This election season EastBoston.com will open up its pages to candidates and their supporters. If you are interested in posting an article in favor of a candidate or ballot proposition, contact editor@eastboston.com.
By DR. ANNIE K. BUCK
With Election Day just weeks away, Massachusetts faces a consequential decision: whether to preserve the progress we have made on gun violence prevention or roll back protections designed to keep our communities safe. What is at stake is more than a disagreement over firearm regulation, it is a fundamental question about whether we will continue building on decades of public health progress or dismantle tools designed to prevent violence and suicide before tragedy strikes.
As a firearm injury and suicide prevention researcher at Boston Medical Center and Boston University, I have spent years examining the intersection of firearm policy, public health, and clinical practice. I have also witnessed the consequences of firearm violence firsthand, both professionally and personally. These experiences have reinforced a central lesson: preventing firearm injury requires more than responding after violence occurs. It requires evidence-informed policies that give healthcare professionals, law enforcement, and communities the tools to recognize risk and intervene before lives are lost.
In July 2024, Massachusetts enacted H.4885, An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, strengthening the Commonwealth’s longstanding approach to firearm safety. The legislation addressed rapidly emerging challenges, including previously untraceable 3D printed “ghost guns”, improved firearm data collection and accountability, strengthened violence prevention measures, and expanded eligibility to petition for Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), also known as red flag laws.
These provisions passed were not isolated regulatory changes. Instead, they reflect a comprehensive public health approach that recognizes firearm violence as a complex, preventable problem requiring coordinated solutions.
We should acknowledge and be proud of the fact that Massachusetts has consistently maintained one of the lowest firearm mortality rates in the country. That statistic did not happen by accident. While no single law can account for our comparatively low rates of firearm deaths, decades of research demonstrate the importance of comprehensive prevention strategies that address firearm access, identify individuals at elevated risk, and strengthen systems of accountability.
Yet comparatively low rates do not mean the problem is solved. In 2024, approximately 64% of firearm deaths in Massachusetts were suicides. Behind every statistic is a person, a family, and a community left to navigate an entirely preventable loss. Firearm violence also extends far beyond fatalities, leaving survivors and communities with lasting physical, psychological, and economic consequences.
The 2024 legislation recognized that effective prevention requires adapting to evolving threats and closing gaps in existing protections. For example, expanding ERPO petitioning eligibility to licensed healthcare professionals and certain educational personnel created an additional opportunity for intervention when individuals exhibit warning signs of harm to themselves or others. Previously, these professionals lacked the authority to petition directly, even when their work placed them in a position to recognize serious risk. My research examining implementation of this expansion has demonstrated that targeted education can meaningfully improve clinicians’ knowledge, confidence, and readiness to use these preventive tools. It has also reinforced that legislation alone is not enough. Effective implementation requires institutional support, training, and coordination across healthcare, legal, and public safety systems.
These systems take time to develop. Repealing protections while institutions are still building the infrastructure necessary to implement them risks undermining progress before their full impact can be understood.
Opponents of H.4885 have raised concerns about constitutional rights, due process, and the burdens imposed on lawful firearm owners. These questions warrant serious consideration, but they should be examined in the context of what the legislation actually does. Massachusetts’ ERPO process, for example, includes judicial oversight, evidentiary requirements, and opportunities for individuals to challenge temporary restrictions. It needs to be emphasized, the 2024 legislation preserves a clear pathway to lawful firearm ownership.
Protecting constitutional rights and protecting communities from preventable harm are not mutually exclusive objectives. Responsible firearm policy must take both seriously.
The debate surrounding Question 9 has too often framed firearm safety as a choice between individual rights and public health. This is a false choice. Effective policy requires balancing legitimate constitutional protections with the responsibility to reduce preventable injury and death.
For communities like East Boston, these issues are not abstract. Firearm violence affects families, neighborhood safety, schools, and the broader social fabric. Its consequences extend well beyond individual incidents, shaping the health, stability, and well-being of entire communities.
A YES vote on question 9 would preserve H.4885 and its comprehensive firearm safety protections. A NO vote would repeal the legislation in its entirety.
As a researcher, I believe public policy must be evaluated not only by its intentions but by its capacity to prevent measurable harm. We in the Commonwealth cannot claim to value prevention while dismantling the very tools designed to make it possible. Massachusetts has come too far, and too many lives remain at stake, to mistake repeal for progress.
Dr. Annie K. Buck, PhD, MS is a Boston resident and researcher at Boston Medical Center and Boston University.
