The Battle of Firearms…Again
Last summer, Democrats on Beacon Hill passed a sweeping gun bill. Now, there’s a veto referendum to be had on the 2026 ballot for voters to decide the continuance or discontinuance of the measure. A “yes” vote would uphold the law as is. A “no” vote would completely repeal the law, relaxing gun ownership measures.
The gun reform law comprehensively reformed firearm regulations in the Commonwealth and introduced extensive new requirements for firearm ownership, sale, and management. Democrats redesigned the licensing system, creating different categories of firearms access based on age and qualifications. Massachusetts residents who are 18 and older can obtain a firearm ID card for rifles and shotguns, while those 21 and older can obtain a license to carry semi-automatic weapons. The updated system explicitly defines categories of individuals prohibited from obtaining licenses too, like those with criminal records, specific mental health and substance abuse histories. The law requires stricter registration processes, including an electronic tracking system and safety training for license applicants.
Additionally, the gun law restricts firearm possession in sensitive public spaces like government buildings, schools, and polling locations. It expanded the existing assault weapons ban defining them as “assault-style weapons” and requires registration of privately manufactured firearms (aka Ghost Guns) with a unique serial number.
Following the new-found-fear of unregulated ghost guns, the law requires specialized commissions to study emerging firearm technologies, develop violence prevention funding strategies, and improve firearm data collection and distribution.
The extreme risk protection order procedures (or as they are more colloquially referred to, red flag laws) were also overhauled, allowing courts more flexibility to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a potential threat to themselves or others.
Public Response:
The reactions from the general public to the legislation and final bill were widely varied and intense. Supporters emphasize the increased safety and regulation of these potentially very dangerous firearms, while opponents staunchly believe it violates the basic tenets of the Second Amendment.
Opponents
There has been widespread and fervent support for the veto measure throughout the Commonwealth from a combination of both individuals and civic organizations. For example, Toby Leary, the Chairman of The Civil Rights Coalition has argued its lack of constitutionality. Leary and the Coalition were also the main organizers of the veto referendum process, following the administrative process and collecting over 90,000 signatures to place the veto measure on the 2026 ballot. Besides the organizers of the ballot referendum, Jim Wallace acting as Executive Director of Gun Owners’ Action League has also pledged his support for the veto. GOAL’s press releases and statements on the issue have been severe. For example, the League has referred to the bill as “the worst attack on civil rights in modern U.S. history.”
In addition, there have already been legal challenges against this law in the form of two lawsuits, with more predicted to be filed. These lawsuits claim that parts of the original reform bill contradicts the constitution, and that it should not be enforced. The first lawsuit was filed by Gun Owners Action League, and it pushed lawmakers to delay a new license requirement from going into effect after it caused confusion. The more recent lawsuit was filed by the owner of Mass Armament, a gun shop in Bellingham, Mass. It claimed that the law’s rules on assault-style firearms violated the Second Amendment.
Supporters
There are still many public officials and organizations who support the passage of the law and hope to see it remain on the books. Some of these supporters include Governor Maura Healey and gun control organizations, like the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. Supporters of the original reforms will likely emphasize the safety and security provided by the changes and will focus on the need to create regulation structures for the newly changing technology.
The Referendum Process in Massachusetts
The referendum process in Massachusetts was established in 1918 when voters approved a constitutional amendment that created the current initiative and process. Since its inception, there have been 22 veto referendums on various MA statewide elections, wherein 12 bills were upheld and 10 bills were repealed.
In Massachusetts, the process for qualifying a veto referendum for the ballot is based on a signature requirement tied to the most recent gubernatorial election. To get a referendum on the ballot, petitioners need to gather signatures equal to 1.5% of the total votes cast for governor in the last election. However, if petitioners want to not only qualify the referendum but also suspend the targeted law before the election, they must collect signatures equal to 2% of those votes.
There are some important rules regarding these signatures. For example, no more than 25% of the certified signatures can come from any one county. Also, the petition must be submitted within 30 days after the governor signs the law or it is enacted.
For the 2026 ballot, here's what petitioners would need:
Without suspending the law: 37,287 valid signatures
With suspending the law: 49,716 valid signatures
Petitioners have reached the 1.5% signature threshold, so the law will go to voters for approval or rejection at the next general election. If the 2% threshold is met, the law is suspended until that election, at which point voters will decide its fate.
The Firearm Regulations Referendum In Depth
The 2026 Massachusetts Firearm Regulations Referendum aims to repeal the 2024 comprehensive gun law. As mentioned above, the repeal effort is led by Toby Leary, who argues the law infringes on civil rights. The veto referendum is also the first in Massachusetts related to firearms. In order to fund the repeal effort, the campaign has raised about $100,000, with gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson being a significant donor.
The referendum seeks to repeal several key provisions and by doing so is advocating for the following changes:
Lifting restrictions on ghost guns and decriminalizing the possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks.
Eliminating the mandatory live-fire training requirement for gun license applicants.
Rolling back the expansion of the state's red flag law, which allows officials like police, healthcare providers, and school authorities to alert courts about individuals who may pose a danger with firearms.
Allowing non-law enforcement individuals to carry firearms in schools, polling places, and government buildings.
Revising the definition of "assault weapons" and lifting the ban on their possession, transfer, or sale.
Removing the new requirement for firearms to have serial numbers.
Taking away the extra powers granted to district attorneys to prosecute individuals who fire guns near homes.
Reversing changes to regulations on the sale of certain shotguns and rifles.
The referendum emphasizes that these measures infringe on civil rights and the Second Amendment. To push the issue to the 2026 ballot, supporters have gathered over 90,000 signatures. 78,707 of those signatures were verified, exceeding the requirement of 37,287. The referendum also received more signatures than are normally required to suspend the law; however, due to a last-minute emergency preamble added by Healey, the law in question will remain in effect until it is voted upon in 2026. In order to pass the referendum, voters will have to vote “no” to repeal the targeted legislation in 2026.