroknightking 1d ago
The top result to these well reasoned positions is literally a fuck you lol
68
u/sweaty_parts 2d ago edited 2d ago
MA libs are quick to call the regime fascist but even quicker to disarm themselves despite the threat the fascist regime poses. Make it make sense.
10
u/Mean-Bus3929 1d ago
Dude if you love your 2A guns so much, why haven’t you taken down the racist regime yet? What are you waiting for ????
-17
u/No_Can1323 2d ago
Sweetie, you are not the organized militia you think you are.
40
u/sweaty_parts 2d ago
Sweetie, the feds are abducting people off the streets. I'd rather be able to at least try and resist the states violence and die doing so than become a willing subject to it.
21
u/PCcarbone 2d ago
lol that’s the thing so if you vote Yes on this ICE is fucking exempt from it… there for disarming the people getting abducted off the streets. You’re protecting the wrong side here.. honey.
9
u/Aromatic-Pass4384 1d ago
Also don't forget that the law this is repealing allowed all law enforcement both current and previous personally own assault weapons for the rest of their lives, deliberately giving them more rights than other citizens.
7
u/No_Can1323 2d ago
Tell when was the last time someone used a gun to stop ICE from abducting people?
17
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
Would you support them if they did? I'm guessing not. Have you considered that an entire generation raised on a diet of "protest peacefully or you get what you deserve" might be a bit hesitant to put their lives on the line knowing that the people that are ostensibly on the same side as them won't have their back?
Look at how rapidly democrats joined the fascists in saying that Alex Pretti shouldn't have brought a gun to a protest. Sure, they say he shouldn't have been shot, but saying "oh what was he doing bringing a gun, he should have known that would happen" in the same breath kind of belies their stated position.
7
u/No_Can1323 1d ago edited 1d ago
I would support that. I’d buy them a beer and pay for the ammunition if I can.
the thing is, those who claim to want to use guns to “protect our freedom against tyrannical government” never did such things.
At what point would they “rise up”? Seriously, give me a threshold. When the police shoot innocent citizens? When the military is marching on our street? When the government kidnaps people off the street? Tell me, exactly when would these organized militia start to get organized and fight for their precious individual liberty?
So from where I stand, those who claim to need guns to protect our freedom would never do so. The combination of self-important hypocrisy and teenage-boy-hero-fantasy make this argument hard to stomach.
Just say you like guns, you like how guns make you feel. I’m on board with capitalist consumerism.
1
u/iEmExEee 1d ago
Many people who don't own guns and never plan to aren't voting yes, though. The whole "it's because they like how guns make them feel" argument is trash. I don't like restrictions placed on people, especially when law enforcement are exempt.
0
u/stuckinsanity 1d ago
But you're not. Nobody is. So all this looks like is posturing and LARPing. The feds are absucting people off the streets and the right to bear arms isn't doing a thing to stop them. Alex Pretti literally had a gun on him, for all the good it did him.
→ More replies (1)22
u/PCcarbone 2d ago
And that is exactly the problem. If someone were to ever need one we’d all be fucked. No on 9.
→ More replies (1)-1
2d ago
[deleted]
8
u/sweaty_parts 1d ago
Because those people are chuds who support state violence against black/brown people, lgbtq+ folks, and liberals. They would never resist the tyranny they voted for. Its almost like liberals have to take initiative and arm themselves to protect their communities and loved ones from state violence...
→ More replies (3)
10
u/painterlyjeans 1d ago
I’m voting No on 8&9.
6
u/AdamFaite 1d ago
That's the part that's really bothering me. A no on one question means repeal and roll back the law. A no on the other means keep it the same. It feels deliberately confusing.
8
u/odeonsexpanther 1d ago
Well said and thanks for taking the time to share your voice in a panel and information here. Regardless of the which side you are on, the conversation should still be had without raising voices or belittling groups. All opinions matter and it seems harder to have controversial opinions these days when you disagree with each other. When open communication stops, misunderstandings fill the void and puts a wedge between us. Don’t be afraid to communicate!
23
u/BCBJD10 2d ago
Just because I’m feeling sassy I’m going to chime in with the liberal gun-hating police abolitionist argument for a No vote: this law is going to be used to target minorities. It is used to target minorities. It has a disproportionate impact on minorities. Private gun ownership should be severely restricted, but it cannot be properly restricted in a just way while the second amendment stands. Oppose piecemeal state regulations that result in brown kids spending years in jail. Support the repeal of the second amendment.
21
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
I mean, I agree with the spirit of most of your comment but obviously I'm gonna take issue with the repeal of the second amendment, even if only because practically speaking that would require an immense amount of bloodshed and I'm not here for that.
→ More replies (8)→ More replies (12)1
u/Sewer_Snoid 1d ago
"Repealed"? I have a much better idea, if anything it needs to be rewritten to say "
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"I'm not sure if it would change much, at worst nothing, at best, hopefully the repeal of all state level gun control laws, but its certainly more preferable than what we have right now by allowing state legislatures to spit on the BoR.
13
u/HistoricalBridge7 2d ago
I own guns. I believe in gun control. My biggest issue is with HOW this law was put in place by the governor. It was an emergency order. I believe we need to stricter mandatory sentencing for people who break existing gun laws. The Cambridge shooting should have been a wake up call. No one who is prohibited from owning a gun, catch with gun and shot at police should ever see the light of day again.
