Question 9: Firearms Regulation

Massachusetts · Referendum on an Existing Law · on the November 3, 2026 ballot. The ballot wording and the arguments for and against from the state’s official voter guide, in the state’s own words, each read the same way for rhetorical techniques. We don’t recommend a vote.

On the ballot

no rhetorical technique found

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?

This law makes a number of changes to Massachusetts laws governing firearms.

The law adds school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order – requiring an individual to surrender or relinquish their firearm licenses, permits, and firearms - if an individual is a present danger to self or others. The law also provides that, when issuing an Harassment Prevention Order, a court may also order the surrender of firearms licenses, permits, and firearms.

The law imposes penalties for possessing, creating, and transferring untraceable “ghost gun” firearms and requires all firearms except antiques and relics, including unfinished frames and receivers that can be readily made into a finished product, to have serial numbers. The law includes privately-made guns like 3D-printed guns within the provisions governing untraceable “ghost gun” firearms.

The law changes firearms licensing requirements to: (1) allow local licensing authorities to request prior license and permit information from the state, as well as access petitions for involuntary mental health commitments denied by a court in addition to prior involuntary commitments, as a part of their review of applications for licenses to carry firearms, firearm ID cards, and licenses to sell firearms; (2) require an individual to be 21 years of age to own semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; (3) add the possibility of incarceration of up to six months for a second offense of failing to report a firearm loss or theft; and (4) enable 12-15 year olds to apply for a self-defense spray permit with parental permission, and 15 to 18 year olds to apply independently.

The law allows local firearm licensing authorities to transfer the responsibility to inspect firearm dealers to the State Police. The law requires local licensing authorities to attend statewide training regarding those inspections. It requires dealers to confiscate expired or suspended licenses and report them to the state and to local licensing authorities.

The law changes the definition of “machine gun” to include bump stocks, trigger cranks, Glock switches and auto sears among the devices whose possession and use are subject to penalties. It expands the definition of “silencer” to include the parts used to construct a silencer.

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.

The law requires the state Firearm Control Advisory Board and the state Secretary of Public Safety and Security to review and update the rosters of prohibited assault-style firearms, approved firearms, and approved firearms sold for target shooting.

The law clarifies requirements relating to the carry and transport of firearms in motor vehicles and ATVs. It prohibits the carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and schools, with certain exceptions.

The law expands data compilation and reporting requirements to and from the state, and creates a publicly-accessible dashboard of anonymized aggregate firearm data, along with a commission to study that data.

The law requires the State Police to provide training and a test for new applicants for licenses to carry or Firearm ID cards.

The law establishes two special legislative commissions – one to examine funding for violence prevention services, and one to study emerging firearms technology.

The law criminalizes discharging a firearm and striking a building in use.

A YES VOTE would keep in place the law, which increases the regulation of firearms, including ghost guns, machine guns, and assault-style weapons.

A NO VOTE would repeal this law.

From sec.state.ma.us. Checked 2026-10-20. Confirm with your official ballot (sample-ballot lookup).

Argument for

By Ned Notis-McConarty, Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts

Exaggeration/HyperboleAppeal to Fear

A YES vote will keep in place Massachusetts' lifesaving 2024 gun safety law. 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; and more.

Thanks to our comprehensive approach to gun violence prevention, Massachusetts has a gun death rate 70% lower than the national average. Critical elements of the 2024 law are actively being implemented; they are already helping keep our communities safe.

To continue driving the rate of gun violence even lower, we must maintain the strong policies included in this existing law. 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.

Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “eradicating gun violence” — Claims the law allows 'eradicating' gun violence, an absolute overstatement of what a policy can achieve.

Appeal to Fear · “Repealing it would make everyone in Massachusetts less safe” — Suggests that repeal would endanger everyone in the state, using a safety threat to push a vote.

From sec.state.ma.us, the official voter guide.

Argument against

By Toby Leary, The Civil Rights Coalition

Loaded LanguageCard StackingBlack-and-White FallacyGlittering Generalities

A No vote on Question 9 repeals an unnecessary reinvention of state firearms law. Before the new law, the state already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Chapter 135 isn't about public safety—it is a deeply flawed, 116-page piece of bureaucratic overreach that wastes valuable tax dollars and burdens local communities.

