Massachusetts Question 9: Keep or repeal the 2024 firearms law
What it does. Question 9 is a referendum on a 2024 law (Chapter 135, also called An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws) that made many changes to Massachusetts firearms law. According to the Attorney General’s summary, it lets school administrators and licensed healthcare providers ask a court for an Extreme Risk Protection Order; imposes penalties for possessing, making or transferring untraceable “ghost guns” and requires serial numbers on firearms other than antiques and relics; requires people to be 21 to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; expands the definitions of “machine gun” and “silencer”; bars carrying firearms in government buildings, polling locations and schools, with exceptions; and creates a public data dashboard. A yes vote keeps the law; a no vote repeals it. [1]
Official ballot question. Firearms Regulation. Do you approve of a law summarized below, which was approved by the House of Representatives on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 124 to 33, and approved by the Senate on July 18, 2024 by a vote of 35 to 5? [1]
If you vote yes
A YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons. [1]
If you vote no
A NO VOTE would repeal this law. [1]
What it would cost
The state’s fiscal statement, written by the Executive Office of Administration and Finance, says that since the law passed in 2024 “the Commonwealth has made significant investments to implement the law including training employees, promulgating new gun licensure processes, and developing IT infrastructure,” and that “Repealing the law would require the Commonwealth to expend resources in suspending or re-directing those investments.” [1]
Both sides
Strongest case for
The official argument for a yes vote was written by Ned Notis-McConarty of Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts. It says the law made “vital updates, including banning ghost guns; outlawing devices that turn semi-automatic weapons into machine guns; expanding tools to help prevent firearm suicide and mass shootings; creating a firearms data dashboard to better understand gun trafficking.” [1]
It argues that “Massachusetts has a gun death rate 70% lower than the national average,” and that “Critical elements of the 2024 law are actively being implemented; they are already helping keep our communities safe.” [1]
It concludes that a yes vote “will preserve this law, safeguard important progress, and allow us to continue the work of eradicating gun violence. Repealing it would make everyone in Massachusetts less safe.” [1]
Strongest case against
The official argument for a no vote was written by Toby Leary of The Civil Rights Coalition. It says “Before the new law, the state already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country,” and calls Chapter 135 “a deeply flawed, 116-page piece of bureaucratic overreach that wastes valuable tax dollars and burdens local communities.” [1]
It argues the law “mandates an expensive, real-time electronic tracking system that the state hasn’t funded and doesn’t know how to build,” and “forces local police departments to enforce a confusing patchwork of vague rules, pulling officers away from investigating violent crime.” [1]
It says state agencies issued “dozens of clarifications for rules that treat harmless historical re-enactors and antique hobbyists like criminals,” and urges voters to demand “common-sense, transparent legislation focused on violent criminals, not limiting citizens’ civil rights.” [1]
What neither side is saying
Context that bears on what this measure does or who it affects but that the arguments above do not address. These are sourced facts, not arguments for or against the measure.
- The law’s firearm registration system. Ballotpedia reports that the law requires the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services to develop and maintain a real-time electronic system for firearm registration, and requires a basic firearms safety certificate to apply for a Firearm Identification Card or License to Carry. The Attorney General’s summary in the voter guide does not mention these provisions; the argument against refers to the tracking system. [2]
- What the summary says about assault-style weapons already owned. The official summary says the law “clarifies how to determine whether a firearm is an assault-style weapon and the circumstances under which a person may continue to possess assault-style weapons and large capacity feeding devices they already own.” Neither argument describes this part of the law. [1]
Editorial context, not the opinion of We Elect. Each point is a fact we found in a source we opened and read; where sources disagree or data are missing, we say so. How we choose these.
Follow the money
Contributions reported by committees registered to support or oppose Question 9. Major donors are those who gave $100,000 or more; where fewer than three did, up to five of the largest listed donors giving $5,000 or more are shown.
Supporting (Yes)
Total raised $896,930
Committees
- Yes for A Safe Massachusetts $891,225
- Democratic Socialists for a Fair Massachusetts $5,705
At least one of these committees also campaigns on Massachusetts Question 1, Massachusetts Question 2, Massachusetts Question 4, Massachusetts Question 7, so its money cannot be split by measure.
Major donors
| Massachusetts Teachers Association | $500,237 |
| Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund | $94,324 |
| Alliance for Gun Responsibility | $50,000 |
| Molly Malloy | $25,000 |
| Local 509 Service Employees Int'l Union Comm on Pol Ed, MA Workers' Pol Action Comm. | $20,000 |
Opposing (No)
Total raised $593,468
Committee
- The Civil Rights Coalition $593,468
Major donors
| Jeffrey Freudberg | $57,000 |
| Smith & Wesson Brands | $50,000 |
| Gun Owners Action League | $22,776 |
| Old Colony Sportsmen's Association Inc. | $22,009 |
| EcoGeek, Inc. | $19,425 |
Donors shown gave 29% of this side’s total.
Reported contributions through Oct. 20, 2026, as compiled by Ballotpedia from state filings; the source lists each side’s top donors, not every donor. Figures are reported contributions and may be updated as new reports are filed. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar. Official filings: Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF).
Sources
- 2026 Information for Voters: Question 9 (summary, what a yes or no vote does, fiscal statement, 150-word arguments) — Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth (Official state voter guide, 2026)
- Massachusetts Question 9, Firearm Regulations Referendum (2026) — Ballotpedia (Reference (quotes supporters and opponents), accessed 2026-10-28)
Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Last reviewed 2026-10-28. How we write both sides.
We Elect is a Brunner Creative site. Editorial summary of arguments made by others, not the opinion of We Elect. Each side is written to be the strongest case its supporters would recognize, and every claim is tied to a source we opened and read.