11
u/HighCommand69 1d ago
I hate each political party equally everyone sucks. No on nine means yes for your individual freedoms that each party freaking hates. Smoke weed shoot guns marry your partner what fuckin ever as long as it's legal and moral. Fuck no. 9 fuck no. 8
2
u/iEmExEee 1d ago
I'm actually happy with the way this post is going, every time I see Kratom mentioned people are heavily for the ban even though they're clearly getting it confused with 7-OH.
What's next, ban ashwagandha from CVS? 😂
1
8
u/STEMpsych 1d ago
It should horrify us more when we consider that 15.9% of mental health professionals studied self-reported that they have threatened to permanently deprive a patient of their right to own firearms unless they agreed to voluntarily commit themselves.
Wow, that is not what the research you linked to said. From the actual abstract:
This first-of-its-kind national survey of 485 psychiatrists in nine states and the District of Columbia (DC) finds substantial evidence of clinicians being uninformed, misinformed, and misinforming patients of their gun rights regarding involuntary commitments and voluntary inpatient admissions. A significant percentage of psychiatrists (36.9%) did not understand that an involuntary civil commitment triggered the loss of gun rights, and the majority of psychiatrists in states with prohibitors on voluntary admissions (57%) and emergency holds (56%) were unaware that patients would lose gun rights upon voluntary admission or temporary commitment. Moreover, the survey found evidence that psychiatrists may use gun rights to negotiate “voluntary” commitments with patients: 15.9% of respondents reported telling patients they could preserve their gun rights by permitting themselves to be voluntarily admitted for treatment, in lieu of being involuntarily committed.
What you wrote is a hell of a misrepresentation.
3
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
"You can keep your second amendment rights if you voluntarily commit yourself" is a tacit threat to deprive someone of their second amendment rights if they do not volunteer. That is not a misrepresentation, the abstract literally says "may use gun rights to negotiate 'voluntary' commitments with patients[.]" "Voluntary" is in quotes for a reason.
1
u/candybrie 1d ago
From my reading the psychiatrists were going to have them committed regardless of their choice. The "voluntary" commitment was offering them a path to keep their gun rights. Would you prefer they didn't offer this option and just involuntarily committed them?
→ More replies (2)1
u/Dkrebstar1313 7h ago
So I’m a gun owner here in MA. Do you think I can tell a psychiatrist under ch 135 if I’m feeling depressed ? Or will the police come to my apartment and raid it. Just trying to understand.
→ More replies (1)0
u/acultabovetherest 1d ago
They do in fact try to trick you into signing away your rights for even the most menial mental health issues like depression. Even when you’re just going for routine treatment and are not currently in a crisis.
26
u/448mover 2d ago
Anyone who wants to disarm you is your enemy.
10
u/Neonvaporeon 2d ago
What do Hitler, Mao, Stalin, and Castro have in common? They all disarmed their opposition AND allies as fast as they could. Just because it's your side doing the disarming doesn't make it safe!
2
u/AdamFaite 1d ago
I don't necessarily want to disarm anyone. I also know the needs other the city folk are different than the ones living in rural locations.
But I do really want to cut down on gun violence. Like, we had another school shooting last week and it barely hit the news because of how common it is. That's fucked up. The rest of the world knows it's fucked up. I still think of the guy who opened fire in a movie theater each time I go to the movies. I ask myself what would I do against someone who could kill so many, so quickly, so easily. And I'm so thankful that as a child, I didn't have to do active shooter drills in school, only fire drills. (Unrelated, but also that social media didn't exist as a kid)
I think of my hometown where some guy got angry at his ex, so he shot her. But I also think of other countries tries where instead of going on a shooting rampage, they grab a knife and go stabbing. In both situations, innocent people get killed, but one seems much more limited.
I also think of the need to overthrow a tyrannical government- the actual reason for the second amendment. And I wonder if it would actually be possible. I've got a ruger 10-22. Maybe I could take out a drone, if I was lucky? But the military has access to so much more.
So here's my question... how do we preserve our rights while maintaining the right to security for innocents? Obviously, we need more easy access to mental health. But that's already too limited, and one side of the political spectrum doesn't seems to want to expand public healthcare. Most of those mass shooting were legally purchased firearms. I'm not talking gang violence. I'm talking about people living their normal, every day lives and being shot and killed for it. How do keep students safe? Church goers? Movie watchers? Grocery shoppers? And then how do we balance that with the second amendment?
And is there anything we citizens can do against the goverment (assuming we feel they've gone too far)?
2
u/NortheastMoose 3h ago
This repeal is the start. No bad laws. If there are tweaks that need to be made, clarified... do a one paragraph tweak... not a 116 page law that hides the devil in the details.
1
u/AdamFaite 1h ago
Yeah, I was especially unhappy with law enforcement being excluded.
But I also understand that a law that even brushes up against the bill of rights needs to be pretty thorough.
I've very much in favor of a good background check. And the eaiting period. And that red flag bit. I found them mildly inconvenient when I bought my rifle, but nothing that was too bad. And, again, better than my local school being shot by some teenager.
1
1
u/448mover 1d ago
Emotional thinking like yours is what creates “emergency” preambles turning lawful gun owners into felons overnight.
Why do you people think that making guns illegal or harder to get will make things tougher on criminals? They don’t follow the law. There would be MORE shootings if the government made its people unarmed since then the criminals would have all the guns.
