Resisting Massachusetts’ New Gun Laws: Advocates Ignite a Battle

Introduction

Gun advocates are vigorously challenging the new firearm licensing laws imposed by the state of Massachusetts despite their implementation. The lines have been drawn in the battle over the state’s recent stricter laws regarding firearm control, particularly revolving around the licensing requirements. This contestation illustrates the continuous push-and-pull between much-needed public safety regulations and the protection of individual firearm ownership rights

Background – The Controversial Licensing Restrictions

The epicenter of the vehement opposition is the Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s insistence on denying the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts and various gun owners the ability to challenge the newly imposed licensing restrictions. Campbell posits that the August filing of these plaintiffs lacks the standing necessary to question these conditions and contains fallacious arguments concerning the potential infringement of their Second Amendment rights.

The Gun Owners Action League’s Opposition

The Gun Owners Action League, along with other invested parties, initiated a lawsuit on August 1, directing their complaint primarily against the revamping of gun licensing prerequisites. The plaintiffs alleged the new training requisites to be “impossible to meet at the present time,” expressing that no such live-fire training curriculum exist and no regulations have been promulgated as yet.

Attorney General’s Defense

Campbell, however, maintains that the legal challenge to the state’s new firearms training requirements is no longer viable as Governor Maura Healey and other state lawmakers have delayed the implementation of these rules until April 2026. Therefore, the assertion by these plaintiffs, according to her, is baseless and inconsequential.

Expansion of Gun Control Measures

A law signed by Governor Healey last July extended the state’s prohibitions on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, declared ghost guns illegal, and stipulated new parameters on the open carry of firearms, amongst other provisions. The law was enacted as a response to the escalating concerns about mass shootings and pervasive gun violence.

Allegations of Unconstitutionality

However, the Gun Owners Action League and its associate critics argue that these restrictions infringe upon their constitutional rights and assert that the changes will do little to curb gun-related violence in the state. They further claim that these stricter gun-control laws end up punishing law-abiding gun owners, while sidestepping critical issues related to illegal firearms and mental health.

A Second Legal Battle

While the state may dodge this legal bullet, adversaries have already loaded another legal challenge. Simultaneously with Healey’s addition of the emergency preamble to the state regulation, adversaries leveled another lawsuit contesting the law’s constitutional validity. It remains to be seen whether this new lawsuit will be a better legal fit, but it certainly signifies that the Gun Owners Action League and its allies will not back down and will continue to contest the imposition of these new laws.

Conclusion

This ongoing legal battle showcases the tension between implementing stricter regulations for public safety and protecting individual’s rights to bear arms. With the legal challenges awaiting the state and potential public voting on these laws in 2026, it is clear that this debate is far from over. For now, opponents of the law are not backing down, and the fight against stricter gun control continues.

Originally Post From https://www.lowellsun.com/2024/12/08/editorial-theres-still-plenty-of-fight-left-in-foes-of-states-gun-law/

Gun Law Opposition in the State Rife with Persistence: A Commentary from Lowell Sun