Opponents of the new gun law in Massachusetts are deep into their campaign to get it repealed, but they have a lot of work ahead.
The legislation, passed this year, would limit untraceable guns known as "ghost guns," expand the state's red flag law to keep firearms out of the hands of people who may be a danger to themselves or others, and make it clear that guns are prohibited in some public spaces.
Opponents have said they believe this is unconstitutional and they filed a lawsuit. They also want to get this measure on the ballot — not this election season, but in two years, in 2026 — to try to repeal it.
State House News Service reporter Chris Lisinski has an update on that effort.
Chris Lisinski, SHNS: The way that the calendar shook out, it seems like it probably would have been too difficult to meet the constitutional deadlines to have voters decide in 2024 if they agree with this law. So, organizers are working with a 2026 target in mind. To do that, they need to get about 37,000 signatures to put the question on the ballot: "Should this law stand?" And if they can get to a higher threshold of nearly 50,000 signatures, they could also pause this law from taking effect until voters have a chance. It would effectively suspend it for those two years until it goes on the ballot.
There is a way around that. Gov. Maura Healey can effectively issue an emergency declaration that would let the law take effect, regardless of whether opponents get enough signatures to suspend it. But that is all still a little bit unclear. There's some two-plus weeks left for the rest of the signatures to be gathered are.
Adam Frenier, NEPM: Are supporters of this repeal effort confident they can get those signatures? And are they paying people to collect them as we've seen in some other ballot question campaigns in recent years?
So far, they say they're just using volunteers and feel pretty confident that they can get the rest of the way using volunteers. When they spoke to reporters last week, they said they were a little bit less than halfway there using people only donating their time, but that they're open minded to using paid signature gatherers and or at least looking at that as a possibility.
And Chris, what are supporters of this law saying about the effort to repeal it?
Obviously, they're frustrated by the effort to repeal it, and they think that it's going to fail, even if this question does get on the ballot. Supporters expect that most voters are going to look at the measure itself and say, "Well, yes, we have strong gun laws in Massachusetts and we want them to be even stronger."
Let's shift gears to this coming election season. There are five ballot questions facing voters in November, some of which we know are opposed by either the governor, like the MCAS question or legislative leaders like the audit question. We've seen this happen before. How likely is it that voters pass one of these ballot questions, or maybe both of them, and lawmakers actually vote to change it or maybe scrap it?
It is certainly a possibility. I'd be surprised if lawmakers vote to outright scrap any law that voters want to put in place. That would be kicking a hornet's nest, so to speak. But, like you mentioned, we've seen it happen before where they come in after the fact and tweak or even significantly change the law as drafted at the ballot box.
The one that jumps to mind was the recreational cannabis legalization. That went through a pretty hefty rewrite on Beacon Hill. And that's something that we can always keep an eye out for.
Obviously, the question about auditing the legislature is one about transparency. If the Legislature decides to scrap it, or perhaps really modify it to the point where it doesn't do a whole lot, does that say something about the legislators and their view on all this? And does that maybe give the opposite opinion about transparency?
Yeah, it would certainly add fuel to the ongoing fire about how transparent the legislature is if they came in in a lame duck session and tried to undo an ostensibly transparency-motivated effort.
Keep in mind, from the outside, there are legitimate constitutional questions at play here. Remember that Attorney General Andrea Campbell declined to support a lawsuit from the auditor's office, effectively trying to gain the power to audit the Legislature without going to the ballot box.
Finally, Chris, there was a gathering on Beacon Hill last week of the lawmakers looking to negotiate a compromise on a substance use bill. A sticking point between House and Senate versions of this bill is over what are known as safe injection sites, where users can take otherwise illegal drugs while monitored by medical personnel. Chris, do you think a deal could emerge here, and, if so, how long will it take? Obviously, the session is coming up to an end here at the end of the year.
You're asking really good questions. And unfortunately, those are exactly the kinds of questions to which there is not an easy or an obvious answer. Lawmakers want to get a deal on this. Both branches approved underlying legislation and they're hoping to find some path forward. But this could be a tricky one, given how divided the Democrats in the House and the Democrats in the Senate are over those overdose prevention centers.
There's no real clear timeline. This could happen next week. It could happen the last week of December or anywhere in between.
