Question 9 is a referendum on Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, the gun law the Legislature passed and Governor Healey signed that summer. A yes vote keeps it. A no vote repeals it. The campaign asking for a no vote is the Civil Rights Coalition, the ballot committee formed by the Gun Owners’ Action League, and it put the question on the ballot with 78,707 certified signatures, more than double the 37,287 required.
We published the case for voting yes last week. This is the case for voting no. It starts from the repeal campaign’s stated objections and builds them out from the text of the law itself. The quotations from the statute are exact.
The argument in one sentence
CommonWealth Beacon summarizes the repeal side’s position this way: the law “is not about public safety but is bureaucratic overreach that burdens local communities by mandating a real-time electronic tracking system and requiring local police departments to enforce the new rules, which pulls officers away from investigating violent crime.” The Civil Rights Coalition calls Chapter 135 “a deeply flawed, 116-page piece of bureaucratic overreach that wastes valuable tax dollars and burdens local communities.”
The core of that argument is not that Massachusetts should have no gun laws. It already had some of the strictest in the country before 2024. It is that this law aims its new requirements at people who were already following the old ones.
1. It turns paperwork into a crime for people who already own guns legally
Chapter 135 created a “real time electronic firearms registration system.” Under the new G.L. c. 140, § 121B, “All firearms possessed, manufactured or assembled in the commonwealth shall be registered.” Registration happens at purchase or acquisition, with short windows for new residents, heirs and privately made firearms.
It does not stop at registration. “All firearm transactions within the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, all purchases, sales, rentals, leases, loans or other transfers shall be reported” to the system “by all parties to the transaction” within seven days. Any loss or theft must be reported within seven days.
Then the penalties. A failure to register, or to report a transaction, loss or theft, is punishable by:
- a fine of up to $1,000 for a first offense;
- up to $7,500 and six months in jail for a second; and
- up to $10,000 and “imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years” for a third or subsequent offense.
Failure to report is also grounds for “suspension or permanent revocation” of the person’s license.
The argument for repeal is about who this reaches. A person who steals a gun or buys one on the street is not filing seven-day transaction reports. The person who forgets to log a loan to a relative, or reports a theft on day eight, is a licensed owner. Those are the people exposed to escalating criminal penalties for what is, at bottom, a records violation.
2. It makes licensed carry a crime in places the licensee never chose to go armed
Chapter 135 added a new subsection (k) to G.L. c. 269, § 10. It is now a crime, punishable by up to two and a half years in a house of correction, to possess a firearm “in a prohibited area” when the person “knows or reasonably should know” it is one.
The prohibited areas include any place “owned, leased, or under the control of state, county or municipal government and used for the purpose of government administration, judicial or court administrative proceedings, or correctional services, including in or upon any part of the buildings, grounds, or parking areas thereof,” along with polling places and early voting sites while open, and anywhere “within 150 feet of the building entrance door.”
The statute gives a defense for a firearm “securely stored” in a vehicle, and it lets a town vote to exclude its administrative buildings. But the default is that a licensed carrier who pulls into a town hall parking lot to pay a tax bill, or drives past a polling place on election day, is in a prohibited area unless the gun is locked away as the statute requires. The argument for repeal is that a person who has passed a background check, a suitability review and a safety course should not face a jail sentence for that.
3. It redefines “assault-style firearm” by features, and freezes ownership
Massachusetts has banned assault weapons since 1998. Chapter 135 rewrote the definition. A semiautomatic centerfire rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is now an “assault-style firearm” if it has any two of: a folding or telescopic stock; a thumbhole stock or pistol grip; a forward or second handgrip; a threaded barrel for a flash suppressor or muzzle brake; or a barrel shroud. There are parallel feature lists for pistols and shotguns, a state roster, and a list of named models “or copies or duplicates of these firearms.”
Under the new § 131M, no one may “possess, own, offer for sale, sell or otherwise transfer” one. The exception is for a firearm “lawfully possessed within the commonwealth on August 1, 2024,” by a license to carry holder, and only if it is registered under § 121B and serialized under § 121C. Miss either condition and the grandfather protection is gone.
The argument for repeal is that the features on that list, a pistol grip, a stock that adjusts to the shooter, a barrel shroud, describe how a rifle fits and handles, not how dangerous it is.
