By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
On the eve of a historic vote on whether Massachusetts citizens will keep or repeal onerous Chapter 135 governing gun law in the Commonwealth, the executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) got a startling surprise when he tried to download gun laws already in effect in the Bay State.
GOAL’s Jim Wallace told TGM via telephone and email that he had asked Artificial Intelligence to “make a document with every gun law and regulation in full text of same a Massachusetts gun owner needs to understand. Include civil and criminal.”
ChatGPT responded, “Complete ML + federal statutes + ATF CFR: roughly 600-900 pages. That, plus cases and local law (span) 1,500+ pages and no longer one ‘file.’”
The message also noted, “Word can hold 900 pages. It will be slow, hard to update, and a bad way to keep law current. Split it: PDF volumes, or a zip of one text per file citation.”
This is the state of gun control in Massachusetts today; the former colony in which the first shots of the American Revolution 250 years ago were fired at Lexington and Concord, where, ironically, British Regulars had marched overnight April 18-19, 1775 in an effort to seize the arms and ammunition of the local militias. It was the first genuine effort toward gun control on what would become U.S. soil, and history has recorded how that worked out.
Wallace is no stranger to the gun control fight. As the head of GOAL for the past several years, he provided TGM with links to how this story has unfolded, and there is some fascinating reading in the various posts. All but one take readers to the GOAL website.
https://www.goal.org/air-force-service-member
https://www.goal.org/traffic-stops
https://www.goal.org/asfroster
https://www.goal.org/harrisupdate
https://www.goal.org/morisette-case
https://www.goal.org/novia-case
https://www.goal.org/information-request
https://www.goal.org/lacus-charges
https://www.goal.org/baasthomas2026
https://www.goal.org/war-on-nonres
https://www.goal.org/fid-cards-semiauto
https://www.goal.org/election-fraud
https://www.goal.org/ag-sabotaging-chapter-135-repeal
https://www.goal.org/unfinished-frame
https://www.goal.org/processpunishment
https://www.goal.org/ballotconfusion
https://www.goal.org/connecticut
https://www.goal.org/asf-prosecution
https://www.goal.org/massachusetts-immunity
https://www.goal.org/nonresidentheld
The Civil Rights Coalition has also come out strongly for a “NO” vote on Ballot Question #9 to repeal the offensive gun control law, which was passed in 2024.
“A grassroots movement of everyday people – your friends, neighbors, and business owners – worked to pose this question directly to voters at the ballot box,” the Coalition says on its website. “This opportunity gives every voter a voice to say we want to keep power in the hands of the people.”
It was the Coalition, led by Toby Leary and John MaWhinney, which gathered 100,000 signatures to place the Question on Tuesday’s ballot. But on the ballot, the question is, says Wallace, deliberately confusing.
“Because more than enough signatures were certified,” Wallace explained in a report on the GOAL website, “Massachusetts Attorney General Campbell had no choice but write the question for the voters. The Commonwealth’s first “stick in the eye” to the repeal effort was to change the premise of the question. It should follow that a question asking whether or not a law should be repealed would require a “yes, we want to repeal the law” vote. However, the Commonwealth did just the opposite, drafting the question in such a way that repeal will require voters to say ‘no, we don’t want to keep the law.’”
Ballotpedia also posted about the confusing way Ballot Question #9 has been put together:
| A “yes” vote would uphold House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state’s firearm regulations: developing an electronic registration system to track firearm ownership; prohibiting assault-style firearms (as defined in law); requiring safety certificates to obtain firearm permits; mandating serial numbers for firearms; allowing school administrators and licensed healthcare providers to request that a court issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order; and permitting courts to order firearm surrender when issuing Harassment Prevention Orders. |
| A “no” vote would repeal House Bill 4885, which enacted several changes to the state’s firearm regulations. |
Voting has already begun, but tomorrow is when the fireworks should reach a crescendo. Wallace and his colleagues are hopeful of an overwhelming “NO” vote on the measure.
