ReportWire

Tag: united states law

  • Moulton bill would allow ICE lawsuits

    BOSTON — Immigrants would be allowed to sue federal authorities for “misconduct” under a proposal filed Monday by U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, which the Democrat named ostensibly after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

    The National Oversight and Enforcement of Misconduct Act, or NOEM Act, as filed Monday would update federal law to allow people “under federal immigration enforcement authority” to file lawsuits if they believe their “constitutional rights” have been violated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm|@F=E@?[ H9@ 😀 D66<:?8 E96 A2CEJ’D ?@>:?2E:@? E@ CF? 7@C &]$] $6?2E6 ?6IE J62C[ D2:5 E96 492?86D 2C6 ?66565 2D #6AF3=:42? !C6D:56?E s@?2=5 %CF>A 6IA2?5D 9:D 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 4C24<5@H?]k^Am

    kAm“#:89E ?@H[ :7 2? xrt @77:46C G:@=2E6D D@>6@?6’D u@FCE9 @C u:7E9 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ G:4E:>D 92G6 2=>@DE ?@ =682= C64@FCD6[” |@F=E@? D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 }~t| p4E 7:I6D E92E]”k^Am

    kAmw6 25565[ “xrt 😀 ?@E 23@G6 E96 =2H – 2?5 :7 :ED @77:46CD 3C62< E96 =2H[ E96J D9@F=5 36 96=5 244@F?E23=6 😕 4@FCE]”k^Am

    kAmp DA@<6DA6CD@? 7@C E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ 5:5 ?@E :>>65:2E6=J C6DA@?5 E@ 2 C6BF6DE 7@C 4@>>6?E 23@FE E96 AC@A@D2=]k^Am

    kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=65 😕 2 42D6 42==65 q:G6?D G] $:I &?65 p86?ED 😕 `hf` E92E 7656C2= 286?ED 4@F=5 36 DF65 :?5:G:5F2==J 3FE DF3D6BF6?E CF=:?8D 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE 92G6 E:89E6?65 E96 D@42==65 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6] pD HC:EE6?[ E96 DE2EFE6 @?=J 2AA=:6D E@ =@42= 2?5 DE2E6 2FE9@C:E:6D]k^Am

    kAmp a_aa $FAC6>6 r@FCE CF=:?8 96=5 E92E q@C56C !2EC@= 286?ED 42??@E 36 DF65 7@C G:@=2E:?8 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED]k^Am

    kAm%96 23:=:EJ @7 A6@A=6 E@ DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E F?56C E96 q:G6?D 5@4EC:?6 92D 366? “D6G6C6=J C6DEC:4E65” @G6C E96 J62CD 3J E96 9:89 4@FCE’D 4@?D6CG2E:G6 >2;@C:EJ[ |@F=E@? D2:5[ “=62G:?8 G:4E:>D H:E9 G:CEF2==J ?@ A2E9 E@ ;FDE:46 H96? 7656C2= @77:46CD G:@=2E6 E96:C C:89ED]”k^Am

    kAmw:D AC@A@D2= 😀 E96 =2E6DE 3J 4@?8C6DD:@?2= s6>@4C2ED D66<:?8 E@ C6DEC:4E xrt’D 6?7@C46>6?E 24E:@?D 2>:5 4=2:>D E92E >2D<65 7656C2= 286?ED 2C6 FD:?8 6I46DD:G6 7@C46 2?5 G:@=2E:?8 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED 2D E96J D66< 2?5 56E2:? :>>:8C2?ED H2?E65 7@C 4C:>6D 2?5 56A@CE2E:@? AC@4665:?8D]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D D:>A=6[ E2C86E65 2>6?5>6?E 6?DFC6D E92E xrt 2?5 @E96C 7656C2= :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46CD 42? 36 96=5 =:23=6 😕 E96 D2>6 H2J 2D 2?J DE2E6 @C =@42= =2H 6?7@C46>6?E @77:46C H96? E96J G:@=2E6 2 A6CD@?’D 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED[” |@F=E@?’D DE2E6>6?E D2JD]k^Am

    kAm%96 =68:D=2E:@? 5:776CD 7C@> 2 A6C6??:2= 3:== C67:=65 3J 2 8C@FA @7 w@FD6 s6>@4C2ED 62C=:6C E9:D J62C E92E D666?5 2 7656C2= =2H E@ A6C>:E 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89ED =2HDF:ED 2?5 7:?2?4:2= 4=2:>D 282:?DE 7656C2= 286?4:6D]k^Am

    kAm&?56C 4FCC6?E =2H[ A6@A=6 42? DF6 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?E 5:C64E=J F?56C 2 =2H 42==65 E96 u656C2= %@CE r=2:>D p4E[ 3FE 52>286D 2C6 42AA65 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ @AE:@? E@ C6BF6DE 2 ;FCJ EC:2=]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge asked to strike down firearm age restrictions

    BOSTON — A coalition of gun rights groups are asking a federal judge to strike down Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of handguns to anyone age 18 to 20 in response to a federal appeals court ruling that overturned a federal ban.

