November 2026 Ballot Question: The Vote to Repeal Chapter 135

Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 is subject to a veto referendum on the November 3, 2026 ballot. This is the first veto referendum on firearms legislation in Massachusetts history.

How the Ballot Question Works

Massachusetts law allows voters to challenge any law enacted by the legislature through a veto referendum under Article 48 of the state constitution. If enough valid signatures are collected, the law is placed on the next general election ballot for a popular vote. The Civil Rights Coalition, led by Toby Leary and John MaWhinney, collected over 100,000 raw signatures to qualify Chapter 135 for the ballot.^[1]

What the Votes Mean

• YES: Keeps Chapter 135 as enacted. All current provisions remain in effect, including the registration deadline, training requirements, new definitions, and enhanced penalties.
• NO: Repeals Chapter 135 in its entirety. Massachusetts firearms law would revert to the pre-October 2024 framework.

What Repeal Would Mean

If voters choose NO and Chapter 135 is repealed, the following changes would be reversed:

• The universal registration requirement (Section 121B) would be eliminated
• The FID would again cover non-large-capacity semiautomatic rifles and shotguns
• "Assault-style firearm" would revert to the prior "assault weapon" definition. Important: Repealing Chapter 135 would not eliminate Massachusetts' assault weapons ban. The pre-2024 ban (codified in MGL c.140 §§128 and 131M before Chapter 135 amendments) and the Attorney General's 2016 enforcement notice would remain in effect. Only the Chapter 135 expansions to the definition would be removed. Firearms already prohibited under the pre-2024 law would remain prohibited; only firearms prohibited solely under Chapter 135's expanded definition might become available again.
• Ghost gun and covert firearm prohibitions would be removed from state law (federal law still applies)
• Prohibited areas under Section 10(k) would be eliminated
• The revised training curriculum and live-fire requirement would be removed
• Tiered storage penalties would revert to the prior penalty structure
• ERPO expansion provisions would be rolled back

Pre-existing provisions that were not changed by Chapter 135 (such as the original assault weapons ban language, the LTC/FID licensing framework, and the approved firearms roster) would remain intact.

Timeline Conflict: Registration and Election

The registration deadline of October 28, 2026 falls six days before the November 3, 2026 election. This means all gun owners must register their firearms before knowing whether the law will be repealed. If the law is repealed, the registration requirement would be eliminated prospectively, but the state would already have the data submitted before the vote.

Current Status

Chapter 135 is in full effect. The ballot question does not suspend or delay any provision of the law. All deadlines, requirements, and penalties apply as written until and unless voters repeal the law on November 3, 2026.

Campaign Positions

The Civil Rights Coalition (advocating NO/repeal) argues that Chapter 135 imposes unconstitutional restrictions on lawful gun owners, creates an unreasonable registration burden, and was passed without adequate public input.^[1] The Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) has raised concerns about the ballot language, alleging that the Attorney General framed the question in a way that favors a YES vote.^[2]

The Vote Yes for a Safe Massachusetts campaign, supported by the League of Women Voters and other organizations, advocates for keeping the law, arguing that Chapter 135 modernizes outdated firearms regulations and improves public safety.^[3]

This article presents both sides of the ballot question for informational purposes. This site does not endorse or oppose any ballot measure.

Controversy Over Ballot Question Framing

The Gun Owners' Action League (GOAL) has contested the way Attorney General Andrea Campbell wrote the ballot question. Under Massachusetts veto referendum rules, the AG is responsible for drafting the official question language. GOAL argues that the AG framed the question in a manner designed to favor keeping the law: by asking voters whether to "approve" Chapter 135 (rather than whether to "repeal" it), the question structure means that repeal requires a NO vote, which GOAL contends is counterintuitive and disadvantageous to the repeal campaign.^[3]

The Civil Rights Coalition, which organized the signature drive, has sought to educate voters that a NO vote is the vote to repeal the law. AG Campbell's office has defended the framing as consistent with standard veto referendum drafting practices.