Massachusetts voters will have the opportunity this Election Day to roll back the state's gun control laws to the slightly less awful version that existed before a sweeping anti-gun measure was adopted in 2024. A "No" victory on Question 9 would repeal Chapter 135's numerous additions to the restrictive gun control regime that was already in place prior to passage, and the Democrat establishment in the state has been hard at work to prevent that from happening.
The state's largest teachers union has spent more than half a million dollars on the "Yes On 9" campaign, Gov. Maura Healey has actively campaigned against repeal, and now Democrat Rep. Jake Auchincloss is actively campaigning to keep the gun laws in place too.
There's just one problem with the ad that Auchincloss cut in support of the "Yes On 9" campaign: it's blatantly wrong.
As a Marine and dad, I’m voting Yes on 9 to keep assault weapons off our streets. https://t.co/eckH0z3Ids
— Jake Auchincloss (@JakeAuch) October 23, 2026
As the X community note points out, 18 USC Section 922 makes it illegal to have a firearm, including a stripped lower, from being shipped to your house. "What he has shown, is already a federal felony and has been for nearly 60 years."
There's another basic problem with Auchincloss's claim. Even if Chapter 135 is repealed, the state's ban on so-called assault weapons will remain in place. While Chapter 135 expanded the ban to include a broader definition of prohibited "assault-style firearms", including additional semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols, the state has banned so-called assault weapons since 1998.
Anti-Second Amendment politicians in Massachusetts are doing their utmost to confuse voters about what repealing Chapter 135 would and would not do, and Auchincloss's ad is just the latest example of their deception.
Chapter 135 does nothing to crack down on the illegal use of firearms. Instead, it imposes a host of new restrictions on peaceable gun owners, from expanding the state's ban on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms to imposing new licensing and training mandates and restrictions on where lawful gun owners can carry for self-defense.
Those are the provisions that would be repealed if voters reject Chapter 135 next week. The gun control regime that existed before Chapter 135 was adopted would remain in place, including the preexisting ban on so-called assault weapons.
Auchincloss should know this. I suspect that he does know this, to be honest. But telling the truth about what repealing Chapter 135 would and wouldn't do isn't helpful to the "Yes On 9" campaign.
Supporters of Chapter 135 have had more than two years to make their case that its restrictions are necessary, effective, and constitutional. If those arguments are so compelling, why resort to misleading claims about firearms being shipped directly to people's homes or pretend that repealing the law would eliminate a ban that's been on the books for decades?
Massachusetts voters deserve an honest debate about their rights, not a campaign built on fear and misinformation. That's what they're getting from the "No On 9" campaign spearheaded by The Civil Rights Coalition, but too many of their elected officials have decided to rely on deception and fiction instead of the real facts.