    In a filing in U.S. District Court, the Las Vegas-based Firearms Policy Coalition and other groups ask the judge to grant an injunction blocking the state’s age-based prohibitions from being enforced. The groups argue that the 18 to 20 age group is protected by the Second Amendment and that there is “historical tradition” supporting the states restrictions.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“x? DF>[ `gE@a_J62C@=5D 2C6 A2CE @7 ‘E96 A6@A=6’ H:E9 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED[ 2?5 E96C6 😀 ?@ H6==6DE23=:D965 2?5 C6AC6D6?E2E:G6 7@F?5:?86C2 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? E92E E96 DE2E6 4@F=5 A@DD:3=J A@:?E E@ E92E H@F=5 ;FDE:7J AC@9:3:E:?8 E96> A@DD6DD:?8 2?5 42CCJ:?8 7:C62C>D @? 2? 6BF2= 7@@E:?8 H:E9 @E96C 25F=E 4:E:K6?D[” =2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 E96 acA286 4@FCE 7:=:?8]k^Am

    kAm%96 8C@FA’D >@E:@? 7@C 2 DF>>2CJ ;F58>6?E 😀 E96 =2E6DE =682= G@==6J 😕 2 =2HDF:E 7:=65 😕 u63CF2CJ @? 3692=7 @7 2? `gJ62C@=5 qC6HDE6C >2? H9@ 92D 2 DE2E6 7:C62C> :56?E:7:42E:@? 42C5] qFE 3642FD6 @7 9:D 286[ 96 42??@E 3FJ 2?5 42CCJ 2 92?58F? 7@C A6CD@?2= 5676?D6[ @C 2 D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@? H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm|:?@CD 286D `d E@ `f 42? 86E 2 =:>:E65 7:C62C> xs 7@C C:7=6D 2?5 D9@E8F?D 7@C 9F?E:?8 2?5 E2C86E D9@@E:?8 H:E9 E96 A6C>:DD:@? @7 2 A2C6?E @C 8F2C5:2?]k^Am

    kAm%96 DE2E6 C6DEC:4E:@?D 92G6 =@?8 366? E2C86E65 3J 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD H9@ 2C8F6 E92E :7 `gJ62C@=5D 42? 6?=:DE 😕 E96 >:=:E2CJ 2?5 36 D6?E @77 E@ 7:89E[ E96J D9@F=5 36 23=6 E@ 6I6C4:D6 E96:C $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2D 4:G:=:2?D]k^Am

    kAmx? y2?F2CJ[ E96 u:7E9 r:C4F:E &]$] r@FCE @7 pAA62=D DECF4< 5@H? 2 =@?8DE2?5:?8 7656C2= 32? E92E AC6G6?E65 E96 D2=6 @7 92?58F?D E@ p>6C:42?D 36EH66? E96 286D @7 `g 2?5 a_[ CF=:?8 E92E E96 7656C2= =2H 32??:?8 92?58F? D2=6D E@ E66?D 😀 :?4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 E96 ?2E:@?’D 9:DE@C:42= EC25:E:@? 2?5 G:@=2E6D E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]k^Am

    kAm%96 ;F586D 2=D@ 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 42D6 😀 23@FE 6?5:?8 |2DD249FD6EED’ 2FE9@C:E2C:2?[ 28632D65 2EE24< @? A624623=6 25F=ED[” qC2?5@? r@>3D[ E96 8C@FA’D AC6D:56?E[ D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96 DE2E6’D 32? :D?’E ;FDE F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= – :E’D 2? :?DF=E E@ E96 G6CJ AC:?4:A=6D E9:D ?2E:@? H2D 3F:=E @?]”k^Am

    kAm~? q624@? w:==[ #6AF3=:42? =2H>2<6CD 92G6 7:=65 =68:D=2E:@? E92E H@F=5 C6A62= E96 DE2E6’D `g E@ a_J62C@=5 C6DEC:4E:@?D] qFE E96 AC@A@D2= 7246D =@?8 @55D 😕 E96 s6>@4C2E:44@?EC@==65 DE2E6 {68:D=2EFC6[ H96C6 =2H>2<6CD 92G6 D@F89E E@ E:89E6? 8F? =2HD 😕 C646?E J62CD]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E 6IA2?5:?8 2446DD E@ 7:C62C>D 7@C J@F?8 25F=ED H@F=5 @?=J :?4C62D6 8F? G:@=6?46[ ?@E:?8 E92E 92?58F?D 2C6 E96 >@DE 4@>>@?=J FD65 H62A@?D 😕 >FC56CD 2?5 >2DD D9@@E:?8D]k^Am

    kAm%96J 2=D@ ?@E6 E92E E96 >2;@C:EJ @7 >2DD D9@@E:?8D 2C6 42CC:65 @FE 3J J@F?8 25F=ED 2?5 4:E6 D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49 D9@H:?8 E92E 3C2:? 56G6=@A>6?E 😀 ?@E 7F==J 4@>A=6E6 2E `g J62CD @=5 E@ 2C8F6 E96J 42??@E 36 ECFDE65 E@ FD6 8F?D D276=J]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge overturns Trump’s Harvard funding freeze

    BOSTON — A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s move to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding for Harvard University was unconstitutional.