1
u/AdamFaite 1d ago edited 1d ago
Well... The criminals don't own the gun manufacturing factories. They made legally, sold legally, and end up in the hands of criminals illegally. To me, it seems logical, not emotional, to cut that problem off at its source. Again, about 86% of firearms that were identifiable as either legal or illegal and used in mass shootings from 1986 to 2026 were legally owned. compare that to 13% that were illegal.
I'm trying to think of a logical solution... And I fear your emotions may be clouding your judgement. So, any ideas besides "git yer hands uff mah guns!"
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476461/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-legality-of-shooters-weapons/
Edit: the main problem I see is that guns would still cross state lines. No amount of restriction matters when you can just travel for a couple hours and purchase them elsewhere. And assuming we stop any criminals from crossing the national border, that would stop that flow too. But like, other countries have successfully de-gunned, and there's not roving bands of gangs slinging ar-15s. We're the ones making them. And we're the ones using them on ourselves.
1
u/Spacey_G 1d ago
And I'm so thankful that as a child, I didn't have to do active shooter drills in school, only fire drills. (Unrelated, but also that social media didn't exist as a kid)
Is it unrelated, though? Or is the rise of media saturation contributing to a distorted view of gun violence risk?
3
u/AdamFaite 1d ago
That's a good question, and researchable. I do remember being in school during Columbine. That was a big fucking deal at the time. Now, it's a Tuesday. But let me look into those numbers.
This website has some useful graphs, and shows that the number of mass shootings has definitely gone up.
https://rockinst.org/gun-violence/mass-shooting-factsheet/
I didn't know handguns were predominantly used. I don't know if they adjusted the mass shootings per year for the increased population though. However, overall crime is down, since at least the 90s, and the population has certainly gone up. So I'll keep looking.
I'm just about out of time, but here's a site from the pew research center. It further shows that, in general, "active shooter" incidents have gone up since they were tracking it. The last three years have had a drop. I think it's interesting that the states with the more restrictive gun laws also tend to have lower gun deaths. But that includes suicide, and "involving law enforcement." It's kind of hard to find good info because everyone defines a mass shooting differently. And I still don't know if these numbers are adjusted for population growth. But 3 in 2000, and 61 in 2021 is a big difference that is not linked to population growth.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/04/28/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/
Thank you for actually talking about the data, instead of accusing me of being emotional.
11
u/hergumbules Central Mass 1d ago edited 1d ago
I know you guys wanna argue whatever, but the fact of the matter is that you can look online and see some numbers.
- Massachusetts has some of the lowest amount of gun owners in the US.
- We have some of the most strict laws.
- We have some of the lowest gun violence.
You’re free to argue about this or that, but most people here are going to probably vote yes on 9 because I would assume that majority of voters are not gun owners.
You can also ask around and see if anyone has been negatively impacted by the current law. I don’t know a single person that has so idk and I know many gun owners. I’m not a gun owner so I’m not bothered by this but I know plenty of people that are asking me to vote no so I dunno I like people giving info about it.
Edit: Just want to say I do appreciate all the comments I’ve seen here. Being able to communicate about stuff instead of just calling each other names goes a long way
20
u/mattgm1995 1d ago
I’ll give you an alternative:
Right behind MA in low gun violence, with almost no regulations, and tons of gun owners: New Hampshire→ More replies (7)5
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
I do want to note that your comment contains an inherent implied assumption people who don't own guns are automatically going to vote yes, and that's simply not true. Most of the people I know are not gun owners, and after conversations with me most of them are voting no. Not all, I'm not that good, but most. Polling shows that about 22% of MA voters are either definitely or likely "No" on the question. That's about 8% more than the population of gun owners in MA. Keep in mind, too, that's just registered voters, and just the population of people polled. Given the overlap of pro-gun/anti-government types, I'd wager that a not insignificant portion of MA gun owners are not registered voters, and that they're probably not responding to polls or being contacted for them.
I, personally, have been negatively impacted by Chapter 135. I also teach firearms safety classes, and my students are negatively impacted by the law. There are aspects of the law that do not directly effect me (yet) but may well in a manner that could ruin my life because of the vague nature of it and the tremendous leeway that police have in making "good faith" mistakes when arresting people for non-criminal behavior.
6
u/TheRealCerealFirst 1d ago
Agreed, I dont own any guns and plan to vote no as will my partner and everyone I work with out of all of us (14 people only one person owns guns and the law didnt effect any of his current ownership).
I just did my own research and most of the benefits of Yes on 9 are based on assumptions or vibes that any gun control law makes things safer. I particularly dislike the “assault weapons” language in this and other laws. That is the ultimate “I’m judging how much of a threat something is to me based on appearance” not facts type of measure. I’m open to be swayed if anyone can show me how this law has positively impacted my community or the state at large as personally I lean towards believing that freedom is scary but something worth protecting and that is something equally as important (note not MORE or LESS important) to me as public safety. I say this as a father of school age children who doesnt own any guns and stands to personally benefit in no way from the repeal of the law.
1
u/hergumbules Central Mass 1d ago
Oh yeah it’s all assumption based on data. I’m not saying it’s the right choice which people seem to want to downvote my comment based on that. Just saying a good amount of people I’ve talked to both online and irl seem to not care about it and I would think they would probably vote in favor of keeping it.
As I mentioned I know a whole bunch of people that do have guns and even then half of them are indifferent, and several of them don’t even vote.
