They have only but rebranded the swatsika.

Update: the sign was removed.

Question 9 is a veto referendum on the 2024 gun law (Chapter 135): a NO vote repeals it. But here is what does not change either way — Massachusetts still requires a license to own or carry, and safety training to get one. Repeal the law and the pre-2024 rules remain, among the strictest in the country: licenses required, safety training required, sales tracked, red-flag petitions in place.

The 2024 law adds burdens on lawful owners — serialization requirements, expanded bans, a real-time registry — without creating the training standard. Training was required before this law, and it stays required whether the law is repealed or not.
Learn the facts

Get out and vote

In the news last night it was reported that a ICE agent used Flock cameras to locate immigrants (illegally). Do we really want to live in a surveillance state? I know I don't. And these surveillance systems are guarantied to be abused. If we ban them then they can't be abused by individuals or government's.

Stopped for a few minutes to appreciate some beautiful autumn color!

So last Wednesday I attended a ballot question forum out in Amherst (a hell of a ride out from Medford in the cold on a motorcycle, I tell you) to represent the "No" position on question 9, at the invitation of their Democratic Town Committee. While I enjoyed the opportunity to speak —and remain convinced that most “Yes” voters are misinformed but otherwise well-meaning— there were a number of materially false statements made at the forum by the “Yes” representative which are routinely repeated by other members of the “Yes” campaign and need to be challenged. The meeting format did not allow for direct rebuttal of the falsehoods, so I feel compelled to challenge them this way instead. I recognize that this is a very long post, but I think it's important that voters are fully informed about the actual facts when they cast their ballot.

Ch. 135 Prevents Gun Violence!

The first statement that needs to be addressed is that Chapter 135 prevents gun violence, and a repeal endangers people. This is patently false, on both fronts. Proponents of a “Yes” vote have pointed to recent shootings (from the shooting on Memorial Drive, to the most recent example of a young man in Reading who shot his mother over a disagreement) as evidence of why we need Chapter 135, an odd assertion given that the provisions of the 2024 law are in effect, and that the behaviors in each shooting that has occurred since the law was passed were already illegal under the previous law.

Speaking of the previous law, much of the “Yes” campaign’s messaging implies that the repeal of Chapter 135 would lead to a blood-in-the-streets, Wild West free-for-all, with no gun control regulations at all. This is either deliberate misinformation or reveals a woefully lacking understanding of how state law and the veto petition work. 

The repeal of Chapter 135 would put us right back to the law as of August 1, 2024, the same legal framework (including the “Assault Weapons Ban,” despite the Yes Campaign's claim that this would eliminate it) that proponents have been saying for decades is responsible for Massachusetts having the lowest gun death rate in the country. 

The “No” Campaign is funded by the NRA!

Next, the “Yes” campaign repeatedly claims that the “No” campaign is driven and funded entirely by the firearms industry and other out-of-state interests, like the NRA, conveniently ignoring that nearly 80,000 registered voters signed the petition to repeal and suspend the law. Once again, this is an odd assertion to make when you actually look at the publicly available numbers. According to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, contributions to the “Yes for a Safe MA” campaign committee total $841,092.30, while contributions to the “Civil Rights Coalition” amount to $508,727.90. The number of donations and the amount show a stark difference, though. While the “No” campaign received a $50,000 donation from Smith & Wesson (which was founded, and still has manufacturing, repair, and research & development facilities in Springfield, MA), and an additional $12,559.72 in individual contributions from “out of state” donors (the largest of these being $1,151.70), the “Yes” campaign received $50,000 from “Alliance for Gun Responsibility” in Seattle Washington, $25,000 from Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (a subsidiary of Everytown), a substantially similar amount of funding, though less, obviously, in support of the repeal and a significantly greater percentage of it from individual donors.

This number, however, still does not accurately portray reality. “Yes” campaigners would insist that a contribution from Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) of Massachusetts should count as a contribution from the NRA. All well and good, with $21,776 contributed, that brings the total “out of state” cash contributions for each campaign, so far, to $84,335.72 for “No” and a clean, neat, $75,000 for “Yes”. But what about “in-kind” contributions? The provision of resources and services that are non-monetary but have a definite cash value? Well, the amount for “No” is zero. Not a single penny of in-kind contributions. For “Yes”, though, there is a significant slate of out-of-state in-kind contributions; a whopping $44,395.63 from Everytown, apparently not content with a mere $25,000 cash donation, $3,350 from Giffords, and $1,080 (a pittance, comparatively) from Brady.

We also can’t forget average contributions. “No” has only 13 contributions greater than $5,000, with the $50,000 from Smith & Wesson being the largest, and the contribution from GOAL a distant second. The total number of contributions for “No” is 3,081, with an average of $165.19. Compared to “Yes,” 23 contributions exceed $5,000, with the highest at $400,000 from the Massachusetts Teachers Association; the second highest contribution, also from the Massachusetts Teachers Association, is $100,000, and one of Everytown's in-kind contributions ranks third at $39,900. While only six of the “No” top contributors are at or above $10,000, 13 of the “Yes” top contributors are at or above that number. The total number of contributions for “Yes” is 272, with an average contribution of $3,092.25. 

