A group of gun rights activists is backing a Republican state senator’s plan to introduce a number of bills this quarter that attempt to overturn a significant firearms rules. Maura Healey ratified next month.
Sen. Peter Durant of Spencer announced that he is working on six different pieces of legislation that would affect a gun legislation that Beacon Hill Democrats have praised as a crucial step in protecting life, promoting safe neighborhoods, and upholding responsible gun rights, but which critics claim hampered important Second Amendment rights.
Durant said one act will call for a full repeal of the rules while the rest will take aim at sections of the legislation covering gun registrations, a restrictions on automatic rifles and shotguns, life fire training requirements, a foreign ban on semiautomatic magazines, and a “pre-ban” on magazines.
The Spencer Republican claimed that the gun legislation passed last summers “unjustly violated” Second Amendment rights and violated” the rights of law-abiding people.”
” First and foremost, we’re calling for a complete reform of this stringent rules. This is the best course of action, a release from the rights that have been unfairly taken aside. While we recognize that this will be an uphill struggle, it is a battle fair pursuing”, Durant said outside the State House Thursday evening.
A group of gun business owners and owners, who managed to get more than 90,000 signatures, put a question on the ballot in 2026 asking voters to repeal the law, prompting a parliamentary force to remove it from the state’s books.
Multiple lawsuits have been , filed in several courts in Massachusetts , challenging the law, including at the national stage by a local affiliate of the National Rifle Association and proprietor of a firearm factory in Bellingham.
Healey , defended the act last year, arguing that” powerful gun legislation save life”.
This law is the most important weapons safety law in the state in a decade. In a letter to Secretary of State William Galvin, she stated in a letter to him that it does make Massachusetts safer as soon as it comes into impact, including by keeping assault-style arms that are dangerous to our communities off our sidewalks. Additionally, it will keep weapons out of government structures and judges.
Healey’s representative on Thursday did not respond to a Herald inquiry right away.
The Civil Rights Coalition, a group of gun owners who support the 2026 ballot question that would remove the statute, was supportive of Durant’s effort to repeal the law.
Owners of firearms are attempting to” claw back our rights from the very people who swore an oath to protect them,” according to Toby Leary, head of the coalition and owner of Cape Gun Works.
A nullification is the act and the rightful remedy whenever the government goes beyond the limits of the Constitution, as Thomas Jefferson remarked. According to Leary, if this is the rightful remedy for unconstitutional federal laws, then it is also the rightful remedy for unconstitutional state laws.
The law forbids people under the age of 21 from possessing semiautomatic rifles or shotguns, outlaws unregistered firearms known as “ghost guns,” expands who can petition the court for an order to place extreme risk protection, and, among other things, forbids carrying weapons in particular locations.
Legislators also included a number of new training and licensing requirements, including the need for live fire training, in the statute, though the Legislature moved some of their implementation dates last year after acknowledging drafting mistakes.
While opponents of the bill have argued that a repeal of the law would make it more difficult for law enforcement to protect citizens from gun violence, the law would make it harder for gun shop owners to operate and could potentially incriminate regular people.
Leary claimed that the law” by the whims of elected officials catering to the anti-gun, anti-civil rights lobby” caused “irreparable harm to the people”.
Who among us would support the Second Amendment’s protection of their rights? Are we in favor of creating a speech-control advisory board to regulate speech and make recommendations regarding what speech is acceptable or not? Leary said. ” It is preposterous to think of that but that’s exactly what Chapter 135 does”.
___
© 2025 MediaNews Group, Inc
Distributed by , Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
