We’ve reported recently how Massachusetts’ sweeping new anti-gun law, launched early by an emergency preamble attached to it by Gov. Maura Healey, is facing a lot of pushback from pro-freedom groups.
Not only have two lawsuits already been filed to challenge the law in court, but an initiative petition to get a question on the 2026 state ballot to repeal the law already has more than the 90,000 signatures needed to put the matter to the vote.
Just two weeks after the measure was signed into law the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) ponied up $100,000 to help fund the court challenge by the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL). Now, according to a report at masslive.com, others within the firearms industry are joining the efforts to repeal the law or have it declared unconstitutional in court.
According to the report, Toby Leary, chair of The Civil Rights Coalition’s ballot question committee, said the group had raised about $100,000 for its efforts. And, Leary said, the biggest donor was Smith & Wesson, which was formerly based in Springfield, Massachusetts, until the state’s anti-gun laws became so restrictive that the company packed up and moved its headquarters to more gun-friendly Tennessee.
The funding for lawsuits is much needed, given the expense of filing and following through with a court challenge. GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace told the news site that his group needs to raise about $2 million over the next few years to fund lawsuits challenging various aspects of the new law.
The new law adds a number of firearms to the commonwealth’s list of banned so-called “assault weapons,” which, of course, are just common semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Another provision raises the age to own a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun to 21 years of age. Yet another portion of the law makes the commonwealth’s “red-flag” statute even more onerous for gun owners and their right to due process, and also makes the state’s current ban on standard-capacity magazines even more restrictive.
In addition, the law instructs the Department of Criminal Justice to set up a real-time electronic firearms registration system and dictates that: “All firearm transactions within the commonwealth, including, but not limited to, all purchases, sales, rentals, leases, loans or other transfers shall be reported to the electronic firearms registration system.”
Other provisions within the law include expanding the definitions for modifications and parts that could convert a semi-auto into a full-auto firearm and banning them, prohibiting so-called “ghost guns,” and expanding the list of places where carrying a firearm is banned to include government buildings, polling places and schools. The law also requires standardized safety training for all firearm license applicants, including a live fire component.
It’s worth noting that the law is not only a problem for the state’s lawful gun owners, but it also has created hardship for firearm retailers.
“While I firmly believe that many of these provisions will be struck down in the courts, it will take a great deal of time, effort and cost to make this happen,“ Mike Meunier, co-owner of Pioneer Valley Arms in East Longmeadow, said in an email. ”In the meantime, we find ourselves stuck with this burdensome law that not only restricts the freedoms of our duly licensed citizens, but also heavily impacts the firearm trade in this state and jeopardizes the livelihood of many firearms retailers, manufacturers and gunsmiths.”
In addition to the lawsuits already announced, the National Rifle Association is also preparing a court challenge targeting the law.
Living with a stupid law while it’s being fought, at your expense, is kind of like executing a prisoner while he waits for appeal.
Congratulations your appeal has been granted! Ohh….
Too true. There is one case in California that has been stayed so many times, it seems as if the Ninth Circus is just waiting for the plaintiff to die of old age.
BAU. Nothing to see; move along.
This is what you get when you elect a white h.0m.0.se-x.u#l, a le.s’b.ia.n, to the governorship, or any position in the government.
Especially since they openly made anti Second Amendment statements, while they were running for office.
It’s Massachusetts. Why are you surprised?
It’s Massachusetts. Why are you surprised?
Remember “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote,” as the reason for reducing the voting age to 18 from 21? OK. Well enough — now it’s old enough to vote, old enough to fight, therefore old enough to keep and bear arms.