There is a lot of buzz online saying no on 9, but I’m just saying social media is a bad gauge of actual thoughts because things can get horribly skewed.
I appreciate the info here on the subject because honestly I had no idea what to make of it but it’s nice to see some well written comments instead of the stuff I have seen on Facebook.
3
u/Zevana19 1d ago
I am a licensed firearms instructor. I have been negatively impacted by this law. So have all of the 200ish students I’ve thought since it implemented. The state was required to provide the new approved curriculum for the firearms safety class as well as the live fire requirements by April of 2025. They have not done this.
Because of this, I cannot properly teach my students to what the law requires as the law also requires me to teach approved curriculum. The states solution to their failure in meeting the dead line? “Keep teaching what you were teaching”. For how important they say this law is, they sure do not seem to have a care in the world to uphold their end.
The worst part of it, the law requires any student who applies for an LTC after 8/1/24 and does not do the new curriculum to retake the class upon renewal. So every single student who I’ve taught since will have to pay to retake the class when the state finally decides to uphold its part and publish the curriculum.
That is just one example of many negative impacts.
4
u/iEmExEee 1d ago
I'm not a gun owner and probably never will be, but I'm voting no. I don't like restrictions, and I'm sure people will think this is dumb to say... especially when those restrictions aren't applied to law enforcement on their own time as private citizens.
I definitely wasn't impressed by the emergency ban against Kratom. The DEA failed to schedule it multiple times, and the governor didn't even stop to wonder why.
→ More replies (2)1
u/NortheastMoose 3h ago
20,000 people in inner cities are directly affected by this law. They must surrender their weapons by end of October. They are now felons. They own legally purchased semi auto shotguns and can not get a License to carry to keep them. They MUST surrender to State Police by End of Month. They are staying quiet because they dont want to be identified and targeted for forced confiscation.
2
u/Emotional_Dot_5207 16h ago
Can you please explain this tie about extreme risk and racism? You go on about bigots and it’s unclear to me if the law itself is racist or you’re just comparing it to racism. If the latter, please explain why? It’s not a plot device.
2
u/BetterMA-throwaway 15h ago
The law as a whole is racist, as all gun control inherently is, because the burdens of it are intensified along intersections of race and socioeconomic status. ERPOs are not themselves specifically racist, but they empower people to make determinations, without evidence, about the potential harm a person might cause, something that has historically been deployed disproportionately against non-white people. And I am comparing the underlying assumptions of ERPOs to commonly given justifications for racist policing practices because 1) the parallels and 2) the effects.
1
u/Emotional_Dot_5207 15h ago edited 6h ago
I’d love to see stats on ERPOs by race and gender then. ERPOs are crucial in DV. My friend is dealing with this right now and the only reason she got one is because Maine finally passed a law after Lewiston. She’s been trying to leave him for years, he makes murder suicide “jokes”, and if it weren’t for this law this would be another thing hanging over her head. She suffered greatly and suggesting there was “no evidence” is frankly insulting. His access to his gun collection isn’t more important than her and her children’s lives.
The presence of domestic violence is the demonstrated risk of harm. The potential for harm is the statistics of guns and DV and when leaving is the most lethal time.
I know that gun control, historically, was a racist response to fear consequences for centuries oppression. And also, they are a favorite among family annihilators. Seems like no one cares about that.
Edit: would love to know which part of not wanting known abusers to have easy access blast their victims is downvoteable. Is it because I said her first amendment right is more important than your second? Or that anything is more important than a gun? It really seems like the only argument against a real issue is vague “wellllll laws are racist...” Not any statistic or actual fact that this part of the law isn’t necessary. That seems intellectually dishonest.
2
u/NortheastMoose 3h ago
One section of Chapter 135 requires people with FID Cards who previously purchased legal semi auto shotguns for hunting now need a license to carry in order to keep the gun. About 20,000 of these holders live in Urban Areas like City of Boston, Springfield etc where it is almost impossible to get a License to carry. If any of these FID holders had even minor charges against them, smoking weed as a teenager, they can;'t get a license to carry... and now must surrender their guns to the State Police without compensation. In addition, they must self incriminate themselves by end of October with new reporting system. Communities of Color are disproportionately affected by this provision. In addition, requiring live fire before a license is granted, in the inner cities, because there are no public ranges or for that matter, any gun ranges for them to be able to do this. This is one of those devil in the details issue with this bad law,
13
u/448mover 2d ago
They’re not gonna read this incredibly well written piece. They only care about feelings, not facts.
7
→ More replies (4)9
u/Fine_Relation_158 2d ago
How did liberals become so driven by feelings? We used to be intellectuals.
4
u/LunarWingCloud 1d ago
Bro I hate out-of-state funds going into state level elections, pay attention to your own bullshit
5
u/enhydro_venus 1d ago
Arguments aside, I think it’s odd that I’ve seen No on 9 astroturfing this subreddit for over a week. Seems like clearly the mods support that view. Just making an observation
3
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
"Everything I disagree with is astroturfing" is a wild way to go through life.
2
u/enhydro_venus 1d ago
Never said I disagreed! Just wary when it seems like political stuff is being spammed online in the era of far right bots. Also, very professional.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/retromobile Central Mass 1d ago
Excellent post. Thank you for taking the time to write this all out.
