Question 9: Referendum puts major Mass. gun law before voters
—
Question 9 asks voters whether to keep or scrap a 2024 gun law.
What your vote does, according to the secretary of state’s office
A “yes” vote would keep in place the law, which increases the regulations of firearms including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons.
A “no” vote would repeal this law.
Gov. Maura Healey signed “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws” in July 2024. At the time, she called it the state’s “most significant gun safety legislation in a decade.”
The 116-page law — which has gone into effect in stages over the past two years — added a slate of new regulations and updated some existing firearms controls. Here are some of the major changes it introduced:
The gun law established the state’s first regulations on untraceable so-called “ghost guns,” which are homemade firearms built from kits or 3D printouts. Those guns now require a serial number.
It also expanded the definition of an “assault-style firearm” and added regulations on products that can make semiautomatic firearms work like automatic ones.
It mandated that every Massachusetts gun owner register all their firearms with the state in an online portal by Oct. 28. Gun owners face the same deadline to request serial numbers for guns without identification.
It expanded “red flag laws,” adding healthcare workers and school administrators to the list of people allowed to petition courts to have firearms confiscated from those considered a threat to themselves or others. Before its passage, that power was limited to law enforcement and family members.
The law banned guns from polling places and made it a crime for people to carry weapons inside government buildings.
It also required new material for firearm safety courses for anyone applying for a gun permit, including live-fire training, along with instruction on safe storage and suicide prevention.
Question 9 is a referendum — the only one of its kind on the ballot this year — meaning that instead of introducing a new law, it would repeal an existing one.
It’s before voters because of an effort by gun rights advocates, who strongly opposed the legislation and began the referendum effort quickly after it was signed into law. When it appeared in the fall of 2024 that gun rights advocates had enough signatures to not only put the referendum on the ballot, but also pause the law from taking effect until voters had a say, Healey took executive action to implement it immediately. The move further frustrated the pro-gun group.
What would Question 9 do?
A “yes” vote would keep the law in place.
A “no” vote would repeal it, meaning the beefed up requirements on licensing, training and data collection would be rolled back, as would the regulations around serializing home-assembled guns.
Repealing the law would not undo the state’s previous gun regulations. The pre-existing assault weapons ban would stand, and the state would still require gun licenses, safety training and allow family- or police-initiated red flag petitions. The state would continue to track guns at the point of sale.
What does the ‘yes’ campaign say?
Massachusetts has long been a national leader in gun control legislation and has among the lowest rates of gun deaths in the country. But its last major update to gun legislation came in 2014, a decade before the law on this year’s ballot passed.
Ruth Zakarin, chair of Vote ‘Yes’ for A Safe Massachusetts, applauded the state’s 2014 gun legislation, but said that firearms “technology has changed, the world has changed since then.”
In the intervening decade, as other states updated their laws, Massachusetts had slipped slightly in the national rankings by gun safety advocacy groups Giffords and Everytown For Gun Safety. But after the law passed in 2024, Massachusetts jumped from having the fifth-strongest gun laws in the nation to the second in Everytown’s rankings.
Ballot question supporters say a “yes” vote — which keeps the law in place — will keep gun violence low.
They also believe it respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms, while adding commonsense measures that keep residents safe, including from themselves. More than 280 deaths in Massachusetts were attributed to gun violence in Massachusetts in 2024 — the majority of those from suicide, according to the CDC.
Question 9 is supported by a number of local, state and national gun safety advocacy groups, along with state and federal lawmakers, including endorsements from Reps. Katherine Clark, Ayanna Pressley and Jake Auchincloss. Gov. Maura Healey has also backed the “yes” campaign.
Unions including the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Massachusetts Nurses Association and multiple branches of the Service Employees International Union in the state have endorsed the campaign, too. As of Oct. 6, the teachers association has donated $500,000, according to the state’s Office of Campaign and Political Finance reports.
In a statement, Massachusetts Teachers Association President Matt Bach and Vice President Deb Gesualdo said upholding the law would ensure that “commonsense measures that protect students, educators and families from gun violence” remain in place.
The “yes” campaign has outraised its opponents, with help in particular from national gun control advocacy groups. Everytown For Gun Safety has donated over $44,000 to the campaign, and The Alliance for Gun Responsibility has contributed $50,000, as of Oct. 6.
What does the ‘no’ campaign say?
Gun rights advocates say Massachusetts had substantial regulations and restrictions to control firearms before the 2024 law.
Wayne Adams, a gun rights advocate with The Civil Rights Coalition urging voters to say “no” to Question 9, said the law damages hunting traditions, prohibitively squeezes legal gun owners on training requirements and costs, and is confusing — particularly when it comes to antique guns.
“We’re into all these caveats around black powder, getting a license to be able to shoot a muzzle loader, restrictions on youth to be able to use certain types of firearms that are typically part of a family heirloom that’s been passed down,” he said. “It’s questions, questions, questions.”
Toby Leary, chair of The Civil Rights Coalition, also wrote in the official “no” campaign argument submitted to the state’s voter information packet that the legislation also puts the burden of enforcement on local police departments, “pulling officers away from investigating violent crime to plow through piles of administrative paperwork.”
Those endorsing “no” on Question 9 include state Rep. John Gaskey, a Plymouth Republican, along with the Gun Owners’ Action League, a number of gun stores, firing ranges and local gun clubs.
Mike Minogue, the Republican nominee for governor, donated $5,000 to the “no” campaign. Smith & Wesson, the gun manufacturer previously headquartered in Springfield, donated $50,000 to the campaign in 2024. The Gun Owners’ Action League, a Massachusetts gun rights group, has donated over $22,000 to the cause, as of Oct. 6.
What else to know
Gun rights advocates have repeatedly sued the state, arguing that the 2024 law violates their constitutional rights to bear arms, because it introduces new restrictions on who can carry firearms and what kind.
Because of the ongoing legal challenges, a “yes” vote won’t guarantee the new gun control rules will stand if courts rule differently.