    The ruling issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs in Boston said the funding freeze amounted to “retaliation, unconstitutional conditions, and unconstitutional coercion” against the Ivy League school for refusing to yield to the White House’s “ideologically motivated” policy demands.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm“p C6G:6H @7 E96 25>:?:DEC2E:G6 C64@C5 >2<6D :E 5:77:4F=E E@ 4@?4=F56 2?JE9:?8 @E96C E92? E92E E96 5676?52?ED WE96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?EX FD65 2?E:D6>:E:D> 2D 2 D>@<6D4C66? 7@C 2 E2C86E65[ :56@=@8:42==J>@E:G2E65 2DD2F=E @? E9:D 4@F?ECJ’D AC6>:6C F?:G6CD:E:6D[” qFCC@F89D HC@E6 😕 E96 CF=:?8]k^Am

    kAmqFCC@F89D’ CF=:?8 3=@4:?:DEC2E:@? 7C@> E6C>:?2E:?8 @C 7C66K:?8 >@C6 7656C2= 7F?5:?8 E@ w2CG2C5[ 3FE E96 (9:E6 w@FD6 92D G@H65 E@ 2AA62= E96 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm(9:E6 w@FD6 DA@<6DA6CD@? {:K wFDE@? D2:5 E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? H:== 2AA62= E96 CF=:?8 2?5 3=2DE65 qFCC@F89D 2D 2? “24E:G:DE ~32>22AA@:?E65 ;F586]” $96 D2:5 w2CG2C5 “5@6D ?@E 92G6 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ E2IA2J6C 5@==2CD 2?5 C6>2:?D :?6=:8:3=6 7@C 8C2?ED 😕 E96 7FEFC6]”k^Am

    kAmx? 2 DE2E6>6?E[ w2CG2C5 !C6D:56?E p=2? v2C36C D2:5 E96 ;F586’D CF=:?8 “277:C>D w2CG2C5’D u:CDE p>6?5>6?E 2?5 AC@465FC2= C:89ED[ 2?5 G2=:52E6D @FC 2C8F>6?ED 😕 5676?D6 @7 E96 &?:G6CD:EJ’D 24256>:4 7C665@>[ 4C:E:42= D4:6?E:7:4 C6D62C49[ 2?5 E96 4@C6 AC:?4:A=6D @7 p>6C:42? 9:896C 65F42E:@?]”k^Am

    kAm“tG6? 2D H6 24@H=6586 E96 :>A@CE2?E AC:?4:A=6D 277:C>65 😕 E@52J’D CF=:?8[ H6 H:== 4@?E:?F6 E@ 2DD6DD E96 :>A=:42E:@?D @7 E96 @A:?:@?[ >@?:E@C 7FCE96C =682= 56G6=@A>6?ED[ 2?5 36 >:?57F= @7 E96 492?8:?8 =2?5D42A6 😕 H9:49 H6 D66< E@ 7F=7:== @FC >:DD:@?[” v6C36C D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 925 2C8F65 E96 7F?5:?8 7C66K6 H2D ?646DD2CJ E@ 4@>A6= w2CG2C5 E@ 255C6DD 2?E:D6>:E:D> 2?5 “C25:42= =67E” :56@=@8:6D @? 42>AFD]k^Am

    kAmt2C=:6C E9:D J62C[ E96 (9:E6 w@FD6’D ;@:?E 2?E:D6>:E:D> E2D< 7@C46 — H9:49 :?4=F56D E96 &]$] s6A2CE>6?E @7 w62=E9 2?5 wF>2? $6CG:46D 2?5 s6A2CE>6?E @7 t5F42E:@? — D2:5 :E 92D 5:C64E65 7656C2= 286?4:6D E@ 7C66K6 >@C6 E92? Sa]a 3:==:@? 😕 5:C64E 7656C2= 7F?5D E@ E96 6=:E6 D49@@=]k^Am

    kAm%96 286?4:6D 4:E65 E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D a_ab C63F<6 😕 $EF56?ED 7@C u2:C p5>:DD:@?D G] w2CG2C5[ F?:G6CD:EJ :?G6DE:82E:@?D 2?5 C6A@CED E92E 7@F?5 y6H:D9 DEF56?ED 2C6 DF3;64E65 E@ A6CG2D:G6 :?DF=ED[ A9JD:42= 2DD2F=E[ 2?5 :?E:>:52E:@? @? 42>AFD[ H:E9 “?@ >62?:?87F= C6DA@?D6” 7C@> w2CG2C5’D =6256CD9:A]k^Am

    kAm“w2CG2C5’D 42>AFD[ @?46 2 DJ>3@= @7 24256>:4 AC6DE:86[ 92D 364@>6 2 3C665:?8 8C@F?5 7@C G:CEF6 D:8?2=:?8 2?5 5:D4C:>:?2E:@?[” E96 E2D< 7@C46 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “%96C6 😀 2 52C< AC@3=6> @? w2CG2C5’D 42>AFD[ 2?5 3J AC:@C:E:K:?8 2AA62D6>6?E @G6C 244@F?E23:=:EJ[ :?DE:EFE:@?2= =6256CD 92G6 7@C76:E65 E96 D49@@=’D 4=2:> E@ E2IA2J6C DFAA@CE]”k^Am

    kAmw2CG2C5 DF65 @G6C E96 >@G6[ 4=2:>:?8 :E H2D “2C3:EC2CJ 2?5 42AC:4:@FD” 2?5 G:@=2E65 :ED u:CDE p>6?5>6?E C:89ED 2?5 E96 DE2EFE@CJ AC@G:D:@?D @7 %:E=6 ‘x @7 E96 r:G:= #:89ED p4E]k^Am