Loaded Language · “unnecessary reinvention of state firearms law”, “deeply flawed”, “bureaucratic overreach”, “wastes valuable tax dollars” — Describes the law as an 'unnecessary reinvention' to frame it negatively without substantiation.

Card Stacking · “the state already had some of the strictest gun laws in the country” — Presents only the point that existing laws were already strict to argue the new law is unneeded, omitting any counterarguments.

Passed without proper planning, the law mandates an expensive, real-time electronic tracking system that the state hasn't funded and doesn't know how to build. It also forces local police departments to enforce a confusing patchwork of vague rules, pulling officers away from investigating violent crime to plow through piles of administrative paperwork.

State agencies have struggled to explain the law, issuing dozens of clarifications for rules that treat harmless historical re-enactors and antique hobbyists like criminals. Vote no on Question 9. Demand common-sense, transparent legislation focused on violent criminals, not limiting citizens' civil rights.

Loaded Language · “harmless historical re-enactors and antique hobbyists like criminals” — Emotionally charged framing portrays the law as criminalizing 'harmless' hobbyists, to provoke a reaction.

Card Stacking · “State agencies have struggled to explain the law, issuing dozens of clarifications” — Presents only the law's confusing and overreaching aspects, omitting any justification or counterarguments.

Black-and-White Fallacy · “focused on violent criminals, not limiting citizens' civil rights” — Frames the choice as legislation targeting violent criminals versus limiting civil rights, ignoring other options.

Glittering Generalities · “common-sense, transparent legislation” — Uses vague positive terms like 'common-sense' and 'transparent' and 'civil rights' without specifics.

From sec.state.ma.us, the official voter guide.

Who’s behind it

Party positions: Massachusetts Democratic Party: No position published · Massachusetts Republican Party: No

Committees registered to support or oppose Question 9, and what they reported to Massachusetts Office of Campaign and Political Finance (OCPF) - ocpf.us / api.ocpf.us. Checked 2026-10-21.

Before comparing the sides: each committee’s figures come from its own latest report, so they can cover different dates. Some committees work on more than one measure or other campaigns, and their totals include all of it. A side with no registered committee can still have supporters. How much a side raised says nothing about whether the measure is a good idea.

Supporting

Yes for A Safe Massachusetts

Ballot measure committee

Raised $900,155 · spent $547,579 · as reported through Oct 15, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

  • Massachusetts Teachers Association · $500,237
    Labor union
  • Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund · $94,561
    501(c)(4) nonprofit · federal PAC contributions, 2025–26: $32,319 to Democratic and $0 to Republican candidates and party committees (FEC)
  • Alliance For Gun Responsibility · $50,000
    501(c)(4) nonprofit
  • Travis, Nigel · $35,000 · individual
  • Malloy, Molly · $25,000 · individual

Democratic Socialists For a Fair Massachusetts

Ballot measure committee

Raised $5,705 · spent $31 · as reported through Oct 15, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

  • Democratic Socialists of America, Inc · $5,000
    501(c)(4) nonprofit
  • Massachusetts Democratic Socialists of America, Inc · $655
    501(c)(4) nonprofit
  • Del Bonis, James · $50 · individual

This committee is registered for more than one measure; these are its whole totals, which its filings don’t divide by measure.

Opposing

The Civil Rights Coalition

Ballot measure committee

Raised $593,468 · spent $457,544 · as reported through Oct 15, 2026

Largest contributors as filed:

  • Freudberg, Jeffrey · $68,864 · individual
  • Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc · $50,000
    Company · federal PAC contributions, 2025–26: $0 to Democratic and $8,000 to Republican candidates and party committees (FEC)
  • Gun Owners Action League · $22,776
    501(c)(4) nonprofit
  • EcoGeek, Inc. · $22,425
    Company
  • Old Colony Sportsmen's Assoc. Inc. · $22,009
    Other

A rhetorical technique is about wording, not about whether a measure is a good idea or an argument is true. Ballot wording is written under each state’s own rules, and official arguments by the people the state names. All Massachusetts measures →

Get notified about new features. Occasional email, no spam.

Semblen LLC · 5900 Balcones Drive STE 100, Austin, TX 78731 · unsubscribe any time