Ballot Question 9 to Test 2024 Landmark Gun Reform

As Massachusetts voters head to the polls on Nov. 3, they will have to decide the future of a landmark gun control reform passed by state lawmakers two years ago.

Ballot Question 9 asks voters whether the state should keep the 2024 bill — “An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws” — in place, and was brought to the ballot by gun rights advocates who claim the current law is confusing and places an unnecessary burden on legal gun owners.

Activists first sought to block the bill shortly after it was signed into law in July 2024, through a suspension order which would have punted its implementation until this year’s vote.

The Civil Rights Coalition, a gun rights group, gathered more than enough signatures to force the suspension. Still, Governor Maura T. Healey ’92 signed an emergency preamble to immediately enact the bill a week before the group submitted the signatures.

Now, two years later, the state’s sweeping gun control effort is before voters. Groups on both sides of the issue have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning: The Civil Rights Coalition has thrown nearly $350,000 this year behind a “no” vote on Question 9, while Yes for A Safe Massachusetts, the group leading the campaign to pass the ballot measure, has spent more than $510,000 supporting it.

What Would Question 9 Do?

Question 9 asks voters whether they would support the 2024 gun reform bill. A “yes” vote would keep the law, while a “no” vote would repeal it.

The 2024 bill added more restrictions on ghost guns — homemade, often 3D-printed weapons with no ability to be traced — by mandating that they be serialized and registered. It also expanded the state’s “Red Flag Law” for potential gun buyers, updated legislative language about assault weapons to further include certain types of guns, and criminalized the possession of parts that can make manual firearms into semi-automatic weapons, like Glock switches.

The law also prohibits the licensed carrying of firearms in government buildings, polling locations, and courts.

If Question 9 passes, those changes would stay in place.

Who Supports Question 9?

State Senator Cynthia S. Creem, who helped pass the 2024 gun reform, said in an interview that she did not “see any reason why we should not continue” with the bill.

“We did a lot of great things, and I see no reason to throw this,” Creem said.

The “yes” vote on the ballot question has garnered support from some of Massachusetts’ top political figures, and the movement to keep the state’s 2024 gun reform in place has raised more than double what the campaign to repeal it has.

Yes for A Safe Massachusetts, the group behind the “yes” campaign on Question 9, has raised nearly $770,000 this year — backed largely by a $500,000 cash injection from the Massachusetts Teachers Association over the summer. Matthew J. Bach, the president of the MTA, wrote in a statement that the group funded a “yes” vote because the 2024 bill provides “strong, common-sense gun laws.”

“Massachusetts has 70 percent fewer gun-related deaths each year compared to the national average,” Bach wrote. “Because of that, the MTA firmly believes the existing Massachusetts gun laws need to stay in place for the good of families, students and communities.”

Progressive groups across the state have also rallied behind a “yes” vote. Jonathan R. Cohn, policy director of Progressive Massachusetts, said repealing the 2024 law would do “real damage” to progress the state has made on gun safety.

“We have strong laws that keep communities safe, and that’s something that we should prioritize,” he said.

Early polling has indicated the campaign to keep the 2024 gun reform in place faces wide support across Massachusetts. A UMass Amherst/WCVB poll last week found that 70 percent of voters were likely to support a “yes” vote on Question 9. A Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll showed similar results. The survey, released last week, indicated that 57 percent of respondents would vote “yes” on the ballot question.

Who Opposes Question 9?

Supporters of a “no” vote, who want to repeal the 2024 gun reform, say the law is ineffective at targeting criminals who possess firearms and creates an undue administrative burden on legal gun owners.

“By definition, criminals operate outside the legal system and will simply ignore bureaucratic mandates like registration, serialization, and mandatory live-fire safety exams,” Christopher Martel, president of statewide gun rights group Commonwealth Second Amendment, wrote in a statement.

“Consequently, the heavy penalties for technical compliance errors fall almost exclusively on legal gun owners making a good-faith effort to navigate a confusing statute,” he added.

The Civil Rights Coalition has spearheaded advertising efforts around the “no” vote, drawing support from national gun manufacturers, local gun stores and ranges, and a slew of individual donations. The group is also backed by Republican gubernatorial nominee Michael R. Minogue, who has blasted Healey’s handling of gun violence in the state. Minogue donated $5,000 to the Civil Rights Coalition in August, campaign finance records show, and the group has raised more than $312,000 this year.

Activists have also slammed Healey’s use of emergency powers to hasten implementation of the 2024 law after it passed. In a statement, Martel described the move as “legislative overreach.”

Martel acknowledged that polling has favored a “yes” vote, and wrote that supporters of the gun reform repeal understand that they may lose on election day.

“Regarding the stakes and the current atmosphere: we see the same public polls everyone else does, and frankly, we are realistic about the fact that the numbers do not favor us,” Martel wrote.

If the ballot question fails, Martel added that his group would fight the state’s recent gun reform in court.

“We will have to see how the final numbers shake out before deciding on our exact legal path forward, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that this law will face immediate, robust constitutional challenges under the Second Amendment,” Martel wrote.

—Staff writer Shawn A. Boehmer can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at shawnb.18. Follow him on X @ShawnBoehmer.

—Staff writer Claire A. Michal can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at ClaireMichal.154.