    kAmw2CG2C5 92D >@C6 E92? Sh 3:==:@? 😕 4FCC6?E 2?5 A=65865 7656C2= 8C2?ED 2?5 4@?EC24ED[ >F49 @7 :E 56G@E65 E@ D4:6?E:7:4 2?5 >65:42= C6D62C49[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 F?:G6CD:EJ]k^Am

    kAm%96 =682= 7:89E 😀 A2CE @7 2 9:89DE2<6D 5:DAFE6 36EH66? E96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 2?5 E96 xGJ {628F6 F?:G6CD:EJ[ H9:49 92D AFD965 324< 282:?DE E96 AC6D:56?E’D 677@CED E@ 7@C46 D49@@= =6256CD E@ 6=:>:?2E6 :ED 5:G6CD:EJ AC@8C2>>:?8 2?5 4FCE2:= DEF56?E 56>@?DEC2E:@?D @? 42>AFD]k^Am

    kAm%96 %CF>A 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 92D 2=D@ D@F89E E@ AC6G6?E w2CG2C5 7C@> 6?C@==:?8 :?E6C?2E:@?2= DEF56?ED 😕 2? 677@CE E@ AF?:D9 E96 D49@@= 7@C C67FD:?8 :ED 56>2?5D] qFE E9@D6 677@CED 92G6 D@ 72C 366? 3=@4<65 3J 7656C2= 4@FCED]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 😀 2=D@ AFD9:?8 7@C w2CG2C5 E@ 36 DEC:AA65 @7 :ED 244C65:E2E:@? 2?5 E2I6I6>AE DE2EFD 2D 96 AC6DD6D 7@C C67@C>D 2E @E96C 6=:E6 F?:G6CD:E:6D 2?5 4@==686D 96 4=2:>D 2C6 “:?5@4EC:?2E:?8” DEF56?ED H:E9 “C25:42= =67E” :562D]k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Federal judge rejects challenge to handgun restrictions

    BOSTON — A federal judge has upheld the state’s ban on the sale of certain types of handguns following a legal challenge by gun rights groups that vow to repeal the ruling.

    In a decision issued Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper rejected claims in a lawsuit filed by the owners of Gunrunners LLC and the Delaware-based Firearms Policy Coalition alleging that the restrictions violate the Second Amendment and are “inconsistent” with the nation’s history of firearm regulation.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm{2HJ6CD 7@C E96 A=2:?E:77D E@@< 2:> 2E E96 DE2E6’D 32? @? 46CE2:? EJA6D @7 92?58F?D[ 2C8F:?8 :E 😀 F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 32D65 @? E96 &]$] $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D =2?5>2C< a_aa CF=:?8 😕 }6H *@C< $E2E6 #:7=6 2?5 !:DE@= pDD@4:2E:@? G] qCF6?[ H9:49 96=5 E96C6 😀 2 4@?DE:EFE:@?2= C:89E E@ 42CCJ 2 92?58F? @FED:56 E96 9@>6 7@C D6=75676?D6]k^Am

    kAm“x? 5:C64E 567:2?46 @7 E9:D AC64656?E[ |2DD249FD6EED 92D 4=@D65 :ED 3@C56CD E@ =2C86 A@CE:@?D @7 E96 >@56C? 92?58F? >2C<6E[ 32??:?8 2D “F?D276” >2?J @7 E96 7:C62C>D E92E 2C6 >@DE ECFDE65 3J E96 p>6C:42? A6@A=6 24C@DD E96 4@F?ECJ[ DF3DE:EFE:?8 :ED ;F58>6?E 7@C E96:CD[” E96 A=2:?E:77D HC@E6 😕 4@FCE 7:=:?8D]k^Am

    kAmqFE r2DA6C C6;64E65 E9@D6 2C8F>6?ED[ 2C8F:?8 E92E E96 DE2E6’D C68F=2E:@?D C6BF:C6 92?58F?D D@=5 3J C6E2:=6CD E@ 92G6 2 “>6492?:D> H9:49 67764E:G6=J AC64=F56D 2? 2G6C286 7:G6 J62C @=5 49:=5 7C@> @A6C2E:?8 E96 92?58F? H96? :E 😀 C625J E@ 7:C6]”k^Am

    kAm“%96 AFCA@D6 7@C E96 C68F=2E:@?D 😀 “C6=2E:G6=J D:>:=2C” E@ E92E @7 E96 9:DE@C:42= 6G:56?46[ H9:49 H2D E@ AC6G6?E 49:=5C6? 7C@> 244:56?E2==J 5:D492C8:?8 2 7:C62C> 8:G6? E96:C 23:=:EJ E@ 92?5=6 2?5 @A6C2E6 E96 7:C62C>[” r2DA6C HC@E6]k^Am

    kAm|2DD249FD6EED 92D D@>6 @7 E96 E@F896DE 7:C62C> C68F=2E:@?D 😕 E96 ?2E:@? 2?5 AC@9:3:ED 2?J@?6 `g J62CD @=5 @C J@F?86C 7C@> AFC492D:?8 2 7:C62C> @C 2>>F?:E:@?[ H9:=6 C6D:56?ED F?56C a` 42??@E 3FJ 2 92?58F?[ D6>:2FE@>2E:4 C:7=6 @C D9@E8F?[ @C =2C8642A24:EJ H62A@?]k^Am

