What to know about Mass. Ballot Question 9, the effort to repeal a sweeping gun reform law

When Chapter 135, “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws,” was passed in 2024, gun control supporters celebrated, while Second Amendment advocates quickly started their fight to repeal it.

Now, nearly two years of organizing has brought Question 9, the Firearm Regulations Referendum, onto November’s ballot. A yes vote would keep the sweeping gun reform law in place, while a no vote would repeal it.

Here’s a guide to understanding Question 9 before you head to the polls: 

What did Chapter 135 change? 

Gov. Maura Healey signed Chapter 135 on July 25, 2024. She then signed an emergency preamble that October that made most of the law effective immediately, in response to gun advocates’ attempts to temporarily suspend it until a 2026 ballot referendum.

The law made several changes to the state’s firearm regulations. It expanded the definition of an assault weapon and the courts’ ability to take guns away from people deemed dangerous, cracked down on ghost guns, created a more comprehensive database of guns in the state, and required further licensing to own specific guns.

The law replaced the former “assault weapon” term with an “assault-style firearm” definition, which covers certain semiautomatic pistols, rifles, and shotguns that have at least two features listed in the law.

It also changed the definition of a “machine gun” to include penalties for possessing devices with bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches, and auto sears. 

The law mandates serial numbers for all firearms, except antiques, and enacted penalties for possessing, creating, or transferring untraceable firearms, known as “ghost guns.” The law also created a publicly accessible firearms data dashboard and established a commission to study that data.

It added school administrators and licensed health care providers among the list of parties able to petition the court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order, which requires an individual to surrender their firearms if they are a present danger to themselves or others. 

Additionally, the law prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and schools, with certain exceptions.

The case for keeping the law 

Ruth Zakarin, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence and chair of the Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts campaign, said the law is an effective approach to reducing gun violence throughout the state. 

“We always talk about the fact that there is no one policy that is going to solve gun violence, it’s when we weave together a whole host of policies that …work together,” she said. “That is how we build a safety net that keeps our communities safer from gun violence, and we saw that with this legislation.” 

Zakarin, who helped get the legislation passed in 2024, said she was “thrilled” that the law was regulating ghost guns “for the first time in the history of the commonwealth.” Since the law took effect, a serialization portal for ghost guns has gone live, she said. 

“We’ve heard from law enforcement that they are very happy to know that there is this requirement to serialize homemade guns,” she said. “It helps them know when they are responding to a home whether a gun is in that home, and that helps protect their safety as well.” 

The publicly available firearms data dashboard also went live last fall, Zakarin said, and the coalition has been providing training on how to utilize it. 

“We cannot address an issue that we don’t fully understand,” she said. “So having this data being publicly available has helped academics, has helped folks in the community, it’s helped law enforcement. It just helps us better understand the issue.” 

Zakarin said along with the expansion of parties able to petition courts to issue ERPOs, resources are being provided for medical providers on how to talk to patients about guns. 

As for the concern from the opposition that the law violates gun owners’ civil rights, Zakarin pointed out that from 2024 to 2025, a large increase in issued licenses to carry was seen. 

“There’s nothing in this legislation that disrupts a legal pathway to owning a gun. … The year after this law was enacted, more people than before were able to successfully complete getting their License to Carry,” she said. “That flies in the face of what our opposition says around this being an impediment to legal gun ownership, that is just simply not the case.” 

Zakarin said Massachusetts’ strong gun policies are why it has some of the lowest rates of gun violence in the country, and repealing this law would be a step in the wrong direction, setting a dangerous precedent. 

“Our opposition has made it clear that they see this as a playbook that they could try in other states that have strong gun laws,” she said. “We want folks to understand this … ballot question matters greatly. It matters for Massachusetts and how we continue to keep our communities safe from gun violence, but it matters nationally in sending a message that this is not a strategy that is going to work.” 

The Yes on Nine campaign has gotten strong support from organizations across the state, Zakarin said, including an endorsement from Healey, who said Chapter 135 is “the state’s most significant gun safety legislation in a decade.” 

“[This legislation] cracks down on ghost guns and 3-D printed weapons, which I have long advocated for, enhances our ability to prevent guns from falling into dangerous hands, and invests in our communities to address the root causes of violence,” Healey said in a statement. “This law will save lives.” 

Teachers across the state have also been strong supporters of the legislation, with the Mass. Teachers Association donating $500,000 to efforts to defend what it calls a “gun control legislative victory.” 

The case for repealing the law

The Civil Rights Coalition, which is leading the “No On 9” campaign, argues the law is a “sweeping mandate” that restricts Massachusetts gun owners’ constitutional rights. 

John Briare, who helped found the coalition, said the law makes it too difficult for ordinary people to own guns.

“In 2024, Chapter 135 was signed into law with sweeping mandates that turn law-abiding citizens into criminals overnight and force honest citizens to reapply for rights they’ve held for decades to comply with confusing, burdensome rules that violate due process and privacy,” the coalition writes on its website. 

Chapter 135 requires anyone who has a semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, or any firearm capable of holding large-capacity feeding devices, to get a License to Carry, when previously they only needed a Firearm Identification Card. 

Gun owners with just an FID who own these restricted guns have until the FID expires to apply for an LTC or surrender their firearms. 

But Briare said many gun owners are unaware of the new requirements, putting them at risk of becoming “felons” if they don’t get an LTC in time. 

“It is nearly impossible to get a License to Carry in cities, especially Boston,” he said. “So now you have all these legal residents, who have these previously legal guns that did not have to be registered, but they’re all legal, and they must now surrender them to the state because they can’t get a License to Carry”

Briare said the term assault weapon is a “brilliant marketing term” used by the other side to instill fear in people.

“They’ve never defined the functionality of what an assault weapon is, because if they had to define the functionality, they’d be outlawing 90% of all guns in America and the guns in most common use,” he said. 

Briare said he believes the firearms data dashboard is “the heart of the civil rights violation,” citing concern for the privacy and security of firearm owners’ personal information being publicly available. A state FAQ notes the dashboard includes “anonymized” firearms-related data.

Allowing school administrators and licensed health care providers to be able to petition the court to issue an ERPO is also a serious cause for concern, Briare said. 

“The new law allows untrained civilians, basically to say, ‘I think this person is dangerous. I want their weapons seized,’” he said. 

Briare said this power could be abused. For example, he said school administrators could punish someone who spoke out against a policy by requesting the court take their guns away. 

And Briare said it will make people, in particular veterans, less likely to reach out if they are struggling. 

“People are fearful that … if they’re experiencing a temporary crisis or something tragic has occurred in their lives, that if they reach out for help they’re going to lose their firearms for the rest of their lives,” he said. 

Prior to Chapter 135, Briare said Massachusetts had already “done a really good job” making sure guns don’t go to the wrong type of people. 

“Nobody wants a nut to have a gun,” he said. “That’ll be the first thing gun owners tell you, and if you go to a gun store, … the background checks being done, the fingerprints, they’re making sure that these people aren’t nuts, and there’s enough safeguards in place.” 

Rather than implementing further gun restrictions, he said the state should focus on ending violent crime. 

“The problem with gun laws is you need to enforce what’s on the books today,” he said. “You need to target the ones that are causing the crime, and it’s not Joe the farmer.” 

Briare emphasized guns as an important tool and point of connection for residents living outside of cities. 

“People don’t understand that outside the city, the gun is like a hammer or a chisel, it’s a tool, and it becomes a part of somebody’s upbringing,” he said. “ … There’s a genuine pleasure and camaraderie that occurs when you’re out there having a good time and being social with your friends and your neighbors and your family.”