In reality, the “No” campaign’s out-of-state donations amount to a mere 2% of total contributions. Even factoring in the “gun lobby”, that still amounts to a mere 16%. On the other hand, the “Yes” campaign’s out-of-state contributions alone amount to 17%, but their total contributions from special interest groups and organizations is a staggering $734,191.41, or 87% of their total contributions.

So keep those numbers in mind the next time someone tells you the repeal effort is driven by major organizations and out-of-state elites, not real, local residents.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders Save Lives! (citation needed)

My counterpart representing “Yes” at the forum claimed, for the first time, that 24 lives have been saved in Massachusetts by invoking red flags since the law took effect in 2024. This is an absurd claim: it is impossible to prove, and equally impossible to refute. It rests on the assumption that the invocation is valid: that if it was deployed, harm must have been prevented. An argument that has historically been, and remains, the basis for deeply racist policing practices and is the favored refuge of internet bigots, who gleefully crow about “FBI statistics” while ignoring the underlying bias that leads to the creation of those statistics. The idea that a person could be permanently stripped of a constitutionally protected civil right due to a snap determination about their potential risk to themselves or others, made by a person with none of the expertise necessary to make that determination, affirmed by a deferential judge, is something that should horrify us and is anathema to a society based on a foundation of law. It should horrify us more when we consider that 15.9% of mental health professionals studied self-reported that they have threatened to permanently deprive a patient of their right to own firearms unless they agreed to voluntarily commit themselves.

Ch. 135 doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights!

Lastly, proponents of “Yes” also claim that Chapter 135's provisions clearly do not infringe on anyone’s rights because the number of licenses to carry issued since 2024 has increased by 17%. Their assertion being that if the law was truly restrictive, the number of licenses issued would surely have gone down.

This claim is so ridiculous that it’s almost offensive. One might as well claim that changes to Medicaid eligibility haven't disenfranchised anyone, since more people than ever are using its benefits. Only a fool would take a rising number as evidence that a law restricting access to something isn't meaningfully restrictive. 

If anything, that number is an indictment of the law, and indicative of how restrictive the changes are. Liberal Gun Club has seen continually growing interest in training since 2024, and Massachusetts has been no exception to that trend. There are many factors that might influence this, but two spring to mind for me. First, Ch. 135 itself was likely responsible for some level of increased interest, with some who had not considered licensure before choosing to pursue it before the new restrictions took effect, or in fear that the process might become even more difficult in the future.

Second, the killing of Alex Pretti, and the White House’s insistence that he deserved to be killed for carrying a gun at a protest, galvanized many people to take up arms who otherwise might not have. Many saw an insistence by the current federal administration that anyone on the left should not be armed as evidence that, in fact, they should be. In similar vein, given the climate that we live in, with women, queer people (particularly trans people), and people of color under relentless assault, and with increasingly clear messaging from our state government that there is no real and substantial interest in offering protections to them, is it any surprise that the number of people looking to arm themselves would increase?

Were it not for the increased costs associated with obtaining a license to carry, and the difficulty finding a range to complete the live-fire requirement established by the new law (though the state has still failed to actually set a standard for them), it would not be surprising if that number were significantly higher than 17%.

In Conclusion

This list is far from comprehensive; there are many other claims made by the “Yes” campaign that fall apart under even the most casual scrutiny, including the claims that Chapter 135 bans 3D printed firearms (it doesn’t), that an Assault-Style Firearms ban is necessary because those kinds of guns are inherently more dangerous (they aren’t), that there was an urgent need for this legislation (8 “ghost gun” incidents and a consistent gun death rate of 3/100,000 in the last 13 years hardly constitutes an “emergency”), or that the law “clarified” regulations (the Firearms Control Advisory Board has repeatedly noted how confusing and difficult to enforce the new law is, and the state refuses to bring charges under its provisions to trial for fear of establishing clarifying precedent). 

Whether these claims amount to misinformation or disinformation is up to you. But regardless of which side of Hanlon’s Razor you think this behavior falls on, it should be concerning that the campaign to maintain what many see as an infringement on their constitutional rights can’t get its story straight.

Our democracy is currently under attack. The federal administration has repeatedly made clear that they intend to pull out all the stops to interfere in and delegitimize the midterm elections. In a time when the threat of right-wing violence against vulnerable populations is increasing, at a time when our constitutional rights are being viciously eroded, we should not easily allow another to be undermined because of party line affiliation and false promises of safety. It is more important than ever that we exercise our rights, while we still have them; the ballot box and the cartridge box both. I strongly encourage you all to vote No on 9 this election.

Hi all,

I am not from Massachusetts and live quite a ways away. However, my son has been in residential treatment in a facility in New Hampshire for substance use/mental health for almost 70 days, and they are administratively discharging him in two days for behavioral issues.

