BOSTON — Following the recent enactment of a comprehensive firearms bill by Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, gun rights activists have swiftly initiated a federal lawsuit, labeling the legislation as an “historic attack on our civil rights.”
Activists are also mobilizing efforts to place a repeal question on the 2026 ballot, targeting the law that intensifies the state’s already stringent gun regulations. This legislative action was partially motivated by the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which affirmed individuals’ right to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
The new measure addresses issues such as “ghost guns,” banning possession of bump stocks and trigger cranks, mandating live-fire training for gun license applicants, updating definitions related to assault-style weapons, and establishing an advisory board to maintain an ongoing list of prohibited firearms.
Additionally, it enhances the state’s “red flag” law, allowing police, healthcare, and school professionals to petition courts if they believe someone poses a risk while having access to firearms, potentially resulting in temporary confiscation of weapons.
To halt the law’s implementation until a possible 2026 referendum, proponents need to gather at least 49,716 signatures from registered voters, a move also aimed at ensuring the question appears on the ballot. Healey has the authority to counter any temporary suspension of the law through an “emergency preamble” that would facilitate immediate enforcement.
The federal lawsuit argues that the new law is unconstitutional, claiming it imposes excessive bans, magazine restrictions, registration mandates, and licensing preconditions that are both burdensome and inconsistent with historical legal precedents.
Gun advocates are seeking a temporary restraining order to prevent the state from enforcing these licensing regimes, which they consider overly restrictive for individuals aiming to possess and carry firearms for self-defense.
The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League has opted to pursue federal legal avenues, stating that there is little chance for fairness within the Massachusetts judicial system. They foresee this lawsuit as a broader effort to challenge various aspects of the law gradually.
Supporters of the legislation, including Democratic state Representative Michael Day, express confidence that it can withstand judicial scrutiny and anticipate public backing if brought to a vote in 2026. “We’re trying to save lives,” he stated, emphasizing the public’s desire for safety in Massachusetts communities.
Legal experts argue that the increased licensing requirements do not impede gun ownership nor infringe upon Second Amendment rights. They assert that similar training mandates have been upheld in courts previously.
The Massachusetts law delineates clear restrictions for firearm possession in sensitive areas such as schools and government buildings, while also mandating that license applicants demonstrate knowledge of safety principles and disclose relevant mental health information to local authorities.
Prosecutors will gain the ability to bring charges against individuals who discharge firearms near residences, addressing concerns about access to guns for individuals under restraining orders.
Furthermore, the legislation expands the definition of “assault weapons” to include various similar firearms and prohibits the possession, transfer, or sale of such weapons or large-capacity magazines. It also restricts issuing licenses for machine guns except for certified firearms instructors and bona fide collectors, while criminalizing the possession of components designed to enhance weapon lethality, including bump stocks and rapid-fire trigger devices.
This summer, the Supreme Court annulled a federal prohibition on bump stocks, highlighting ongoing national debates surrounding firearm regulations.