4. It treats adults under 21 as minors
An 18-year-old in Massachusetts can vote, sign a contract, serve on a jury and enlist in the military. Under the 2024 law, as a federal judge described it in August, that same adult cannot possess a handgun or a semiautomatic firearm until 21. The NRA and allied groups challenged that rule on behalf of a 20-year-old resident. The argument for repeal is that a legal adult who can be sent overseas with a rifle should be able to own one at home.
5. It puts the cost on local police
Licensing in Massachusetts runs through local police chiefs. Chapter 135 adds duties on top: processing registrations, suitability reviews, extreme risk protection order petitions, and enforcement of the new rules. The repeal campaign’s argument, as CommonWealth Beacon put it, is that this “pulls officers away from investigating violent crime.” The law’s own training requirement is an example of the implementation strain. According to CommonWealth Beacon, GOAL sued over the new licensing and training framework, and dropped the suit after the Legislature delayed the live-fire training requirement through a budget amendment.
6. Constitutional is not the same as right
The yes side’s strongest reply is that the courts have sided with the law. The First Circuit upheld the assault-style firearm provisions in Recchia v. Campbell in July, and a federal district judge upheld the age-21 rule in August. We reported both.
The answer from the no side is that this is exactly why the question is on the ballot. A court decides whether a law is permitted, not whether it is wise. Article 48 of the Massachusetts Constitution gives voters a direct veto over a law they think is wrong, whatever the courts say about whether the Legislature could pass it. A referendum is the one place where “is this good policy” is the only question.
And not every legal question is settled. On October 7, the SJC hears a challenge to the “suitability” standard that lets a licensing official deny a license on a judgment that an applicant “may create a risk.” A separate state constitutional challenge involving the age rule is pending at the SJC.
What a no vote would and would not do
A no vote repeals Chapter 135. It does not repeal Massachusetts gun licensing. The restrictions that existed before the 2024 law, including the state’s original assault weapons ban, remain, according to CommonWealth Beacon’s guide. A repeal takes effect when the results are certified, usually in late November or early December.
The honest cost, which the yes side will stress, is that the 2024 law’s rules on untraceable “ghost guns” and 3D-printed guns would go with it, because those were not captured under the prior definitions. A voter who wants those rules but objects to the rest of Chapter 135 has to weigh that trade.
The math
The no side is running uphill. A UMass Amherst poll in August found 70 percent of registered voters would vote to keep the law and 22 percent to repeal it. It is also, by our count of state campaign finance records, the campaign with far more individual donors: 1,050 contributions in 2025 with a median gift of $50.
Frequently asked questions
If I oppose the 2024 gun law, how do I vote on Question 9?
Vote no. A no vote repeals Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024. A yes vote keeps it.
Would a no vote get rid of Massachusetts gun licensing?
No. Repeal removes the 2024 law. Licensing and the restrictions that existed before it, including the original assault weapons ban, would remain.
What are the penalties for not registering a firearm under the 2024 law?
Under G.L. c. 140, section 121B(e), up to $1,000 for a first offense, up to $7,500 and six months for a second, and up to $10,000 and one to five years for a third or subsequent offense, plus possible license suspension or revocation.
Can I carry my licensed gun into a town hall parking lot?
Under G.L. c. 269, section 10(k), government administrative buildings, their grounds and parking areas are prohibited areas unless the town has voted to exclude its buildings. A firearm securely stored in a vehicle as the statute requires is a defense.
Who is running the campaign to repeal the gun law?
The Civil Rights Coalition, the ballot committee formed by the Gun Owners’ Action League, is asking voters to vote no.
This piece presents the arguments for a no vote on Question 9; our companion piece presents the case for voting yes. Statutory text quoted from Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 as published at malegislature.gov (G.L. c. 140, sections 121B and 131M and the definition of “assault-style firearm”; G.L. c. 269, section 10(k)). The repeal campaign’s arguments, the live-fire training delay and the effect of repeal on prior law and on ghost gun rules are from CommonWealth Beacon’s 2026 firearms ballot guide. The age-21 description is from the August 2026 federal decision as reported. Polling from UMass Amherst, August 5 to 12, 2026; donor counts from our tally of 2025 OCPF records. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.