A lot of money is being spent to defend Massachusetts gun control laws from a grassroots effort to repeal the state's latest restrictions, and where the bulk of that money is coming from may surprise you.
A "yes" vote will keep the state's restrictive gun laws in place, while a "no" vote would repeal Chapter 135 and restore the slightly less onerous gun laws that were in place before the omnibus package of gun control measures were enshrined into law last year. Groups like Everytown for Gun Safety are definitely involved in defending Chapter 135, but it's actually public sector unions that have taken the lead in defeating Question 9 on this year's ballot.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association this summer gave $500,000 to Yes for a Safe Massachusetts, the campaign urging voters to keep a 2024 gun reform law on the books in the face of an attempted repeal. That makes the state’s largest teacher union by far the effort’s biggest financial backer, far outpacing contributions from groups like the Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund and the Alliance For Gun Responsibility.
By comparison, the MTA is spending just $30,000 in support of a ballot measure that would make most records held by the legislative branch and the governor's office subject to public records requests.
MTA delegates supported the spending at their annual meeting in May. The union “has consistently taken stances to support the safety of educators and students through gun controls,” it wrote in a summary of the votes.
It’s not the only educator group to back the tighter gun law. On Tuesday, the Boston Teachers Union endorsed keeping the gun measure on the books.
“Along with other frontline workers, educators and students are impacted by gun violence every day, whether that is navigating the trauma of violence in the community, participating in active shooter drills, or experiencing the fear created by school shootings elsewhere in the country,” Ruth Zakarin, chair of the Yes on 9 campaign, said in a statement.
Even with Chapter 135 in place, criminals, juveniles, and other prohibited persons don't seem to have much trouble getting ahold of guns. Back in May, a convicted felon shot at multiple cars on Memorial Drive in Cambridge before he was stopped by a Massachusetts state trooper and an armed citizen. In July, two 14-year-olds allegedly robbed a lemonade stand in North Boston at gunpoint.
If Chapter 135 was aimed at violent felons or other prohibited persons, I don't think there would even be a referendum to repeal it on the ballot this fall. The reason why Massachusetts gun owners fanned out across the state and were able to collect almost 100,000 signatures to repeal the measure is simple: the statutes in Chapter 135 are squarely aimed at restricting the rights of lawful citizens by imposing new requirements, mandates, restrictions, and outright prohibitions on various aspects of our right to keep and bear arms.
As The Civil Rights Coalition lays out on its website:
The law requires registration of all lawfully owned firearms, creating a centralized database of lawful gun owners in Massachusetts. This sets a dangerous precedent for the Government to be collecting this data and raises concerns about the privacy and security of firearm owners’ personal information.
The broadly expanded list of petitioners who may file for an ERPO now included individuals with no Medical or Mental Health Training. This has significant potential for abuse and misuse of the provision, with individuals using ERPOs for personal grievances or as tools of harassment.
Immediate confiscation of firearms without an initial hearing may infringe on due process rights, leaving individuals with limited recourse. Being subject to an ERPO can damage an individual’s reputation, even if the claims are later found to be unfounded.
The new training mandates have created a ton of confusion as well, with instructors having to develop their own curriculum and live-fire test before getting it approved by the state. The new live-fire portion of the License to Carry application process has caused headaches and heartburn for instructors and students alike, given the relatively few numberss of publicly accessible ranges in the state.
The new laws are so confusing that police and prosecutors are going after lawful gun owners for things that aren't even crimes, with an attitude of "let the judges figure it out."
Maybe none of this matters to the members of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, but it should. The abuses that have taken place under Chapter 135 are real, but the public safety benefits are illusory. I truly believe that if these educators did their homework, many of them would be shocked by what they're actually supporting.
Be that as it may, their money has been donated, and there's no clawing it back. With supporters of Chapter 135 calling it a model for the rest of the nation to follow, Second Amendment supporters inside and outside the state of Massachusetts have a vested interest in countering the spending by the teachers' union, the gun control outfits, and the few number of individuals who are trying to keep these ridiculous laws in place.