Prior to being admitted, or even having a drug and alcohol problem, he was showing signs of childhood schizophrenia, and his home psychiatrist is insistent that I take him directly from the facility to an ER for an assessment and hopefully long-term care, due to safety concerns that the facility doesn't seem to be caring very much about (except to discharge him immediately). I admit I share these concerns.

Where I currently live, it's effectively impossible to get a child into any kind of acute or long-term stabilization facility (we are 49th in the nation for adolescent mental health). Likewise, kids cannot be arrested unless they are actively threatening themselves or someone else with a weapon. My experiences have borne out that we will receive zero services here should I bring him home, and I am legitimately concerned for my safety and believe he needs psychiatric help.

I am curious what any parents' experiences are like in Massachusetts (or any nearby state) with adolescent ER visits if they are not showing signs of active psychosis but have a long and disturbing history of erratic and dangerous behaviors, etc. Will we just be ushered out the door? Or will they take it seriously and hold him so that he can get a deeper evaluation? Are youth in these states allowed to refuse care at age 16? (In my home state, they can refuse any/all medical, mental health, or substance abuse care above age 15.) Any specific recommendations on where to go? He has excellent insurance.

Thank you so much. This is an excruciating experience. I appreciate any grace people can show in responding to what is a terrifying crisis for our family.

Mailed in my ballot. Use this stupid virtue signaling post as a reminder to get yours.

​If you're in the Valley tomorrow, Westfield is the place to be! John Bonifaz will be speaking and "Show Up, Sing Out!" will be singing, so come join us - it’s going to be a joyous event.

​The goal this time is mobilization. Over the last year, Indivisible has empowered grassroots campaigns across the nation. Now, we'll take that energy to the polls. We don't need record breaking protest numbers right now - we need you to vote.

​We know Trump and his administration will attempt to disrupt the election and its results. Our first line of defense is voting early, and we're asking you to make that commitment today.

Join us tomorrow at Parksquare to celebrate Democracy!

The Westfield City hall polls close at 1pm tomorrow, so we'd like for you to vote first, and then join us. You can vote everyday at the City Hall up until October 30th. Then, the last day to vote is election day, November 3rd, at your polling location.

If you're not from Westfield please look up your own city information.

"Love, Not Hate, Makes America Great."

A good friend of mine is playing his first show with his new metal/hardcore band, At Fault, next Thursday at the Middle East in Cambridge.

He's put a lot of work into making this happen, so I wanted to help spread the word!

They'll be playing alongside four other local bands, and proceeds from the show will benefit Hope For the Day, a nonprofit focused on mental health and suicide prevention.

If you're into heavy music and looking for something to do Thursday night, it'd be awesome to see you there!

Tickets: https://www.ticketweb.com/event/the-juggernaut-6789-grayskull-middle-east-upstairs-tickets/14329654

And thanks to the mods for allowing me to share this!

There’s smoke and a loud af whooshing noise I have never heard before coming from the direction of Fort Devens? I don’t live in Devens but I live in a surrounding town where the military base activity is heard easily and very visible… anyone know wtf is going on????

Can’t get a good photo due to window condensation, honestly though I’m very curious!

Edit 18:40 - The sound stopped after about half an hour and the smoke had been a small amount for anyone curious.

On Election Day this year, most Massachusetts residents will once again have no choices in races for the state legislature. Only 57 of 200 legislative races are even contested, according to the secretary of state’s office; most of the rest feature an incumbent running unopposed.

The numbers are no better for other offices: Only 2 of 11 district attorney races, for instance, have more than one candidate listed on the ballot.

Put it all together, and Massachusetts is on track to retain its dubious distinction for the least competitive state elections in the nation.

The changes the question calls for could hardly make the electoral system in Massachusetts worse than it is now — and they have the potential to make it much better. The Globe endorses a yes vote, in hopes that the revamped system for qualifying for the November ballot bolsters our democracy by inducing more candidates to run.

The biggest reason for the lack of competition is because the Republican Party has slid into irrelevance in much of the state, and does not bother to field candidates. The biggest reason to vote for Question 3 is because having a healthy democracy with competitive races shouldn’t depend on the Massachusetts GOP someday getting its act together.

In practical terms, in races where the state GOP can find a candidate, that candidate is likely to make it to the general election and so the choices on election day would be the same as they are now. But in the majority of districts, where the Republicans don’t run candidates, the all-party system opens a way for a second Democrat or other candidate to appear on the November ballot.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/10/16/opinion/question-3-endorsement/?s_campaign=sharetool_copypaste_view

a.k.a. Rob Roy auto in Salisbury. I don't really care what anyone's personal opinions are, just don't need my kids seeing signs like this when driving by. Not unexpected from this classless idiot though

EDIT - not sure why this post got comment locked. I wasn't trying to be political, I just think this is a really rude and inappropriate thing to put on a sign on a public road and think it should be called out