(November 4, 2026) – Boston, MA – The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) today expressed disappointment as Massachusetts voters failed to repeal Chapter 135, Massachusetts’ egregious 2024 firearm law. Chapter 135 will remain in effect, continuing firearm regulatory requirements that CSF has raised concerns about for their potential impact on access to hunting and recreational shooting opportunities in the Commonwealth.
Although Massachusetts voters did not vote to repeal Chapter 135, CSF emphasized that the outcome does not diminish the important role hunters and recreational shooters play in supporting wildlife conservation, wildlife management, and local economies throughout the state.
“While we are disappointed that Massachusetts voters did not repeal Chapter 135, CSF remains committed to protecting the Commonwealth’s hunting and recreational shooting traditions and the conservation system supported by sportsmen and women,” said Taylor Schmitz, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “Hunters and recreational shooters contribute to conservation through license purchases and equipment expenditures through their role as the primary drivers of the American System of Conservation Funding. We will continue working alongside the Massachusetts Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus, conservation partners, and sportsmen and women to ensure their interests are represented in future discussions about firearm policy, hunting access, and wildlife management.”
Question 9 asked voters whether to repeal Chapter 135, the firearm law enacted in 2024. Had the majority voted to repeal, Massachusetts would have returned to the statutory framework that existed before Chapter 135. With Massachusetts voters not achieving the majority needed to repeal Chapter 135, the law’s provisions will remain in place, including changes affecting firearm licensing, training, testing, and eligibility to possess certain semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
CSF has expressed concern that the law’s requirements could create additional barriers for some hunters and recreational shooters, particularly individuals whose existing firearms may no longer comply with the new requirements. For some hunters, the cost of acquiring a compliant replacement firearm could create a financial obstacle to continued participation in hunting.
Reduced participation in hunting and recreational shooting would also have implications for conservation funding and local economic activity. Through the American System of Conservation Funding, sportsmen and women are the primary funders of wildlife management, habitat conservation, and public access through hunting and fishing license revenues and excise taxes on qualifying equipment. Nonresident hunters also contribute to Massachusetts communities through expenditures on lodging, food, fuel, licenses, and other local goods and services.
“Chapter 135 not being repealed does not change the important contributions sportsmen and women make to conservation,” said Schmitz. “However, policies that make participation more difficult or costly can create additional challenges for the people who support wildlife management and conservation. CSF will continue advocating for policies that recognize the value of hunting and recreational shooting.”
The outcome of this vote also highlights the importance of continued engagement between policymakers and the sporting community. Hunters play a role in wildlife population management, while the revenues generated by sportsmen and women help fund conservation programs that benefit a wide range of wildlife species and outdoor users. This is another strong example of why it is so important for sportsmen and women to exercise their right to vote to protect the longstanding hunting and shooting traditions that have always been an important part of the culture in the Commonwealth.
Although voters did not repeal Chapter 135, CSF remains committed to ensuring that the voices of Massachusetts hunters, anglers, recreational shooters, and trappers are represented in policy discussions affecting their traditions and their contributions to wildlife conservation.