2026 Ballot Referendum: Repealing Chapter 135

A veto referendum targeting Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 has qualified for the November 3, 2026 Massachusetts general election ballot as Question 9 ("Firearms Regulation").

Official Voter Materials

The Secretary of the Commonwealth has published the official Question 9 page in its 2026 Information for Voters materials. Question 9 is titled Firearms Regulation and asks whether voters approve the existing firearms law. The page explains that a YES vote keeps the law and a NO vote repeals it. It includes the official summary and full text of the law, with arguments for each side.^[8]

What Is on the Ballot?

The question asks voters whether to approve Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024^[2], the comprehensive firearms reform law signed by Governor Healey. Under Massachusetts veto referendum rules:

• A YES vote keeps Chapter 135 in effect
• A NO vote repeals Chapter 135

Which Provisions Would Be Repealed?

If Question 9 meets the constitutional repeal conditions, Chapter 135 would be repealed. The earlier assault-weapon definition and FID licensing provisions would be restored. Under MGL c. 4, Section 6, clause First, repeal by referendum revives the earlier statutory provisions that the repealed law replaced.^[9]

• The FID would again cover non-large-capacity semiautomatic rifles and shotguns
• The "assault weapon" definition would revert to the pre-Ch. 135 version. Important: Repealing Chapter 135 would not eliminate Massachusetts' assault weapons ban. The pre-2024 assault-weapons ban, codified in MGL c.140 §§121 and 131M before Chapter 135, would apply. Only the Chapter 135 expansions to the definition would be removed. Assault-style firearms that were prohibited only under Chapter 135's expanded definition might become available again; firearms already prohibited under the pre-2024 law would remain prohibited.
• Firearm registration and serialization requirements (Sections 121B, 121C) would be eliminated
• The Chapter 135 expansions to the ERPO framework (Sections 131R-131Y) would be removed, and the earlier framework from Chapter 123 of 2018 would be restored
• The storage penalties would revert to the prior tiered structure, which did not single out semiautomatic firearms for an enhanced penalty
• The prohibited areas provision in Chapter 269 Section 10(k) would be eliminated
• The pre-Chapter 135 "machine gun" definition would be restored. Bump stocks and trigger cranks would remain prohibited. Chapter 110 of the Acts of 2017 added them to the definition and excluded them from the machine-gun licensing exceptions. Section 53 of that act set the effective date of these definition and licensing changes at 90 days after the act took effect, while prohibiting purchase, sale and offers for sale from the act's effective date.

Timeline

• July 25, 2024: Chapter 135 signed into law
• October 2, 2024: Most provisions take effect
• By October 23, 2024: Deadline to file the referendum petition signatures, 90 days after the law was approved
• November 3, 2026: Referendum vote

Implications

Firearms owners, dealers and law enforcement must continue to comply with Chapter 135 while it remains in effect. If Chapter 135 is not approved by a majority of voters voting on Question 9 and NO votes are at least 30 percent of all ballots cast, the law is repealed on December 3, 2026, 30 days after the election. Registration and serialization requirements begin October 28, 2026, before the election.

Campaign Activity

Both sides have organized active campaigns ahead of the November 3, 2026 vote.

Campaigns Supporting the Law (Vote YES):

Ned Notis-McConarty authored the official argument in favor for Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts. Its argument says the law bans ghost guns and devices that turn semiautomatic weapons into machine guns, and expands tools to help prevent firearm suicide and mass shootings.

Campaigns Supporting Repeal (Vote NO):

Toby Leary authored the official argument against for The Civil Rights Coalition. Its argument says the law burdens local police with administrative work and mandates an electronic tracking system without funding or a plan to build it.