2
0
u/ZLBuddha 2d ago
Many people understandably believe that any hope of meaningful gun control died alongside the 20 first graders in Newtown in 2012 and the complete apathetic inaction that followed, and that we should just accept that an armed-to-the-teeth society is inevitable and get on the train.
For the sake of those kids, I am not one of those people. Fuck your Question 9.
30
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
Nothing in Chapter 135 would have prevented what happened in Newtown, and Massachusetts has literally never had a K-12 school shooting. Our last college shooting was back in the 90s. I 100% support making our society safer and preventing school shootings, but increasing the licensing requirements and punishing law abiding gun owners does not do that.
49
u/DisastrousCarrot2258 2d ago
While also making cops, ICE and retired cops EXEMPT
27
u/CouchWizard 2d ago edited 2d ago
This is the part that should really be driven home. It elevates them as private citizens to have rights above everyone else. Which they can then use to sell those to someone allowing them to wash guns, making them legal for whatever they chose to do with them.
That and that this state's gun laws are borderline nonsensical. If we want to ban semi auto rifles, why is the mini-30 not banned?
→ More replies (37)1
u/ludi_literarum 1d ago
That's a little misleading. Simon's Rock is specifically for kids to get a BA while high-school aged, so it straddles the line.
4
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
I stand by my statement that it is not a K-12 school, speaking as someone who attended a similar program at a community college in NY. That doesn't make it any less a tragedy, but it is a meaningfully important distinction. I'll also note, though, that it was conducted with a rifle that is still 100% legal to own without restriction today, so long as the person has a license to carry. Chapter 135 would not have prevented it.
54
u/sweaty_parts 2d ago
This an appeal to emotion. Gun laws don't prevent gun violence, access to public welfare in all forms: housing, education, employment prevents gun violence.
→ More replies (10)51
u/Kinks4Kelly 2d ago
Yet Massachusetts, with strict gun laws, has the second lowest rate of gun related fatalities. Massachusetts has a gun related suicide rate far below the average.
Almost like making guns harder to get and easier to take from the mentally ill actually does lead to less gun related fatalities.
14
u/gayscout Greater Boston 1d ago
Then there's the question of if Massachusetts already has the strictest gun laws and therefore the least gun violence, why do we need more? Especially one with a loophole for the police? Gun laws aren't something that you cam just add more of without nuance. More restrictions around gun ownership is good. But this law is not well thought out. It did nothing to prevent the memorial drive incident. Adding more and more restrictions on gun ownership can only do so much to prevent gun violence. Our time and resources would now be better spent addressing the sources of illegal guns. Not hampering people who play by the rules with exceptions for cops.
13
34
u/trickycrayon 2d ago
Yup. "Gun control doesn't prevent gun violence" yet places that actually have gun control laws have lower gun violence, WHO'D'A THUNK
→ More replies (1)14
u/bostonbananarama 2d ago
You'd need to prove causation. The places that have stricter gun control laws also tend to have better social welfare programs.
15
u/Kinks4Kelly 2d ago
Almost like common sense gun control and social welfare programs are signs of a more civilized society.
4
u/bostonbananarama 1d ago
Willingness to have social welfare and gun control are correlated it would seem.
The problem with most gun regulation is that it's not designed to reduce gun violence, but to target emotions.
Studies of the federal assault weapons ban showed that it had almost no effect on gun violence, with the exception of magazine limits. And yet, Massachusetts has copied many of the restrictions, those include a features test. Can't have to many features, including a pistol grip, telescopic stock, etc. Removing these features doesn't make the gun less deadly, but it can make it less safe to fire.
I couldn't buy an AR15, but I could buy a SCAR 17, a semiautomatic rifle designed for special forces that shoots a larger caliber. Most people have heard of an AR15, but not a SCAR. My SCAR has a fin on the grip, makes it difficult to hold, which is of course what you want when firing a gun.
I want common sense laws, but we don't have them.
2
u/sweaty_parts 2d ago
Theres common sense laws and there are overly restrictive laws which are devoid of understanding of the mechanics of firearms. The 2024 emergency law is over restrictive, although you would probably call it common sense.
-6
u/Kinks4Kelly 2d ago
Yawn.
11
u/sweaty_parts 2d ago
Got it, you're right and I'm wrong because of your feelings on the matter.
→ More replies (13)24
u/husqofaman 2d ago
or maybe the robust social safety net and quality of life in Massachusetts are the cause. In reality its some of both, but your unwillingness to examine data or issue critically as opposed to resorting to emotional appeals and moral judgement tell me you aren't here in good faith.
7
u/bostonbananarama 2d ago
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Really?
You're replying to a comment that claimed public welfare reduces gun violence, so where does MA rank on public welfare?
→ More replies (2)10
u/sweaty_parts 2d ago
Others have pointed out the robust social safety net argument so I'll echo that sentiment and shake my head that all you so called "educated progressive liberals" can't connect the dots.
10
u/husqofaman 1d ago
Hey some of us are still sane and are voting No on 9. Sincerely, your local Public Interest / Pro Bono Attorney with too many degrees.
7
u/sweaty_parts 1d ago
Thank you for your sanity and public service. Sincerely, an educated anarchist.
3
-2
u/prenderg 2d ago
I am afraid that the anti-gun law mob has failed to “connect the dots” in many of its arguments. ( No, I will not start identifying each, and every one of these.) And, I will say when it comes to the argument that correlation does not meet causation, the anti-gun law lobby is just as guilty as the pro gun law lobby when it comes to making seemingly logical but not proven arguments.
