Massachusetts gun rights advocates are pushing to overturn a 2024 update of the state’s already tough firearms law, collecting more than 90,000 signatures to place a repeal referendum on the 2026 ballot.

However, their efforts face opposition from mental health professionals and legal experts who argue the law’s regulations are necessary for public safety.

The 2024 law bans ghost guns and some firearm components, mandates live-fire training for gun license applicants, expands red flag laws to allow health care professionals to petition for firearm removal if they believe there is an imminent threat to life, and imposes new limits on where firearms can be carried in public.

Massachusetts is regarded as having some of the strictest gun laws in the country. The new law’s foes argue it wrongly targets law-abiding gun owners, eroding their constitutional rights without addressing real issues of crime and illegal firearm use.

“They’ve had no effect at reducing crime at all,” said Jim Wallace, executive director of Gun Owners Action League. “We proved that a number of years ago using the state’s own data system. But the Legislature didn’t care.”

The issue, he said, isn’t merely about the provisions of the law: “I hate the term ‘gun rights.’ Guns don’t have rights. What we are fighting for is a civil right protected by the Constitution.”

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the right to bear arms and has long been a center of debate. Opponents of gun control believe the amendment guarantees an individual’s right to firearm ownership, whereas the promoters of stricter regulations point to the “well-regulated militia” clause, maintaining that this allows the government to impose restrictions that it deems are necessary for public safety.

The Supreme Court has increasingly struck down efforts to impose restrictions on owning and carrying firearms.

Experts maintain that one of the major reasons for Massachusetts’ low gun violence rates is its strict laws. According to Everytown Research & Policy, Massachusetts ranked second in the nation for gun law strength and third-lowest in gun violence rates as of 2025.

The state’s firearm death rate stands at approximately 3.7 deaths per 100,000 residents, significantly lower than the national average of 14.2 deaths per 100,000, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Cody Jacobs, a lecturer at Boston University School of Law specializing in firearm policy, believes that strict laws are the reason behind a safe state.

“Massachusetts has one of the lowest gun death rates in the country, largely attributable to our comprehensive background checks, strict licensing requirements and the assault weapons ban,” he said. “These policies are necessary for maintaining lower gun violence levels compared to states with more lenient laws like Texas or Florida.”

Mental health a key factor

Although homicides and mass shootings generate the most attention, suicides constitute more than 54.6% of gun-related deaths in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center. In Massachusetts, however, firearms are used in 23.8% to 30% of suicides, far below the national average.

The state’s recent expansion of red flag laws allows health care providers, including psychiatric professionals, to petition for firearm removal from individuals deemed at risk of violence or self-harm.

Meaghan Rudolph, a psychiatric clinical nurse specialist at Massachusetts General Hospital, emphasizes the importance of these laws in preventing suicide.

“Knowing that access to ‘lethal means’ increases your likelihood significantly — by nearly 98% — if you attempt suicide with a firearm,” she explained. “Massachusetts was the second state after New York to authorize health care providers to petition under red flag laws. While very promising, it’s still new, and the exact logistics remain uncertain.”

Critics, however, have expressed concerns about the misuse of these laws, believing subjective enforcement risks violating citizens’ rights.

“Law enforcement and courts must be extremely careful implementing these policies,” Wallace cautions. “There’s a risk of infringing upon citizens’ rights without clear evidence of threat.”

The legislative process

Gun rights groups also believe that the process of passing the legislation was rushed and did not allow time for public oversight.

“At 8 p.m. on a Wednesday night, they suddenly released brand-new language and voted on it the next day. No one had time to review or research it, not even lawmakers themselves,” Wallace said.

In contrast, Jacobs believes that new measures are necessary today. Although he believes they will not bring much significant change or have an impact on the rate of gun violence, it was necessary to update outdated provisions in the law.

“It’s not a dramatic overhaul but rather closes loopholes and updates firearm regulations, “Jacobs said. “Expanding the red flag law could prevent mass shootings, though these events remain relatively rare and difficult to measure statistically.”

Gun rights advocates gained an ally against the new state law when the National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ ban on gun purchases for people under 21 years of age.

Wallace believes the main problem here is that the country has no proper definition of an “adult.”

“You can vote when you are 18, get a learner’s permit at 16 and a driver’s license at 18. Then on what basis are you restricting the age to 21 for purchase of firearms?” he asks.

Jacobs believes the legal debate will be decided in Washington.

“There’s been a few lawsuits like that pending across the country, and I think eventually it will go to the Supreme Court. Given the current conservative majority, the court may be skeptical, though recent decisions have upheld some restrictions based on public safety grounds.”

Gun owners, safetyadvocates at odds

Wallace noted Massachusetts has thousands of gun owners and shooting clubs, many of whom believe they are unjustly targeted by the new laws. They argue that if a criminal wants a gun, he or she will find a way to get it regardless of the strict laws.

“The prosecution will pursue gun owners aggressively simply because they dislike us,” Wallace said. “Law-abiding citizens are being criminalized unfairly.”

He also addressed the misconceptions surrounding firearms, particularly an “assault-style” rifle used in many mass shootings.

“The AR-15 has existed since 1958. It’s nothing extraordinary or new; it’s a standard semiautomatic rifle commonly used for sport and recreation,” he said.

However, gun law advocates argue that its military heritage and high degree of lethality — it was originally designed as an anti-personnel weapon — make it fair game for regulating, and that public safety can only be achieved by stricter laws.

Rudolph also highlighted how the recent changes in red flag laws allow professionals to conduct crucial mental health assessments.

“We routinely assess patient safety risks, including access to firearms. If there’s potential danger, we can now act proactively to reduce risks under red flag laws.”

Looking aheadto the 2026 ballot

Wallace believes the 2026 ballot is going to be a significant milestone for gun legislation in Massachusetts, declaring that overturning the law would be a win for all law-abiding citizens.

However, Jacobs believes that upholding the law would maintain Massachusetts as one of America’s influential models for gun policies.

Jacobs also highlighted the challenges ahead for those backing tighter safety and mental health standards.

“Federal courts have become increasingly hostile to gun laws,” he said, “making it essential that Massachusetts defends its regulatory framework vigorously.”

Aditi Thube writes for the Greenfield Recorder as part of the Boston University Statehouse Program.