If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
www.bostonherald.com
Campaign to repeal Massachusetts gun law clears signature threshold for 2026 election By Chris Van Buskirk October 8, 2024 at 11:59 AM ET Massachusetts voters are in line to face a question during the 2026 election asking them to repeal a new gun law heralded by Beacon Hill Democrats after Second Amendment advocates reported collecting more than 90,000 signatures over the past month. The milestone achieved by a coalition of gun groups sets up a contentious campaign where opponents of the law are likely to argue the measure is an overreach of governmental powers and an infringement on Constitutional rights while supporters will contend it saves lives and creates safer communities. Toby Leary, owner of Cape Gun Works and head of The Civil Rights Coalition, said the campaign to repeal the law received “unwavering support from people of all walks of life.” “In the birthplace of liberty, Massachusetts voters are still passionate about defending their civil and Constitutional rights. It also shows how the State House is not listening to the people they are supposed to represent,” Leary said in a statement shared with the Herald ahead of a noon press conference. Opponents of the law have until Wednesday to submit signatures to local election officials to place a referendum on the ballot in 2026. The 90,078 signatures Leary and other Second Amendment groups collected is well over the 37,287 threshold needed to advance the question, though they still need to be certified by Secretary of State William Galvin’s Office. It also would have been enough to immediately suspend the law for the next two years if Gov. Maura Healey had not signed emergency language earlier this month that put the statute into effect immediately instead of later in October. In a letter sent to Secretary of State William Galvin more than two months after she originally signed the measure into law, Healey said “strong gun laws save lives.” “This law is the state’s most significant gun safety legislation in a decade. It will make Massachusetts safer as soon as it goes into effect, including by keeping assault-style weapons that are a danger to our communities off our streets, and by keeping guns out of government buildings and courts.” At an event last week, Healey said she decided to approve the emergency language months after she approved the bill because “this is when we were able to process it and look through it, review the legislation.” A spokesperson for Healey did not immediately respond to a Herald inquiry Tuesday morning. The statute that mostly took effect last week is expansive and already faces multiple legal challenges at the federal level from a local affiliate of the National Rifle Association and the owner of a gun shop in Bellingham. Its implementation also comes as Massachusetts continues to see fatal shootings, including one in Worcester last week in which I-90 was closed after an armed man killed a person at a home and then turned a gun on himself while on the highway. A man was also killed and three others injured after a Monday night shooting in Roxbury, according to police. It is incidents like those that make clear the need for additional reforms on top of an “already strong baseline of legislation to keep us safe from gun violence,” said Ruth Zakarin, the CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence. The law bans people under 21 from owning semiautomatic rifles or shotguns, outlaws untraceable firearms known as “ghost guns,” expands who can petition the court for an extreme risk protection order, bars carrying weapons in certain places, and sets up a group to study funding for community violence intervention programs. Lawmakers also worked in a range of new training and licensing requirements like the need for live fire training, though the Legislature took steps last month to delay some of their implementation dates after acknowledging drafting mistakes. Zakarin said if the law is repealed, officials will have a harder time keeping “more people safe from gun violence.” “It’s going to be a job to balance the Constitutional rights along with the right to safety. But we don’t feel that there’s anything in this that’s an overreach. We feel like this is a very reasonable and measured approach to really thinking about access to guns and the proliferation of guns in our communities,” Zakarin told the Herald Tuesday morning. But gun groups have said the law makes it harder for gun shop owners to stay in business, potentially incriminates everyday citizens who own firearms, and makes the licensing process unduly complicated. Leary said collecting enough signatures to advance a referendum on the statute is “just the beginning of a campaign that will empower Massachusetts voters to stand up for their rights.” “We will not rest until the civil rights of the people are respected and this law is overturned,” he said in his statement.Campaign to repeal Massachusetts gun law clears signature threshold for 2026 election
Massachusetts voters are in line to face a question during the 2026 election asking them to repeal a new gun law heralded by Beacon Hill Democrats after Second Amendment advocates reported collecti…
Too bad some will still vote D.
This. The morons who still worship the dead Kennedys will forever vote Dem, regardless of the outcome. The state is spending billions on illegals, but teh idiotic voters still vote in the same liars and thieves, year after year.
Maura and Ron Mariano must be soooo pissed.
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Maura and Ron Mariano must be soooo pissed.
The media will be reporting the "Ghost gun", "AW ban" and "Red flag". The majority of subjects don't care about due process since for a non-gun owner there is no "there but for the grace of dog go I" effect. Try passing a law allowing anyone to have another person's driving license suspended or revoked by denouncing them and the public will not stand for it.
You're right, they will. What gets me is that JFK was a lot closer to a moderate republican of today that he is to what the Dems are pushing. The Dems have moved so far to the left there is probably a huge number of voters that would shift Rep or Lib if they looked at what the modern Dems stand for. But they blindly vote for the party or the past.
FIFY
Oh, I think they are pretty pissed that we little people dared to rise up and challenge their dictatorship-like authority (and 2 year effort) to squash our rights. The fact that Maura had to go out and issue an Emergency Preamble 71 or so days after signing to further squash our rights and stop the suspension of her pet anti-2A law can't have made her too happy either. I think that anti-democratic move is going to come back and bite her in the ass at some point, but we'll have to wait and see.
This is my home. I'll fight and die here. Imagine if Ben and Tom and Georgie decided to jump to South America in 1775.
We like to think that, during the Revolutionary War, everyone in teh Colonies was for independence. Some were. An equal number were likely against. And a whole buncha people in the middle that really didn't care enough. Go watch Civil War on. . . . HBO, I think. It really hits home what a civil war (and that's technically what the Revolutionary War was) looks like for a population. Some for, some against, and the rest just trying to survive.
So with that, I respect your move. But I'm not moving. The taxes and population may eventually push me out. But the tyrrany? Nah, brah. I'm staying. And I'll continue to pour money into the fight as well.
FWIW - you former mash-oles - do us all a huge favor and send money. Guns, we have. Money, we need. TIA!
I would have been nervous holding all 90,000 signatures for fear that these tyrants would have sent someone to burn down my house…..they’ll stop at nothing.Maura and Ron Mariano must be soooo pissed.