21
u/Zevana19 2d ago
Post like this are extremely harmful to the safety of our society. They provide an easy excuse for people to see better about themselves that they "did something". Then then move on and completely ignore all the core fundamental causes of violence. Then another tragic event happens, they call for more easy "do something", pat themselves on the back and move on happily until the next event.
Congratulating yourself for passing gun laws that do not prevent this type of violence then ignoring the real issue is why we are stuck in this cycle. Please, for the sake of everyone, stop going for the easy route of blaming guns, and start pushing for the hard things like promoting public welfare in all its forms such as housing, healthcare, employment, and education.
→ More replies (5)2
2
u/toomuch1265 1d ago
As a gun owner that has been carrying a firearm for 40 years in the Commonwealth, this state has become an absolute shithole with no respect for the voters. The democratic leadership either lies to you or just ignores the will of the people.
3
u/Turbulent_Spare_7678 2d ago
Sorry, but no. I’m voting Yes on 9.
23
u/PCcarbone 2d ago
Reason?
→ More replies (6)-8
u/448mover 2d ago
Because “blue” that’s it. They can’t stomach using reason to formulate their vote. They must do whatever big blue tells them to. It’s disgusting. Nobody should just vote off of color.
→ More replies (2)6
u/painterlyjeans 1d ago
I’m blue and I’m voting no. I’m actually so left you get your guns back.
Give the queers guns! Give all minorities guns!
1
24
u/MWoody13 2d ago
You like giving the public a lower status than law enforcement officers, including off-duty personal weapons? That’s what this bill does. Restricts the public and exempts LEOs
2
u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 2d ago
Sorry. I enjoy living in a state with the lowest gun death rate in the country. You may ask yourself how that could come to be.
According to recent rankings by organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, Massachusetts ranks near the top of the nation (often #2) for the strength of its gun safety laws, which include requirements for background checks, safe storage laws, and bans on certain semi-automatic modifications and ghost guns.
15
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
Actually MA ranks 5th by most standards. California ranks first for most strict and has a higher gun death rate, only about 1/100,000 lower than New Hampshire, which has all-but zero gun regulations. Nice ChatGPT summary though, have you considered having an original thought?
2
u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, currently, Massachusetts ranked number two in the country with lowest gun related death rate. That is fact. Don’t care how you care to spin it.
Just in case anyone is confused, a vote for YES simply keeps our gun laws as they currently are (no change)
21
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
MA ranked first with the lowest gun death rate without this law. Explain how this law was necessary and what benefits it provides. And don't bring up ghost guns, there were 8 ghost gun incidents in Massachusetts in the last 13 years. Clearly not any kind of emergency.
8
u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 2d ago
Why don’t you simply explain to us why Massachusetts already had the lowest gun death rate? You think it might have to do with our strong gun laws?
It provides Massachusetts with stronger gun laws not weaker ones. Fact.
14
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
How about ranking first for healthcare affordability? Seventh for education? First for median household income? Thirteenth in overall happiness, so I guess we're slipping there. But there are, in fact, a lot of other factors that could explain the lack of gun deaths. Hell, the fact that there are so many hospitals in MA and you're rarely very far from a place equipped to handle trauma is another big one.
Did you know that gunshot wounds are actually only fatal about 20% of the time, outside of being struck in the head? The single most important factor in 99% of gunshot wounds is whether someone is able to control the bleeding immediately after someone is shot. Even just a higher population density, an increase in the number of potential responders when someone is shot, dramatically reduces the number of gun deaths.
You are hyperfixated on guns to the point where you are completely ignoring the literally dozens of other potential explanations. Case in point, again, California has the strictest laws in the country. New Hampshire has some of the least strict. They have virtually identical gun death rates. The biggest difference is that only 13% of NH gun deaths are homicides, compared to about 45% of CA gun deaths. Wouldn't you think that more restrictive gun laws would result in the opposite? There are obviously other factors at play, you just don't want to see them.
7
u/DowntownKangaroo1917 2d ago
Gun deaths are directly linked to hospital access, specifically level 1 trauma facilities of which we have 10. I don't think its your intention, but you're actually celebrating the Commonwealths incredible healthcare, not our gun laws.
And nobody agues we have very low gun crime. But most people who spend some time researching the subject agree it has more to do with income level along with our investments in education, youth diversion, and cultural enrichment programs than laws.
4
u/PCcarbone 2d ago
You actually have your facts wrong. In New England Massachusetts is the most dangerous state when it comes to gun violence compared to NH VT ME RI and CT. The safest are the ones with constitutional carry, aka you can have what ever you want with no permits….
→ More replies (5)5
u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 2d ago
Sorry, I’m making comparisons to the entire country not just New England. Not sure why you would do that.
11
u/PCcarbone 2d ago
NH is safer and they have no fire arm restrictions.. wonder why.
16
u/ROBOCALYPSE4226 2d ago
It is true New Hampshire is safer when comparing crime rate. When comparing gun related deaths, that statement is untrue.
Your crime rate is lower because you have a smaller population and is less dense.
5
2
u/This-Lingonberry-778 1d ago
I already you know you mentioned about those modification bans, but you do realize that in MA, anyone with an LTC can buy an AR-15 that is compliant with MA? Albeit, with said modifications not on the firearm.
1
u/Facehugger_35 1d ago
The "modification" in question is a fixed magazine, which literally makes them unsafe to operate because it makes clearing malfunctions dangerous.