    kAm&?56C DE2E6 C68F=2E:@?D[ 92?58F?D D@=5 3J 562=6CD >FDE A2DD 2 >2<6 2?5 >@56= A6C7@C>2?46 E6DE AC@G:?8 E96J 2C6 ?@E AC@?6 E@ C6A62E65 7:C:?8 7C@> 2 D:?8=6 EC:886C AF==[ 6IA=@D:@? FA@? 7:C:?8 H:E9 DE2?52C5 2>>F?:E:@?[ @C 244:56?E2= 5:D492C86] %96 DE2E6 92D 2 C@DE6C @7 92?58F?D 2AAC@G65 7@C D2=6]k^Am

    kAmvF? 4@?EC@= 25G@42E6D 2C8F6 E96 DE2E6’D DEC:4E C6BF:C6>6?ED – :?4=F5:?8 C62=E:>6 =:46?D6 4964D]k^Am

    kAmqFE $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E 8C@FAD 92G6 =@?8 2C8F65 E92E E96 E@F896C 8F? 4@?EC@= =2HD 2C6 F??646DD2CJ 2?5 AF?:D9 =2H23:5:?8 8F? @H?6CD H9:=6 D:56DE6AA:?8 E96 :DDF6 @7 :==682= 7:C62C>D] %96 DE2E6’D 7:C62C> =:46?D:?8 AC@46DD 92D =@?8 366? 2 E2C86E 7@C 8F? C:89ED 8C@FAD]k^Am

    kAmpEE@C?6J v6?6C2= p?5C62 r2>A36==[ H9@ H2D ?2>65 2D 2 5676?52?E 😕 E96 =2HDF:E[ D2:5 E96 CF=:?8 4@?7:C>D E92E “|2DD249FD6EED 92D E96 DEC@?86DE 8F? D276EJ =2HD 😕 E96 4@F?ECJ E92E 2C6 6?7@C465 4@?D:DE6?E H:E9 AF3=:4 D276EJ 2?5 E96 $64@?5 p>6?5>6?E]”k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 564:D:@? E@ FA9@=5 |2DD249FD6EED 92?58F? D276EJ C68F=2E:@?D 😀 2 D:8?:7:42?E H:? E92E H:== AC@E64E E96 AF3=:4 2?5 4@?E:?F6 |2DD249FD6EED’ =6256CD9:A @? 8F? G:@=6?46 AC6G6?E:@?[” E96 s6>@4C2E D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E]k^Am

    kAmqFE qC2?5@? r@>3D[ u!r’D AC6D:56?E[ 4C:E:4:K65 r2DA6C’D CF=:?8 2D “3:K2CC6 2?5 566A=J 7=2H65” 2?5 D2:5 E96 A=2:?E:77D H:== 2AA62= E96 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAm“%9:D 564:D:@? 😀 23DFC5[ =2H=6DD[ 2?5 :>A@DD:3=6 E@ C64@?4:=6 H:E9 3:?5:?8 $FAC6>6 r@FCE AC64656?E @C E96 E6IE 2?5 9:DE@CJ @7 E96 r@?DE:EFE:@?[” 96 D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “|2<6 ?@ >:DE2<6i u!r H:== 2AA62= E9:D :?D2?6 CF=:?8 2?5 H6 H:== 7:89E F?E:= E9:D F?4@?DE:EFE:@?2= 32? 😀 DECF4< 5@H? – H92E6G6C :E E2<6D[ 7@C 2D =@?8 2D :E E2<6D]”k^Am

    kAmk6>mr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^6>mk^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Report: Mass. taxpayers to get big tax cut in 2026

    BOSTON — Massachusetts taxpayers will receive a big break next year under President Donald Trump’s recently enacted spending package, according to a new report.

    The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan Washington-based think tank, estimates that Bay Staters will see their taxes cut by an average of $5,139 in 2026 under Trump’s so-called One Big Beautiful Bill – the third-largest reduction in the nation following Wyoming and Washington state.


    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%96 E2I H2E495@8 8C@FA AC@;64ED E9@D6 4FED H:== 5C@A D=:89E=J E@ 2? 2G6C286 @7 Sc[fad 😕 a_af[ Sc[eae 😕 a_ag 2?5 Sc[_`b 😕 a_ah 2D D@>6 >62DFC6D 😕 E96 >2DD:G6 E2I 2?5 A@=:4J 3:== 6IA:C6[ 367@C6 :?4C62D:?8 E@ Sc[dgc 😕 a_bd] %9@D6 4FED C2?86 7C@> :?4C62D65 DE2?52C5 565F4E:@?D E@ C2:D:?8 E96 42A @? DE2E6 2?5 =@42= E2I 565F4E:@?D[ E96 8C@FA D2:5]k^Am

    kAm%96 AC@;64E65 E2I 4FED G2CJ 3J 4@F?EJ[ H:E9 |:55=6D6I r@F?EJ 6IA64E65 E@ D66 E96 =2C86DE 2G6C286 564C62D6 – Sf[_gd ?6IE J62C[ E96 C6A@CE’D 2FE9@CD D2:5] x? tDD6I r@F?EJ[ E96 2G6C286 E2I 4FE ?6IE J62C H:== 36 Sc[hee[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 C6A@CE]k^Am

    kAm%96 ?6H =2H 😀 2=D@ 6IA64E65 E@ 4C62E6 2E =62DE af[h_h ;@3D 😕 |2DD249FD6EED[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 %2I u@F?52E:@?]k^Am

