Massachusetts voters on Tuesday kept the state's 2024 gun law, and unofficial counts put the Yes side at roughly two-thirds. A Yes vote on Question 9 meant keep, so gun owners who voted No lost. The ballot did not settle the AR-15 part of the law, though. A Massachusetts petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on it is scheduled for the justices' Nov. 13 conference.
How big was the Question 9 margin?
The numbers moved as ballots came in, and none are certified. NBC Boston showed Yes at 67.55 percent with 81 percent of the expected vote counted. The Daily Caller, citing New York Times totals, had 67.2 percent at 85 percent counted. MassLive later reported 68.6 percent. WBUR, in its results story, says only that the law was kept.
I could not open the state's official results page, so use "roughly two-thirds" until the Secretary of the Commonwealth certifies a final count. Yes campaign chair Ruth Zakarin said in a statement, "This victory belongs to the people of Massachusetts."
The John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse in Boston, where the First Circuit sits. Photo by 4300streetcar via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 4.0. Resized.
Does the vote end the lawsuits?
No. A ballot question decides what the legislature's statute says. It cannot decide what the Second Amendment means. CommonWealth Beacon's explainer lists four federal challenges to the law. Gun Owners' Action League dropped its suit in December 2024 after the legislature delayed a live-fire training requirement. A federal judge in Boston upheld the under-21 restriction in August 2026, per the same page, which I read secondhand.
The one that matters most for the AR-15 is Recchia v. Campbell. On July 21 the First Circuit affirmed dismissal of a gun store owner's challenge to the state's ban on "assault-style firearms." Judge Seth Aframe wrote that the claim "cannot succeed given Capen," the circuit's earlier decision upholding the predecessor law. The Reload reports the panel was unanimous, with Judges Lynch and Dunlap joining.
Official record
Recchia v. Campbell, No. 25-1817 (1st Cir. July 21, 2026). The challenged statutes are Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 140, sections 121 and 131M(a), as amended by the 2024 act. The opinion is 22 numbered pages. This is the court's own PDF.
"For the reasons stated, we affirm the district court's grant of the state defendants' motion to dismiss." — First Circuit opinion, closing line
Read or download the full opinion (PDF) · view it on the First Circuit's site
What is on the Supreme Court's calendar?
Two things. The first is the AR-15 merits case itself. Duke's SCOTUS Gun Watch lists Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (Connecticut), granted June 30 and set for argument the morning of Dec. 2. The question is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect AR-15-platform and similar rifles.
The second is Massachusetts' own petition. The Supreme Court docket for Recchia v. Campbell, No. 26-541, shows the petition filed Oct. 15 and distributed Oct. 28 for the Nov. 13 conference. Attorney General Andrea Campbell's office filed a waiver of its right to respond on Oct. 26. Duke's listing says the petition also raises a dormant Commerce Clause question, which the First Circuit rejected on the ground that Recchia alleged harm only to his own business.
The U.S. Supreme Court building. Photo: Architect of the Capitol, via Wikimedia Commons, public domain. Resized.
What happens to the Massachusetts ban if the Court rules for gun owners?
I could not find anyone with authority saying, and it would be a guess. What the record supports is narrower. The Court has agreed to decide the AR-15 question in a case from Illinois and Connecticut, and Massachusetts' ban sits in the same legal territory. The voters' two-to-one choice does not bind the justices on that question.
A ruling in the Cook County case could also bear on the pending Massachusetts petition. The Court has not said what it will do with No. 26-541, and a Nov. 13 conference does not guarantee a decision that day.
Do the Daily Caller's claims about the law hold up?
The Daily Caller says the law targets certain muzzleloaders and bars out-of-state residents from taking children hunting. I checked the session law and found, in Section 15, an "antique firearm" definition that covers muzzleloaders designed for black powder, with an exception for a muzzleloader that "can be readily converted to fire fixed ammunition." My tool only read part of the text, and I did not find a provision about nonresidents hunting with children. Treat that claim as unconfirmed until someone points to the section.
For gun owners, the practical read is plain. Registration, the broader assault-style definition and the age rule stay in force. The next dates that can change any of it are Nov. 13 and Dec. 2, and both are in Washington, not Boston.
Header photo: the Massachusetts State House in Boston, November 2016. Photo by King of Hearts via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. Cropped.