1
u/Facehugger_35 1d ago
That's the funny thing though, we literally had the lowest gun death rate in the country before this law.
1
u/NortheastMoose 3h ago
Lowest gun death rate is due to proximity of healthcare and trauma centers. Most illegal and violent gun crime is done in urban areas, where trauma centers are close. States with highest Gun death rates are because when there is an issue... no hospitals near. Alaska, KY, etc MA actually ranks 21st most violent state in the Nation. Those laws you cite remain in effect if Chapter 135 is repealed. Safestorage, Schools etc are not covered by Chapter 135. Vote No on 9
-1
u/Equal_Audience_3415 2d ago
Subterfuge.
Come up with a better law and replace it. Until then, it should stay in place.
22
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
Oh, I've already done that, actually.
It's the one we had before.
-8
u/Equal_Audience_3415 2d ago
Obviously, it is not.
I agree there needs to be big changes in this law, but it is still helpful. It makes sense in this climate, to error on the side of caution.
14
u/bouche_bag 1d ago edited 1d ago
The same argument could be made pro-Flock cameras. Pro-surveillance state. Pro-restricted speech.
26
20
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
What has Chapter 135 done to improve on the old law? The old law that, if proponents of gun control are to be believed, kept us at number 1 for lowest gun deaths in the country for decades. The old law that resulted in charges being brought to trial and actually prosecuted, rather than being dropped at the first sign of resistance for fear of setting bad precedent on overly vague restrictions. The old law that was functionally identical to Chapter 135 in all of the ways that actually mattered, and didn't cause the body responsible for establishing regulations to throw their hands up and say "nope, it's impossible to implement as written".
7
u/Neelypup 1d ago
I admit I’m not an expert in any way here. This is what confuses me - if the law isn’t optimal, why is the only solution to reverse it with a No vote? I’m not a huge fan of the argument “this law isn’t perfect so let’s repeal it”. Wouldn’t a better approach be to say “this law isn’t perfect, here’s a better way to write it that preserves our constitutional rights and maintains public safety?”
23
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
I'd be all for that if the state legislature were at all willing to heed that. Many groups of gun owners, both organized and not, made their positions heard and tried to point out the flaws in the law. In response, the state legislature promised to hold listening sessions, then reversed course and claimed they needed to conduct closed conferences due to safety concerns (note that closed conference is a common practice, they literally did not need to justify it). They then produced and passed the behemoth bill with less than 24 hours for house or senate members to read it and everyone voted along party lines. Correcting the problems in the law is not a viable approach because our state legislature has been deemed the most ineffective state legislature in the entire country multiple years running.
A veto referendum is a constitutionally provided mechanism of addressing mistakes made by the legislature. Beyond that the only other means of redress is, as they say, to vote the bums out. The problem is that as much as I would love to have more progressive legislators on Beacon Hill generally, we're unlikely to get more reasonable people on second amendment issues in there. So we're using the tool that's available to us.
5
1
u/NortheastMoose 3h ago
The State Constitution does not allow repeal of individual sections of a law. It must be entire law. The founders set it up this way so that only good overall laws would be passed. They didn;t want people to pick and choose sections of a law that they liked. They thought - a good law is often once done in compromise. Chapter 135 was over a dozen individuals bills, some still going through committee - many half baked, that were all taken out of committee one evening, put into 1 big omnibus bill and passed the next day at the end of the legislative session. Only way to fix a bad law is to repeal it and tell them to do it the right way - the transparent way.
1
u/FuckAllYouLosers 1d ago
The main problem with this law, despite the absurdity of it, is that it was pushed through via emergency powers when it wasn't needed.
Also, nearly every police department opposed it.
1
-8
u/BatmanOnMars 2d ago
Why is every other post on this subreddit about this one ballot initiative? Hey gun nuts, maybe get off reddit and try to convince real people your hobby is so important.
20
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
Perhaps because the rest aren't directly on the ballot? Perhaps because we believe that it's important for people to be informed about what they're voting on? It's a Massachusetts subreddit, you're going to see posts about Massachusetts politics in the Massachusetts subreddit. I also have these conversations in real life, and other conversations. Shockingly, most of us are multi-faceted people.
→ More replies (1)-3
u/wandererarkhamknight 2d ago
The question’s main proponent is a gun business owner. So definitely financial motives are involved. They are also playing the (now) decade-old “I will be losing money if people votes no, but I am still doing it for our rights” grift card.
0
u/Ormsfang 1d ago
The best argument against the common ownership of guns is we all know at least once person who should never be given access to a firearm
8
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
I know people who shouldn't be given unsupervised access to a glass of water lest they drown themselves. Many of them hold elected office. You don't deprive everyone of a constitutional right just because a small percentage can't be trusted to be responsible.
3
u/Mean-Bus3929 1d ago
Ah yes, the glasses of waters that are famously shooting up schools every day
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)1
1
u/Diligent-Baby-3805 8h ago
Idk, I don't think it's a bad thing guns are harder to get. It takes a ton of time and money to get ANY license. I don't really think it's unfair.
-5
u/DbackMason2017 2d ago
NO TO 9. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. There are bad apples in every example of life. They are not toys. Educate yourself, protect yourself, and express the amendments that were given to us.
-9
u/Kinks4Kelly 2d ago edited 2d ago
Oh yay, more propaganda from gun nuts on their secondary account that hadn't posted in a month.
