BOSTON — Bay Staters of all stripes finally got the chance Tuesday to tell a panel of state representatives how they feel about a proposed overhaul of the state’s gun laws, and they poured out hours of impassioned commentary that sets the stage for a contentious House vote.

Gun control and gun safety groups threw their support behind a sweeping bill from House Democrats that would crack down on untraceable “ghost guns,” update the state’s so-called red flag law, limit the presence of firearms in public spaces, streamline the licensing process and more.

Meanwhile, aggrieved gun owners contended the legislation represents an unconstitutional infringement on their Second Amendment rights without offering much, if any, upside to public safety.

Representatives — who are circumventing their colleagues in the Senate to advance the bill — sat for more than six hours of public feedback ahead of a vote on the bill expected sometime this month.

Although Democrats pitched a new draft of the bill (HD 4607) as different enough to address criticism of an earlier version from Rep. Michael Day, gun owners and the groups that represent them responded with not just opposition but also anger and contempt. At least two individual gun owners who trekked to the State House to address lawmakers declared that if the bill becomes law, they will refuse to comply with it.

Bill opponents

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners’ Action League, called the legislation “the most egregious attack on civil rights I have seen from a government in this century, in Massachusetts and nationwide.

“This is nothing but a tantrum after Bruen,” he said, referring to a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down New York’s concealed-carry law and has drawn the attention of Massachusetts Democrats. “Even though there’s nothing in here to reduce crime, suicides and everything else, for the first time in my career I’m going to say this: You might have a bigger problem, because 600,000 lawful citizens are going to tap out. We’re done. We’re done. Twenty-five years of trying to comply with the garbage laws that have only increased crime and suicide in Massachusetts, and now you’re going to do it again, and make it worse?

“I would urge everybody in this building to tread very cautiously on how you proceed with this thing, because you’re gonna make history, and it’s not gonna be good history,” Wallace added.

Toby Leary, a co-owner of Cape Gun Works in Hyannis, said he “will not comply” with the proposed reforms, both in his individual capacity and on behalf of his business. Invoking the history of the American Revolution, he accused lawmakers of “trying to finish the work of King George.”

“We have complied with your unconstitutional laws for decades, and it has done nothing but feed your insatiable appetite for more gun confiscation schemes,” Leary said.

“You continue to blame the most peaceful citizens for evil acts of people who ought not to be on the street.”

The National Rifle Association targeted its opposition to a proposed expansion of the state’s “red flag” law.

The 2018 law allows a family member, a household member or a police department to ask a judge for an extreme risk protection order, which requires a legal gun owner to surrender them if they are deemed a threat.

Day’s bill would empower more people to seek an extreme risk protection order, adding several types of mental and physical health care providers, school administrators and employers.

“This massive pool of individuals coupled with the increasing political polarization of firearms creates a scenario ripe for abuse, personal retribution and erroneous petitions,” said Justin Davis, the NRA’s state director for Maine. “The Massachusetts court system is facing a severe backlog, which already causes issues processing even the most serious crimes, including murder trials, right here in Suffolk County. By opening the floodgates for unnecessary ERPO petitions, it will further bog down our judicial system.”

Davis said a pending U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Rahimi, could impact the state’s ERPO law because it deals with whether individuals facing domestic violence protective orders still retain the constitutional right to bear arms.

Bill supporters

Anti-violence and gun control groups, who are joined in their support of the bill by the Massachusetts Medical Society, the Massachusetts Teachers Association and several Catholic Church dioceses, hailed the legislation as a worthy addition to gun laws that are among the strongest in the nation.

Ruth Zakarin, executive director of the Massachusetts Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, described the bill as “a comprehensive response to the very complex public health crisis that is gun violence.” John Rosenthal, founder and chair of Stop Handgun Violence, called the measure “an incredibly thoughtful bill that has no inconvenience whatsoever [on] law-abiding gun owners.”

Rep. Steven Xiarhos, a Barnstable Republican and former police officer, pointed out that the legislation would prohibit carrying firearms in government buildings, schools, polling places and private residences where the owner has not given consent.

“I’m hearing a lot from constituents that if they have a license to carry, and they cannot carry in certain areas, that affects them,” Xiarhos said to Rosenthal. “So I was wondering, in your opinion, how does this bill not affect them when they can’t carry in certain areas?“

“There ought to be a right to feeling safe in our society, too, and when you go to a polling place, I think you should feel comfortable that others around you aren’t carrying firearms and you can exhibit your constitutional rights,” Rosenthal replied. “Even here in Massachusetts, the leader in the nation with the lowest gun death rate in the nation, there were still, on average, 244 gun deaths, 688 injuries [per year]. We are far from perfect around guns.” 

Ghost guns

One focus in the legislation is reining in “ghost guns,” which are often assembled at home and lack serial numbers with which they could be traced. Law enforcement officials including Attorney General Andrea Campbell have been sounding the alarm about a sharp increase in ghost guns on Massachusetts streets.

“Massachusetts law does not regulate them, because this type of technology did not exist until recently. They are quickly gaining popularity for the mere fact that they are untraceable. Many are used in the commission of violent crimes,” said James Driscoll, director of the Massachusetts Catholic Conference. “This brings serialization requirements to ghost guns and puts them in line with traditionally manufactured guns purchased from dealers. It is a common-sense adjustment to current law.”

The first draft of the legislation (HD 4420) never received a public hearing amid a procedural spat between House Democrats and their counterparts in the Senate, who say they are working on their own gun reform bill, apparently out of public view.

Top House Democrats unveiled the new version on Thursday alongside plans for the lone public hearing and a floor vote by the end of the month.

“The fact that this bill was released with one business day to review it — one business day to review it — is an absolute sham, and whoever scheduled that should be ashamed of themselves,” said Jon Green, director of education and training for GOAL.

 

Rep. Aaron Saunders, a first-term Democrat from Belchertown, told his colleagues he appreciates changes made to the redraft but believes it still leaves “some questions unanswered,” particularly about how a prohibition on carrying firearms in certain spaces will or won’t apply to law enforcement.

 

“It appears that there is interest in addressing the proliferation of ghost guns. There is interest in updating our red flag laws to ensure that those who are truly dangerous do not have access to firearms, and certainly addressing the criminal activity of discharging firearms at buildings,” Saunders said. “Those are areas that I truly look forward to supporting, and I hope that the bill focuses in its final form on those areas.”

“I hope that we don’t rush this, that we answer those questions that have not yet been answered, even if the answers aren’t what folks may want to hear,” he added. “We should still take the time to answer them.”