Voters in Massachusetts will have the opportunity to repeal the state's latest gun control laws at the ballot box this November, and a recent comment by the head of the campaign to keep them in place is one of the most succinct arguments in favor of repeal that I've seen.
Massachusetts lawmakers overhauled the state's entire framework of gun laws when they adopted Chapter 135 with almost no public debate, and most of those changes weren't for the better. There are new restrictions on applying for a License to Carry and the firearms that can be lawfully possessed in Massachusetts, expansions of the state's "red flag" laws, and a host of other provisions that are so confusing some prosecutors are charging people with committing crimes that don't even exist.
The Civil Rights Coalition, which is behind the No On 9 campaign to repeal Chapter 135, has been doing amazing work in educating residents about the need to repeal the laws, which would simply restore Massachusetts gun laws to what they were before Chapter 135 was put in place. But Ruth Zakarin, whose heading up the Yes On 9 campaign to keep these new laws in place, may actually have provided the best argument in favor of repeal that I've heard.
Zakarin emphasized that the 2024 law adds guardrails while preserving a legal pathway to gun ownership. Even if some parts of the law are flawed, the remedy is to amend it rather than overturn it, she said.
“There’s no one policy that solves gun violence. It’s when we put together a whole host of policies, as well as invest more in community-based solutions — that’s how we move the needle on gun violence,” she said.
There is no "legal pathway to gun ownership." As U.S. citizens, we start with the right to keep and bear arms. We can lose those rights under some circumstances, but the default for adults is that we can purchase, possess, and carry firearms for lawful purposes.
In Massachusetts, though, the default is that you are prohibited from possessing a firearm. There is literally no way to legally keep a gun in your home, much less carry one in public, without first obtaining permission from a licensing authority.
A License to Carry is required for anyone who wants to keep a handgun or semi-automatic long gun in their residence, and as we discussed on today's Bearing Arms Cam & Company with Massachusetts gun lawyer William S. Smith, police chiefs have broad discretion to deny permit applications based on their own subjective belief that an applicant is "unsuitable." Firearms not covered under a LTC still require the issuance of a Firearms ID card, and those too come with a "suitability" requirement, though in those cases it's a judge who gets to make the final subjective decision after a police chief decides someone's unsuitable to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
It doesn't take a conviction to disqualify you. Smith detailed one case he handled where a man was denied his LTC because the chief thought he was too stressed, and because he gave his neighbor the finger during a verbal argument. No arrest, no allegation of violence, and no License to Carry either.
This is the "pathway" gun control activists like Ruth Zakarin want to keep in place. Sadly, even if Chapter 135 is repealed, the state's gun laws will only become less awful, and will still fall far short of actually treating the right to keep and bear arms as a right.
Still, you have to start somewhere, and voting No On 9 is a great place to begin clawing back our Second Amendment freedoms in what was once known as the cradle of liberty. If you don't live in Massachusetts but still want to help out your fellow gun owners living under oppression, you can donate to The Civil Rights Coalition here. Repealing Chapter 135 is an uphill battle, but if Second Amendment supporters are successful it would be a political shot heard 'round the world... or at least around the country.
