The following is our response to the Attorney General’s request:

As I am sure your office is likely aware, the language of this question was met with nothing but outrage by GOAL and its partners. Forgive the bluntness, but the “yes or no” question presented by the Attorney General is clearly biased, political, and misleading. Is Massachusetts state government simply dropping all pretense of neutrality? Using what amounts to political language in the text of the question that will appear on the official ballot is quite frankly anathema to the concept of fairness. However, just like every other protestation gun owners and their advocates have voiced in regard to our treatment throughout this process, this will likely fall on deaf ears and we will continue to be forced to work twice as hard as our state-funded, and quite obviously state-assisted, opposition in order to advocate our position.

We understand that previous ballot questions have been similarly politicized, but in this case the subject is a constitutionally-protected civil right and should not be subject to the same standard as factory farming or hallucinogenic mushrooms. The Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), ruled that “the right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not a ‘second-class right subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” and affirmed that sentiment in NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). We ask that the Attorney General strip the question of its political descriptors and reduce it to something like the following:

                A YES VOTE would keep the changes to the Commonwealth’s firearms laws in place.

               A NO VOTE would repeal the new laws.

Further, G.L. c. 54, § 53 directs the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Commonwealth to prepare “fair and neutral 1-sentence statements describing the effect of a yes or no vote.” It would be dishonest of us to say that we expected to be treated fairly through this process, but given this directive, we feel that this draft of the yes or no question violates the “fair and neutral” provision. It was drafted using only specific provisions of the law that would elicit the most emotional response from voters without mentioning any of the adverse impacts the law has on lawful gun owners in the Commonwealth. Chapter 135 has had a chilling effect on every aspect of a constitutional civil right.

Additionally, the question as presented is also violative of G.L. c. 56, § 42, para. 2:

No person shall publish or cause to be published in any letter, circular, advertisement, poster or in any other writing any false statement in relation to any question submitted to the voters, which statement is designed to affect the vote on said question.

The term “ghost guns” is a political term used by anti-Second Amendment activists and politicians to demonize homemade firearms, a long tradition in the United States originating from colonial-era necessities for hunting and defense. The term does not appear anywhere within the text of Chapter 135 and it is our position that using such a term on the ballot is dishonest and designed to elicit an emotional response from the voter.

Finally, it is GOAL’s and our partners’ position that the language used in this ballot question, from the summary to the yes or no question currently being discussed violated the Commonwealth’s electioneering restrictions within 150 feet of a polling location. G.L. ch. 54 § 65 as outlined in the Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Election Advisory #24-05 where is states: “Under Massachusetts law, electioneering, campaigning, signature-gathering and other specific political activities are prohibited within 150 feet of a voting location.”  We feel that the language used in this question is designed to influence a yes vote through emotional manipulation and is tantamount to distributing campaign literature on the ballot itself.