This driver just opened his window at CVS parking lot and threw bunch of trash outside. Wtf is wrong with people! The trash can was right next to the store!

Get out and vote

You can check where to early vote in your town at:

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/earlyvotingweb/EarlyVotingSearch.aspx

If you haven’t registered to vote, you have until Saturday, October 24 to do so.

You can check your status or register online with a Massachusetts ID at:

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ovr/

If you want to request a mail-in ballot, you have until Tuesday, October 27. You can request one online at:

https://www.sec.state.ma.us/divisions/elections/voting-information/vote-by-mail.htm

For the 9 ballot questions, Tufts did a great write-up on them with what a YES/NO vote would do:

https://tischcollege.tufts.edu/take-action/vote/voters-guide-2026-massachusetts-ballot-questions

Just a reminder: You have the right to bring notes with you to your polling place to help you fill out your ballot. You must remember to take any notes or materials with you when you leave the polling place.

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 Training was required before this law, and it stays required whether the law is repealed or not.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

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

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.

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.

Why do people think it's ok to stop in the middle of the road and completely block the right lane just because they don't want to walk extra 10 seconds. It was so bad there they put cones but now people just double park right in front of stores. It's ok when you don't block anyone, but when you have cars behind you, it's not.

Here is the complete report from the State Auditor on access and equity in Massachusetts liquor licensing.

There’s a ton of information but here’s the general findings and recommendations.

Finding 1

The state-imposed population-based quota formula creates supply and demand mismatches in on-premises liquor licensing.

Finding 2

The 1978–1984 exemption window created an inequitable two-tier system: 26 municipalities with local control and 302 municipalities restricted by the state-imposed quota formula.

Finding 3

License access rises with municipal wealth.

Finding 4

The two current relief pathways for constrained quota municipalities are marked by access barriers, unpredictability, and inconsistent outcomes.

Finding 5

Prospective licensees and the public lack consistent, complete procedural information and data needed to navigate the licensing system at both the municipal and state levels.

Recommendation 1

The Commonwealth should eliminate the state-imposed population-based quota for on-premises liquor licensing and establish local control.

Recommendation 2

Increase equitable access to licenses by opening recurring windows of opportunity for municipalities to opt out of the state-imposed quota formula.

Recommendation 3

Establish a criteria-based, non-legislative pathway to obtain additional licenses in conjunction with ABCC.

Recommendation 4

Improve information access, equity, and transparency in on-premises liquor licensing.

Recommendation 5

Address the equity and wealth-access barriers created by the secondary market for on-premises liquor licenses.

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

My wife just noticed a $65 charge on our bank statement. Apparently it's been coming out monthly since June. It shows up on the statement as:

Massachusetts MU/MMPAY

Do any of you happen to recognize this and can offer some insight? Thanks!