    kAm}2E:@?H:56[ E96 2G6C286 E2I 4FE 7@C a_ae H:== 36 Sb[fda 3642FD6 @7 %CF>A’D DA6?5:?8 A24<286[ H9:49 😀 6IA64E65 E@ 4C62E6 ?62C=J ` >:==:@? ;@3D[ 244@C5:?8 E@ E96 %2I u@F?52E:@?]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A D:8?65 9:D ~?6 q:8 q62FE:7F= q:==[ E96 46?E6CA:646 @7 9:D 64@?@>:4 286?52[ :?E@ =2H @? yF=J c 27E6C :E A2DD65 3@E9 E96 w@FD6 @7 #6AC6D6?E2E:G6D 2?5 $6?2E6 😕 2 =2C86=J A2CE:D2? G@E6]k^Am

    kAm|6>36CD @7 E96 DE2E6’D 2==s6>@4C2E 4@?8C6DD:@?2= 56=682E:@?[ :?4=F5:?8 #6AD] $6E9 |@F=E@? 2?5 {@C: %C292?[ G@E65 282:?DE E96 DA6?5:?8 3:==]k^Am

    kAmv@G] |2FC2 w62=6J 2?5 @E96C DE2E6 =6256CD H2C? E96 3:==’D AC@G:D:@?D 4@F=5 7@C46 E96 DE2E6 E@ 4FE 36?67:ED 7@C E6?D @7 E9@FD2?5D @7 =@H:?4@>6 |65:42:5 C64:A:6?ED 2?5 5:D>2?E=6 7@@5 :?D64FC:EJ AC@8C2>D E92E 92G6 D66? 56>2?5 DFC86 😕 E96 H2<6 @7 E96 A2?56>:4]k^Am

    kAm%96J D2J E96 =68:D=2E:@?’D Shb_ 3:==:@? 4FE E@ 7656C2= |65:42:5 7F?5:?8 H:== 7@C46 |2DD249FD6EED 2?5 @E96C DE2E6D E@ >2<6 4@CC6DA@?5:?8 4FED E@ E96:C AC@8C2>D @C A:4< FA 2 8C62E6C D92C6 @7 @3=:82E:@?D]k^Am

    kAm%96 3:==’D A92D6@FE @7 |65:42:5 AC@G:56C E2I6D 2?5 5:C64E A2J>6?ED[ H9:49 DE2E6D FD6 E@ 96=A 7F?5 E96:C D92C6 @7 AC@8C2> 4@DED[ H@F=5 2=D@ 9FCE[ @77:4:2=D D2J]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A’D 3:== H@F=5 2=D@ 7@C46 DE2E6D E@ A:4< FA 2 =2C86C A@CE:@? @7 4@DED 7@C E96 7656C2==J 7F?565 “7@@5 DE2>A” AC@8C2>[ H9:49 DE2E6 =6256CD 2?5 25G@42E6D D2J H:== 9FCE ?665J 72>:=:6D 2?5 3FD:?6DD6D]k^Am

    kAm%96 w62=6J 25>:?:DEC2E:@? D2:5 E96 492?86D 4@F=5 4@DE |2DD249FD6EED FA E@ Sf`_ >:==:@? 2 J62C[ H9:49 E96 DE2E6 42??@E 277@C5]k^Am

    kAmqFE E2IA2J6CD 😕 |2DD249FD6EED 2?5 @E96C DE2E6D 2C6 6IA64E65 E@ 36?67:E 7C@> 2 AC@G:D:@? @7 E96 =2H E92E C2:D6D E96 42A @? DE2E6 2?5 =@42= E2I 565F4E:@?D @G6C E96 ?6IE 7:G6 J62CD E@ Sc_[___ 7@C E9@D6 >2<:?8 =6DD E92? Sd__[___ A6C J62C[ 6IA2?565 49:=5 E2I 4C65:E 2?5 DE2?52C5 565F4E:@?D[ 2?5 2 C65F4E:@? 😕 E96 E2I @? E:AD 2?5 @G6CE:>6 A2J[ 2>@?8 @E96CD]k^Am

    kAm%96 (9:E6 w@FD6 E@FE65 E96 %2I u@F?52E:@?’D C6A@CE 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E[ 42==:?8 E96 ?6H =2H E96 >@DE D:8?:7:42?E =68:D=2E:G6 492?86D E@ 7656C2= E2I A@=:4J D:?46 E96 a_`f %2I rFED 2?5 y@3D p4E[ H9:49 H2D A2DD65 😕 %CF>A’D 7:CDE AC6D:56?4J]k^Am

    kAm“!C6D:56?E %CF>A’D ~?6 q:8 q62FE:7F= q:== 😀 E96 =2C86DE[ >@DE 4@?D6BF6?E:2= E2I 4FE @? E96 >:55=6 4=2DD 6G6C] }@H[ E96 %2I u@F?52E:@? – E96 =625:?8 ?@?A2CE:D2? E2I A@=:4J ?@?AC@7:E – 4@?7:C>D E92E[” (9:E6 w@FD6 56AFEJ AC6DD D64C6E2CJ p??2 z6==J D2:5 😕 2 DE2E6>6?E] “q6EH66? =@H6C :?7=2E:@?[ >2DD:G6 :?G6DE>6?ED[ 2?5 9:DE@C:4 E2I 4FED[ 2== p>6C:42?D 2C6 C62A:?8 E96 36?67:ED @7 E96 %CF>A t4@?@>J – 2?5 E96 v@=56? p86 92D ;FDE 368F?]”k^Am

    kAmr9C:DE:2? |] (256 4@G6CD E96 |2DD249FD6EED $E2E69@FD6 7@C }@CE9 @7 q@DE@? |65:2 vC@FAUCDBF@jD ?6HDA2A6CD 2?5 H63D:E6D] t>2:= 9:> 2E k2 9C67lQ>2:=E@i4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>Qm4H256o4?9:?6HD]4@>k^2m]k^Am

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Healey moves to implement gun control law

    Healey moves to implement gun control law

    BOSTON — Gov. Maura Healey is moving to implement a tough new gun control law in response to a lawsuit challenging its provisions and a effort to repeal the restrictions.

