Vote Informed: An Explainer on Ballot Question 9
An activist contributing to the “We the Powerful” art installation at No Kings 3 in Boston. Photo from a Mass 50501 volunteer.
This November, Massachusetts voters will be asked to weigh in on whether Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024—An Act Modernizing Firearms Law—should remain on the books. I will be up-front: this piece is going to read as an argument for repeal—in this case, a “no” vote on ballot question 9. As a gun owner seeking common sense gun laws, I am worried about several provisions in this law that I feel will negatively impact the safety of our communities. However, my point in writing this piece is less to make an argument why you should vote a particular way, and more that in order to vote on whether to keep or repeal a law, we should make sure we read and understand what is actually contained within the text of the legislation.
I’d first like to address one of the more serious misconceptions I have come across regarding the repeal effort: that if the repeal were to pass, it would strike all state gun laws from the books, leaving us with “Constitutional Carry” as the law of the land. In fact, if the repeal passes, we will simply revert to the laws as they were prior to 2024, which would still be among the strictest in the nation. Individuals would still need to obtain a license before they were able to purchase firearms, there would still be a 10-round magazine capacity limit, and the assault weapons ban of 1998 would still be on the books. With that in mind, let's take a look at some of the changes instituted by Chapter 135.
The Commonwealth makes it clear in the wording of the ballot question itself what it sees as the high points of the law. I am going to try to offer some additional insight on some of these, as well as investigate some things that the Commonwealth has purposefully chosen to omit. I have attempted to split the contents of the law into three categories: the uncontroversial “good” that I believe are in line with the common sense gun laws that so much of the electorate likes to say they support, the “bad” which I don’t think anyone should support once they understand the particularities, and the “unknown”— the provisions that will be either good or bad depending on your personal stance on what rights the Second Amendment allows to private citizens.
The Good
-Updated training requirements for individuals seeking to obtain a firearms license requiring live-fire, conflict de-escalation, and first aid instruction. If these trainings were the backbone of Chapter 135, there would be no ballot question seeking to repeal it—sensible gun owners would never have supported the petition that got question 9 here in the necessary numbers. As a gun owner, I firmly believe that if you are going to exercise your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, you should get proper training before you do so.
-Codified the process and time frame in which the licensing authority has to act on all applications. This has historically been a problem in some jurisdictions, where licensing authorities will make people who have otherwise met all the requirements wait for weeks or months before issuing the license—if they issue it at all..
The Bad
-Chapter 135 changed the allowable blood alcohol level while carrying a firearm from 0.00 to 0.08, the same level of intoxication allowed while operating an automobile. Do I actually have to explain why this might be a bad idea? I cringe to think of what special interest group got this change enacted.
-Loosened safe storage laws to the point that “in a locked vehicle” is considered safe storage of a firearm. Other gun owners I have spoken to have suggested that this was only intended to apply if you were also in the vehicle, but that is very much not what the text of the legislation says. This bit of advice might go beyond the bounds of this piece, but: Please please please do not use a locked vehicle as your safe storage solution, regardless of whether this law stands or not.
-Codified an exemption for “current and qualified former law enforcement officers” from the assault weapons ban and magazine capacity restrictions. Note that this is a blanket exception, and not just for duty use. As a part of a movement which at its heart is about making sure the law applies equally to all people, support of legislation that grants additional rights to any particular class of people is frankly unconscionable to me.
-I mentioned new training requirements under the “good,” but it is unfortunately not all sunshine and rainbows. Chapter 135 outlined broadly what the training curriculum should be, and then put the responsibility on the state police to actually establish it. Two years later, it still hasn’t fully come to fruition. Furthermore, any person who held a valid license to carry (LTC) prior to August 1, 2024, is exempt from ever having to take the new basic safety class.
The Unknown
-Created new restrictions on “assault-style weapons.” This is perhaps the most divisive issue contained in this act, and there is a lot of confusion about what this provision actually does. Chapter 135 created a new definition of assault-style weapon, which supersedes the definition created by the 1998 assault weapons ban. The full definition can be found here. The cliffnotes version is that, under Chapter 135, there are certain firearms, notably AR and AK styles and copies thereof, that are banned. All other semi-auto, magazine-fed rifles, semi-automatic shotguns, and auto-loading pistols must meet a “features test,” whereby if they have certain banned features they are unlawful to possess. Firearms that would otherwise be banned under the 2024 law are exempt if they were legally possessed in the state prior to August 1, 2024, and remain legal to both possess and transfer by private sale within the state. Supporters of this provision think it is necessary to help keep dangerous weapons out of the state, while opponents criticize it for being arbitrary and difficult to understand for the layperson, and for forcing the prices up on pre-ban assault-style weapons, ensuring they remain available, but only to those with sufficient means to afford them.
-Creation of a statewide Firearms Registration Database. For any readers who own firearms and remain unaware of this provision, the deadline to log your firearms is October 2, 2026. Chapter 135 created an electronic firearms registration portal into which gun owners are required to log each firearm they possess. Note that the definition of what constitutes a firearm has also been expanded from prior law; see Chap 135 of the Acts of 2024, Section 20 for the new definition. Critics of this provision are quick to point to the fact that firearms registration has been litigated before and found to be unconstitutional, and that the state has done little to no outreach to gun owners about the new system, despite the fact that it was specified that outreach be done within the law itself. Supporters of the Firearms Registration Database feel that it is a necessary and easy way to keep track of all the guns in the state.
There is ultimately a reason that half the State’s voter information pamphlet is dedicated to Ballot Question 9: this law is dense. The points that I touched on above are what struck me on my readthrough, but I would encourage everyone to read the full text, as you may find something that matters a lot to you that I haven’t included here.
Healthy democracy requires us not just to vote, but to vote in an informed manner. In this case it seems the state is hoping that voters will take them at their word that this is a huge leap forward for gun safety, but the devil is, as always, in the details. The decision before us on November 3rd is to either let this law stand as is, or to repeal it outright, sending it back to the legislature to reckon with. How you vote is a personal decision, but now more than ever it is vital for voters to do their due diligence and head to the polls as well-informed as possible.
Mass 50501 is a nonviolent, nonpartisan nonprofit organization that focuses on community organizing to defend everyone’s rights and liberties and to resist tyrannical and unconstitutional actions. While Mass 50501 members affirm our mission and shared values, we welcome diverse viewpoints and we know that we are strengthened by the connections we make. If you’d like to add your voice to the mix, join us on Discord!
Enjoyed this article? Get updates on the movement, volunteer opportunities, and more by clicking below.