This November 3 in Massachusetts, something known as “Question 9” is on the ballot. This is an effort to repeal 2024 legislation known as “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws,” a complex package of fees, red tape, training requirements, and other burdens placed on law-abiding gun owners.
The proposed language of this question on the ballot, which began as an effort by the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) and others, would have asked voters to vote “yes” to repeal the gun-control legislation, but state officials changed it to a counterintuitive “no” for citizens to vote “yes” to repeal.
The ballot question reads: “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?” A ‘yes’ vote upholds and keeps the law in place. A ‘no’ vote repeals it.”
The state’s anti-Second Amendment government, headed by Gov. Maura Healey (D), is clearly hoping to confuse voters who, though they might be pro-freedom, are voting between picking up a son or daughter from a game or running other errands.
To get to the bottom of what’s going on in Massachusetts, The Armed Citizen Podcast spoke with GOAL Executive Director and NRA Board Member Jim Wallace.
"When people ask, ‘Why don’t you move?' Well, first and foremost, I am Scottish,” said Wallace. “We love big battles. The stronger the enemy, the more passionate we become. But if we give up here, they will take the fight to other places. So, even if we achieve some small victories here and there, we keep them here fighting. Look what happened in Virginia. Look what’s happening in Colorado. They are attacking states they would not have attacked under normal circumstances because they have the capabilities to do so. So, all of us states that are experiencing serious problems, we continue to fight not only to help ourselves, but to help others across the country.”
Indeed, Wallace said that with this gun-control legislation, the state government “went after everyone, from amateur reenactments of historical events to the highest levels. Almost everything, they pursued it. So, it will take a long time, and of course, we hope that, next year, the Supreme Court will issue a definitive ruling against them in the assault weapons case. But will [elected officials in Massachusetts] comply? They did not comply with the Bruen decision, and that is why we continue what we are doing. It is an ongoing struggle.”
More specifically, this Massachusetts’ law being challenged as Question 9, made over 100 pages of changes to state law after Gov. Healey signed it. It included expanded Extreme Risk Protection Orders (commonly called “red flag” orders) and so-called “ghost guns” provisions. The law even changed definitions, such as “machine gun” and “suppressor,” in order to ban more things. The law changed licensing requirements and fees to make it more onerous to own, for example, a semi-automatic shotgun for home-defense or duck hunting. It required citizens to be at least 21 years old to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun. The law expanded the definition of “assault weapons” and prohibited the carrying of firearms in many more places.
This law is “so complex and multifaceted, even the state is unable to explain it; as a result, we are doing our utmost to educate our members, supporters, and other gun owners across the state, in a desperate attempt to protect them from incarceration,” said Wallace.
In this podcast, Wallace also details riveting stories of citizens who have been unwittingly dragged into the legal system because of this complex law; indeed, in some examples, state officials misunderstood or misapplied the complex law.
