Public Comment

Massachusetts Question 9 is a referendum on the state’s 2024 “Act Modernizing Firearm Laws.” The law expanded rules involving firearm registration and serialization, privately made and untraceable firearms, assault-style firearms, licensing and safety training, and related enforcement provisions. State officials also described the law as strengthening the red-flag framework and addressing ghost guns and 3-D-printed guns. Because the referendum can reverse a large package rather than one isolated provision, voters face the broader question of whether the law’s safety gains justify its cumulative burdens on lawful gun owners. Serialization and background rules can help investigations, but a large firearms bill can also impose requirements on people who have committed no crime. The useful choice is not “guns versus safety,” but which provisions produce enough safety value to justify their burden.

Should Massachusetts keep, narrow, or repeal its 2024 firearms-law overhaul?

Overall results

1
67% support · excluded by 2%
7

Keeping targeted tools against untraceable guns and demonstrably dangerous individuals preserves some safety gains without defending every provision.

7

Serialization of newly made firearms can be separated from broader restrictions on commonly owned firearms and licensing procedures.

2
58% support · excluded by 5%
7

Registration and serialization can improve traceability if databases are accurate, secure, and designed not to create needless compliance traps.

7

Red-flag and licensing systems need timely hearings and meaningful procedural protections because firearm possession implicates constitutional rights.

3
40% support · excluded by 7%
4
35% support · excluded by 12%
7

A sweeping law affecting licensing, ownership, equipment, and registration should not survive if lawful gun owners face substantial burdens with uncertain safety benefits.

About the author