    On Wednesday, Healey signed an executive order attaching an emergency preamble to the bill she signed in July that expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    Gun control groups praised the rare maneuver, which they said is aimed at blocking an effort by critics of the new law to block its implementation as they gather signatures to put the issue before voters in two years.

    “After years of advocating for these gun safety measures to become law, we weren’t going to stand by and let the gun lobby get in the way of our progress,” Anne Thalheimer, a survivor fellow with the Everytown Survivor Network, said in a statement. “We’re grateful to Governor Healey for standing with us and taking decisive action to ensure that this lifesaving law is implemented.”

    But the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the law’s training and licensing requirements, said Healey’s “radical move” signing the executive order makes hundreds of thousands of lawful gun owners across the state into “felons in waiting.”

    He accused the governor and Democratic lawmakers of waging a “consistent effort to silence our voices and mislead the general public.”

    “Ever since this tantrum against the Supreme Court decision Bruen started last year, the so-called ‘process’ has become even more putrid,” said Jim Wallace, GOAL’s executive director, in a statement. “At every turn, the Legislature and now the governor, have avoided honest public input, especially from the 2A [Second Amendment] community.”

    Wallace said despite the order the group is still urging the federal judge to issue a temporary injunction to block the law from going into effect as the ballot initiative and legal challenge plays out in court.

    Besides the legal fight, critics of the new law or gathering signatures to put the question before voters in the 2026 election. They argue that the restrictions will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive legal gun owners of their constitutional rights.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the state’s assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It also set strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as so-called “Glock switches” that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the legislation.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill through the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Auditor: No tax rebates issued this year

    Auditor: No tax rebates issued this year

    It’s official: Massachusetts’ taxpayers won’t be getting a break this year from a decades-old tax rebate law, the state’s fiscal watchdog says.

    State Auditor Diana DiZoglio said a review by her office has determined that the net state tax revenues of more than $39 billion in fiscal 2023 were below the allowable amount of $44.4 billion, “resulting in no excess state tax revenues.”

    The auditor’s report is based on data from the state Department of Revenue, which also concluded that taxpayers won’t be getting any extra refunds this year.

    In 2022, the state returned $3 billion to more than 3.6 million taxpayers under the voter-approved Chapter 62F law, which requires Massachusetts to refund money when tax revenues grow by more than wages and salaries.

    But lawmakers approved changes to the law as part of a $1 billion tax relief package, signed by Gov. Maura Healey in October, that exempted collections from the new “millionaires tax” – which sets a 4% surtax on incomes above $1 million – from the calculation.

    In the previous year, the state collected nearly $2.2 billion from the tax, according to the report.

    Last year, DiZoglio’s office determined that the net state tax revenues of nearly $37 billion in fiscal 2023 were below the allowable amount of $41.4 billion, which was also below the threshold to trigger the rebate law.

    The Chapter 62F law was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1986. Besides 2022, the rebate law had only been triggered once since it was approved – in fiscal 1987 – when the state’s actual revenues exceeded allowable revenues by nearly $30 million.

    As part of the tax relief plan, lawmakers also tweaked the Chapter 62F law to require that any future rebates be paid out “equally” among taxpayers, and married taxpayers who file a joint return with the federal government must also file a joint state return.

    That change was prompted by concerns raised by liberal groups that “loopholes” in state law would allow wealthy households to skirt the “millionaires tax”.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Former owner of popular sandwich shop pleads guilty to tax fraud

    Former owner of popular sandwich shop pleads guilty to tax fraud

    SALEM — The former owner of Red’s Sandwich Shop in Salem has pleaded guilty to tax fraud after failing to pay more than $1.5 million in state meals taxes and causing employment tax losses of more than $400,000, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

    John Drivas, 66, who lives in Hampton, New Hampshire, pleaded guilty in federal court on Sept. 6 to five counts of failure to collect and pay employment taxes owed to the IRS and four counts of wire fraud for state meals taxes he collected from restaurant customers but failed to pay over to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue.

    The offenses took place over a six-year period between January 2016 and October 2022 at Red’s Sandwich Shop and two other restaurants owned and operated by Drivas — Red’s Kitchen and Tavern in Peabody and Red’s Seabrook in Seabrook, New Hampshire.

    Drivas was the sole shareholder of the Salem restaurant until he sold it to an employee in September 2022. He was the 100% owner of the Peabody restaurant with his wife, and the 52% owner of the Seabrook restaurant with his children.

