AMHERST — In 2024, Gov. Maura Healey signed a sweeping overhaul of the state’s gun laws. On Nov. 3, voters will decide whether to keep it.
The law, Chapter 135, restricted untraceable “ghost guns,” changed licensing and training requirements and expanded access to extreme risk protection orders, which allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.
The measure appears on the ballot as Question 9. A “yes” vote would uphold the law, while a “no” vote would repeal it.
Supporters and opponents have spent the fall making their case, and the debate keeps returning to one central question: Would stricter rules prevent firearms from being used to cause harm, or would they mainly burden people who already follow the law? That question dominated several forums this past week, including one at the Amherst Police Department and another at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Advocates on both sides support public safety but sharply disagree over whether the law advances that goal.
Suicide, domestic violence and school shootings have been at the center of that disagreement, with each side arguing over whether tighter regulations can prevent deaths involving legally owned guns.
Opponents of the law, who are urging a “no” vote, say Massachusetts already has numerous safeguards to keep guns out of the wrong hands, including background checks and other requirements that can stretch the legal purchase process to months.
They also argue the law is unnecessary because Massachusetts has the second-lowest rate of gun deaths in the country, after Hawaii, and say it pushes the state further into unconstitutional territory by restricting the right to keep and bear arms.
Supporters, who are urging a “yes” vote, say the legislation is a needed step toward curbing gun violence.
Megan DesAutels, a campaign coordinator for the Yes on 9 campaign who works with young people, said access to firearms can heighten the danger during periods of acute distress, particularly in domestic violence situations.
“This is about keeping people safe,” she said.
Many UMass students interviewed after the campus debate sided with the yes-vote position.
Student Samantha Heine questioned whether access to guns could help women experiencing domestic violence defend themselves. Regardless, she supports Chapter 135 because, she said, the majority of gun violence is perpetrated by men.
Another student, Zarrar Raja, said he sees merit in arguments on both sides but ultimately supports the law. He said he understands why some people feel their constitutional rights are being stripped away, but that gun ownership is different from rights such as freedom of speech or the right to vote.
“I understand where people come from when they say they’re infringing upon a right to bear arms, but I feel like it’s different from a lot of the other rights that we have as Americans,” he said. “You can’t use a gun for anything else. You can make the argument that you’re just going to keep it on your wall and collect it, but at the end of the day, it was invented to kill people.”
Toby Leary, chair of the Civil Rights Coalition, which led the effort to put the question on the ballot, said Chapter 135 places excessive restrictions on legal gun owners while doing little to address violent crime. He urged voters to protect their constitutional rights by voting no.
“We the people are the true fountain of power, not government,” Leary said, invoking the writings of James Madison during the debate at UMass.
At the Police Department forum, gun trainer Brendan Salisbury, who has a legal background, described the law as “putting a hat on a hat” and defended voting “no” during the forum.
Salisbury said the law is unnecessary given the state’s already low rate of gun deaths. Describing himself as a gay man and a leftist, he said access to firearms is an important means of self-defense in the current political climate.
Whately gun owner Rich Korpieski, who attended the UMass debate, said extensive safeguards already keep guns away from people with dangerous intentions. He said the new law is so convoluted that people trying to comply with it have trouble understanding it.
“What was a right is now a privilege,” he said.
Whether the law makes Massachusetts safer or simply harder for law-abiding gun owners is now a question for voters, who will decide its fate Nov. 3.
The forum at the Amherst Police Department was put on by Amherst Democrats. The UMass forum was put on by the college’s College of Social and Behavioral Sciences’ (SBS) Democracy Project, in partnership with Worcester State University and Salem State University.
