Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey signed an expansive gun control bill on July 25, saying that the new law is a response to what she termed a “misguided” 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
The new law bans guns built from kits, 3D-printed guns, and firearms that don’t have a serial number, known as ghost guns.
It expands the state’s ban on “assault-style firearms,” tightens licensing requirements, and expands the state’s gun registry by requiring that all guns be registered with the state, including those in the inventory of a federal firearms licensed dealer.
It also requires state officials to share gun tracing data with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
Ms. Healey, who did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment, touted the new law as essential to public safety in her online statement. She and other state officials and gun control advocates said the decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen had undone existing gun laws.
In Bruen, the high court ruled that a gun law is constitutional only if it aligns with the plain text of the Constitution and a similar law was in effect at the time the amendment was adopted. Dozens of gun control laws around the country have been ruled unconstitutional under the Bruen standard.
Ms. Healey stated the new law will change that in Massachusetts.
“This law will save lives, and I’m grateful to the Legislature and gun safety advocates for their hard work to see this through,” Ms. Healey wrote in a July 25 statement.
The head of the Massachusetts Coalition for the Prevention of Gun Violence also praised the law online.
“There is no one policy that will solve the issue of gun violence, which is why we are thrilled to see this comprehensive bill passed today,” Ruth Zakarin, CEO of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote in a statement.
Other officials and gun control advocates celebrated the law.
“This new legislation strengthens our ability to combat gun violence, hold violent offenders accountable, and enhance community safety. The law also advances Massachusetts’ position as a national leader in strong and effective gun laws,” the state’s Public Safety and Security Secretary Terrence Reidy stated.
Shortly after the signing, Mike Harris, the director of public policy for the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) in Massachusetts, said GOAL lawyers were still studying the 116-page law. He says the law is more about inhibiting gun ownership than promoting gun safety.
“The biggest concern for GOAL is the fact that the training section puts a moratorium on licensing until the state has its curriculum,” Mr. Harris told The Epoch Times.
According to GOAL, the new training requirements include live fire training, disengagement training, and a new curriculum that has yet to be written. So those who do not have a license when the law goes into effect on Aug. 1 won’t be able to get one.
He said GOAL is planning to sue.
Chris Stone, director of state and local affairs for Gun Owners of America (GOA), said the national organization is considering legal action. He said GOA’s review of the law has raised some concerns.
He said the law calls for the state to share sensitive personal data with federal agencies while enabling the ATF to build an illegal gun registry. He said the fact that the law requires the state to send data to the ATF is “terrifying.”
“They want to create a registry and track every gun owner in the state and the nation,” Mr. Stone told The Epoch Times.
‘Red Flag’ Concerns Raised
Mr. Stone said GOA is also concerned over the expansion of Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws, in the new law. An ERPO is a judicial order that suspends an individual’s license to possess or carry a firearm.Under the law, a person whose gun license was rescinded can’t get a new license while the ERPO is active. The law also expands the scope of those who can seek an ERPO, including licensing authorities, law enforcement, health care providers, and family or household members.
GOA and other gun rights organizations have expressed concern over the possible lack of due process of ERPOs and the possibility that an abuser could use an ERPO to disarm an intended victim. Mr. Stone said GOA is considering all its options in Massachusetts.
“If we have to sue the state of Massachusetts, then we will sue the state of Massachusetts,” he said.
Mr. Harris rejected the argument that the law promotes safety. He said laws don’t prevent crime and that restricting firearm ownership only endangers law-abiding citizens.
“Isn’t murder, assault, and shooting people already illegal?” Mr. Harris asked. “Shouldn’t criminals be afraid of the populace rather than see them as prey?”