    U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick scheduled sentencing for Dec. 5. The charge of failure to pay taxes carries a maximum potential sentence of five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss and restitution. Each wire fraud charge is punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

    According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Drivas collected more than $1.5 million in state meals taxes paid by restaurant customers that he failed to pay over to the state as required by law. In Massachusetts, all owners and operators of restaurants and bars are required to collect 6.25% sales taxes on meals. Salem and Peabody also require restaurants and bar to collect an additional 0.75% local option meals excise tax.

    Although Drivas collected the taxes from customers, he intentionally withheld $1,596,775 of those taxes from monthly reports and payments owed to the state Department of Revenue.

    Drivas also paid wages to numerous employees of the restaurants partly by payroll checks and partly in cash. He did not report the cash wages to the IRS or pay employment taxes on them, causing employment tax losses of $439,341. Federal tax law requires employers to withhold from any employee wages an amount for income taxes and other amounts for Social Security and Medicare taxes.

    Drivas’ guilty plea was announced by the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Boston Field Office, and the Insurance Fraud Bureau of Massachusetts.

    By News Staff

    Source link

  • Gun control foes push to repeal restrictions

    Gun control foes push to repeal restrictions

    BOSTON — Opponents of Massachusetts’ new gun control law are gearing up to repeal the tough restrictions, which they say will hurt businesses, cost jobs and deprive people of their constitutional rights.

    A law signed by Democratic Gov. Maura Healey in July expanded the state’s bans on “assault” weapons and high-capacity magazines, outlawed so-called “ghost” guns and set new restrictions on the open carry of firearms, among other provisions.

    The move was in response to concerns about mass shootings and gun violence.

    But critics of the new restrictions say they are unconstitutional and argue the changes will do little to reduce gun violence. They’ve started gathering signatures on petitions to put a repeal of the law before voters in the 2026 elections.

    The chief organizer of the repeal effort, Cape Cod Gun Works owner Toby Leary, said on Thursday that the petition-gathering effort is well underway and he is seeing strong support for putting the question on the ballot.

    “A lot of businesses and jobs are at stake,” Leary said during a livestreamed briefing sponsored by the state’s Republican Party. “The effects of this law on businesses will be catastrophic. Jobs will be lost. Businesses and livelihoods will be lost.”

    Leary said among the many concerns gun shop owners have about the new restrictions is that the expansion of banned firearms will reduce the kinds of rifles and other weapons that can be sold in the state, which will hurt bottom lines. He estimates about 50% of his business will be “put on hold” if the law isn’t repealed.

    “But this is also about freedom,” Leary said. “This law is so unconstitutional on every level. A lot of ordinary people are going to run afoul of this law.”

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    Gun control advocates argue the strict requirements have given the largely urban state one of the lowest gun-death rates in the nation, while not infringing on the right to bear arms.

    Despite those trends, Democrats who pushed the gun control bill thorough the Legislature argued that gun violence is still impacting communities across the state whether by suicide, domestic violence or drive-by shootings.

    Second Amendment groups have long argued that the tougher gun control laws are unnecessary, and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    The new law, which passed despite objections from the Legislature’s Republican minority, added dozens of long rifles to a list of prohibited guns under the assault weapons ban, and outlawed the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It sets strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as Glock switches that convert semi-automatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others, was also expanded under the law.

    The repeal effort is one of several seeking to block the law. The Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, plans to file a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law’s training and licensing requirements. Other legal challenges are expected.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link

  • Gun rights group chips in $100K for court challenge

    Gun rights group chips in $100K for court challenge

    BOSTON — A national gun rights group pledges to help fund a legal challenge to overturn the state’s tough new gun control law that critics say will do little to prevent gun violence while depriving people of their constitutional rights.

    The Firearm Industry Trade Association said it has donated $100,000 to the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League to support the group’s legal challenge against new restrictions on firearms licensing signed into law by Gov. Maura Healey.

    “Massachusetts is known as a birthplace of the American Revolution, but these lawmakers have turned their backs to rights that belong to the people and instead are instituting an Orwellian state over the citizens of the Commonwealth,” Lawrence G. Keane, the association’s senior vice president and general counsel, said in a statement.

    “The fight to protect liberty and individual rights begins anew and we are confident that when federal courts apply scrutiny to this law, it will be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs,” Keane said.

    The new law, signed by Healey last month, adds dozens of long rifles to a list prohibited under the state’s “assault” weapons ban and outlaws the open carry of firearms in government buildings, polling places and schools, with exemptions for law enforcement officials.

    It sets strict penalties for possession of modification devices such as Glock switches that convert semiautomatic firearms into fully automatic, military-style weapons. The measure also expands the state’s red flag law, which allows a judge to suspend the gun license of someone deemed at risk to themselves or others.

    Massachusetts already has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country, including real-time license checks for private gun sales and stiff penalties for gun-based crimes.

    But Second Amendment groups argue tougher gun control laws are unnecessary and punish law-abiding gun owners while sidestepping the issue of illegal firearms.

    GOAL, which is affiliated with the National Rifle Association, has dubbed the restrictions the “The Devil’s Snare” and say it represents the greatest attack on civil rights in modern U.S. history. The group has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the new law’s training and licensing requirements. Other legal challenges are expected.

    Members of the group have also filed a petition with the Secretary of State’s Office to begin gathering signatures on a petition to put a repeal of the law before voters next year. The group wants to suspend the law ahead of a 2026 statewide referendum.

    Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.

    By Christian M. Wade | Statehouse Reporter

    Source link