If you aren't brave enough to post from your primary account, it tells us you do not deserve to be taken seriously.
11
u/BetterMA-throwaway 2d ago
I mean, I created this account mostly because I couldn't remember the password for my old primary account and I'm really never on reddit period. I haven't posted from my main account in almost a year, but here it is if you want to see it. Get ready for a lot of Destiny fanfiction if that's your thing. https://www.reddit.com/user/KingsRaven/
So now that you know what my primary account is, I'm sure you'll thoughtfully engage with the post.
→ More replies (2)9
u/ChinatownKicks 2d ago edited 1d ago
This is my only account. Go ahead, look back over however many years of lefty posts it’s been.
Reasonable people are already outgunned by the lunatics. This is no time to make it harder for us to buy and train with the firearms that are in common use almost everywhere else in the country.
-5
u/ThreeDogs2022 2d ago
I’m a gun owner. I am not your typical gun owner. I deplore violence and think gun culture in the US is disgusting.
After the 2024 election, I took the class. I’d been told how it difficult getting your LTC in MA was and was shocked at how ridiculously easy it was to
A. Qualify for and b. Obtain a license.
I have examined the new law critically, and have carefully read through number nine.
There is absolutely nothing in the law that is onerous to a law abiding gun owner and nothing that shouldn’t be there.
I will be voting to uphold it, and I’m sickened by the pushback.
19
u/Ecstatic-Cress7033 2d ago
nothing that shouldn’t be there.
The carveout for former LEOs doesn't bother you?
→ More replies (3)1
1
u/Facehugger_35 1d ago
There is absolutely nothing in the law that is onerous to a law abiding gun owner and nothing that shouldn’t be there.
So, since you're a gun owner, what exactly is the justification for banning guns based on how the handle is shaped?
0
u/Yasuru 1d ago
Between 8 & 9, why are we voting again on something we recently voted on?
18
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
We didn't vote on 9 before, the legislature rushed through a shoddy piece of legislation in 2024, there was a petition to suspend it that the governor overrode, and now it's on the ballot this year. But I'm wholly in agreement with you that 8 is bullshit. I've got some issues with the way our state handles cannabis laws (speaking as someone who helped out in a limited capacity with the original ballot initiative way back when), but making cannabis illegal again is just complete insanity.
Edit: also, I appreciate your use of "recently" regarding cannabis given that it was legalized very nearly a full decade ago now.
14
u/NerdWhoLikesTrees 1d ago
The governor throwing away a citizen’s petition is just the most disgusting betrayal of democracy. Enough people signed the petition and she silenced them
1
1
-1
-7
u/LowlyWoim 2d ago edited 2d ago
Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the assault weapon-stockpiling gun freaks??
Everyone starting comments with “as a liberal/leftist, I’m voting no” - that’s your tell that you’re neither. Actual leftists are smart enough to know having a shitload of guns means nothing when a tank filled with a swat team and drones are at your door/over your home.
3
u/Michelanvalo 1d ago
So your okay with the law creating a two class gun ownership system? Where law enforcement, including federal and former officers, are allowed more rights than the average citizen?
1
u/LowlyWoim 1d ago
Do I think the general public should have the same access to guns as cops? No. I’m also one of those filthy socialists who think the cops should be defunded as well. I know that’s anathema since this is a MA Conservative Reddit post
→ More replies (3)3
5
u/Zevana19 2d ago
Why are you so angry and quick to call people names? The original poster provided a thoughtful explanation of their position. The best you could come back with is name calling?
0
-7
-2
u/Mean-Bus3929 1d ago
Gun owners - where are your regulated militias at????? They’re doing tyranny at the federal level and I’m not seeing you out there fixing that with yer guns!!!!!!!!!! Baby they’re treading all over you !!!!!!!!
Anyway it’s yes on 9 let’s be fucking serious. Abolish 2A. It was a terrible experiment while it lasted.
1
u/nicking44 16h ago
Wait until the 19th gets repealed.
1
u/Mean-Bus3929 5h ago
Are your guns gonna save us all then or do you just also hate women AND love guns?
1
u/nicking44 4h ago
You keep talking like you want the goverment to have more control so why would I stop it?
1
u/This-Lingonberry-778 2h ago
we do not need to abolish the 2A. we just need to regulate firearms. Most European countries and Australia allow citizens to own firearms. Fortunately, the 2A is never gonna be repealed.
1
u/Mean-Bus3929 2h ago
Guess what those countries don’t have. Mass casualty events and 2A. Are you seeing a pattern?
1
u/This-Lingonberry-778 2h ago
No shit. I’m saying is that you can regulate gun ownership without repealing the 2nd amendment. They don’t have a 2nd amendment and most European countries allow civilians to own firearms, especially AR-15s (varies by country). Massachusetts has the lowest gun death rate in the country due to regulations (while having the 2A) and citizens can still own firearms, especially AR-15s (yes, they are legal in Massachusetts, albeit, they have to be compliant with MA law and not have certain features)
0
u/BetterMA-throwaway 1d ago
If you believe revolutionary violence is an appropriate response at this time I remind you that the 2nd amendment is available to you. If you truly believed now was the time for violence you would do it yourself. Unless you're a hypocrite, of course.
→ More replies (1)
•
u/massahoochie Mod 2d ago
This post is approved. Please stop reporting something just because you do not agree with it.