Massachusetts Question 9: The Ballot Wording Isn't Just Biased — It's Misleading
Massachusetts is about to hand voters a ballot question written to make you vote against your own gun rights — and the wording isn't just “biased.” It's a lie. Here's the receipt.
What you'll actually see on the ballot
Here's the summary language voters are being handed for the H.4885 repeal question:
The trick: they list old law as if it's new
Read how it's framed. A “yes” vote “upholds” H.4885, “which enacted several changes” — and then it rattles off a list of scary-sounding bullet points. The clear implication? Vote “no,” and poof — people can buy guns with no license, own “assault weapons,” and there's no system tracking firearms at all.
There's one problem with that. Almost everything on that list was already Massachusetts law long before H.4885 ever existed.
Line by line — what was ALREADY law
“Requiring safety certificates to obtain firearm permits” — Already law. You've needed an FID or LTC to buy a firearm in MA for decades (M.G.L. Ch. 140 §129C), and a state-approved safety course has long been a prerequisite.
“Prohibiting assault-style firearms” — Already law. Massachusetts has banned “assault weapons” since 1994 (Ch. 140 §121), mirroring the expired federal ban. This is not new.
“Mandating serial numbers for firearms” — Already law. Federal law has required serial numbers on manufactured firearms since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Defacing one was already a crime.
“Developing an electronic registration system to track firearm ownership” — Already existed. MA already recorded every transfer through the state (EOPSS) and ran real-time buyer checks through the CJIS web portal (Ch. 140 §128A).
“Allowing courts to issue Extreme Risk Protection Orders” — Already law. MA passed its red-flag / ERPO law in 2018 (Ch. 140 §131R). H.4885 only widened who can file one.
Five of the six bullet points describe things that were already on the books. The summary presents settled, years-old law as if it's what H.4885 created — so a “no” vote sounds like it would erase gun licensing itself. It wouldn't. It would repeal H.4885. That's it.
What they conveniently left OUT
Here's the other half of the con: the summary doesn't mention a single one of the actual changes H.4885 made. The real, new burdens — the expanded definitions, the new registration and licensing hurdles, the fresh restrictions on law-abiding owners — none of that is in the bullet points. They dressed the bill up in decades of pre-existing law it didn't write, and hid the parts that would actually make you think twice.
That's not framing. That's not spin. When you present old law as new to scare a “yes” vote, and bury the real changes, that's a lie by construction.
The bottom line
You deserve a ballot question that tells you the truth about what you're voting on — not one engineered to make repealing a law sound like abolishing gun licensing. Read the wording. Know what was already law. And don't let a stacked summary make the decision for you.
Bay State Surplus — the intelligent end of Massachusetts 2A. We'll keep telling you the truth, even when the ballot won't.
Sources: An Act Modernizing Firearms Laws (H.4885 / Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024); M.G.L. Ch. 140 §§121, 128A, 129C, 131R; federal Gun Control Act of 1968. This article is general commentary and education, not legal advice — verify current law and your local requirements before acting.
Comments