Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Massachusetts Officials Embrace Gun Control, Avoid Crime Control, and Force Citizen Action

Monday, May 18, 2026

Massachusetts Officials Embrace Gun Control, Avoid Crime Control, and Force Citizen Action

Massachusetts has among the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. The Bay State is one of an exceedingly small group of states, along with Illinois, to require a license to merely own any type of firearm. Long terrible on Second Amendment rights, in 2024 the state enacted Chapter 135, a 116-page bill that overhauled state gun laws to further attack law-abiding gun owners.

None of their gun control efforts should give readers the impression Massachusetts officials have a serious concern for public safety. Neighboring New Hampshire enjoys a lower homicide rate while having what some consider the least restrictive gun laws in the nation. Moreover, a recent high-profile case in Boston suburb Cambridge, Mass., highlighted the state’s lackadaisical approach to dealing with actual violent criminals.

On May 11, a suspect opened fire on a prominent street in Cambridge at around 12:30 p.m. Video of the incident went viral, showing the suspect seeming to shoot vehicles at random. Reports indicate that the individual fired 50 to 60 shots, striking more than a dozen vehicles and severely wounding two drivers.

As with so many crimes, the suspect was stopped by good guys with guns.

CBS News reported,

As people scattered from their cars, [Middlesex District Attorney Marian] Ryan said a State Police trooper and a civilian, a Marine veteran who has a license to carry a gun, went toward the suspect with their weapons.

"Both the trooper and the civilian fired their weapons, and that suspect was struck multiple times in the extremities," Ryan said.

Gun rights supporters are right to celebrate the heroic actions of the armed citizen who helped police take down the suspect. But law-abiding gun owners should also be appalled at how a state that tramples on their rights allowed this to take place at all.

According to a report from the Boston Globe, the suspect “previously was imprisoned for shooting at police.” The article stated:

[the suspect] is currently serving three years of probation after his release from state prison last year where he served a sentence for a May 2020 shooting in the South End that involved four Boston police officers. The officers were not injured but they were evaluated at a hospital. [The suspect] had been released from prison five months before that shooting. He was sentenced to five to six years with credit for 545 days time served.

Reports indicate that the suspect was released from prison in January.

According to CBS News, at the time of the suspect’s 2020 shooting, they were already “on probation for a 2014 conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon – a knife – and witness intimidation.”

The outlet noted that following the 2020 shooting:

At [the suspect’s] sentencing, prosecutors for the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office, working at the time under D.A. Rachael Rollins, requested 10 to 12 years behind bars for [the suspect]. Judge Janet Sanders instead sentenced him to five to six years behind bars.

MA ST 265 § 18 (“Assault with intent to rob or murder”) provides for up to 20 years imprisonment.

Rollins, to her credit, found the sentence so egregious that on August 19, 2021, she issued a prescient press release objecting to the judge’s actions. Citing the suspect’s criminal history, Rollins pointed out that the judge not only went below the office’s sentencing recommendation but also limited the suspect’s time behind bars by allowing him to serve multiple sentences concurrently rather than consecutively.

The release stated:

At the time of the armed assault, [the suspect] was on probation for a 2014 conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (knife) and witness intimidation.  He was sentenced to four to five years in state prison for violating his probation. Judge Saunders determined that sentence will be served concurrently with the term she imposed on his most recent violent felonies.

Rollins told CBS News, “What the judge did was double harm.”

While Rollins took exception to the suspect’s light sentence, it seems unremarkable for Massachusetts. An investigative reporter for Boston 25 News went to the judge’s home where the judge told him, “I’m not going to comment. I have no memory of this case.”

While the judge might not remember, NBC10 Boston found a recording of the 2021 sentencing. Summarizing the contents, the outlet reported:

"[Suspect’s name], I do realize that I’m taking a chance on you," she said, in a recording of the sentencing obtained by NBC10 Boston Tuesday. "When people stand up, experienced police officers and probation officers, and they tell me, 'This guy is a danger to the community,' I hear that and it gives me… you know, I can’t look into a crystal ball and figure out what’s going to happen once you get out. But I do understand that I’m taking a risk here."

She added, "And I just pray that my intuitions are right and that you have the ability, the smarts, the will, the support not to go out there and endanger other people's lives as you have in the past."

Later, Sanders noted that it's very serious to open fire on a police officer, but "there's a difference between shooting at a police officer and shooting a police officer. And the reality is that no one was injured."

Thus, another police officer, and an armed citizen, were forced to temporarily incapacitate this dangerous individual where the state’s criminal justice system proved unwilling to do so. Law-abiding gun owners have every right to be disgusted with a government that fails in its most basic duty to protect the public from criminal violence while it works strenuously to prevent decent people from providing for their own protection.

TRENDING NOW
“Derivative Disarmament” – A “No Fault” Loss of Gun Rights

News  

Monday, September 14, 2026

“Derivative Disarmament” – A “No Fault” Loss of Gun Rights

One of the aftereffects of the United States Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen was the ire expressed by antigun lawmakers, executives and judges, which manifested as an outright unwillingness to respect the ...

Redditors Embarrass Virginia Assembly’s Chief Gun Banner

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Redditors Embarrass Virginia Assembly’s Chief Gun Banner

In late August, Virginia State Delegate Dan Helmer (D-10), who represents a portion of the Northern Virginia D.C. suburb of Fairfax County, took to Reddit for an “ask me anything” (AMA) question and answer session.

Promise to Practice: Federal Firearm Rights Restoration is Now a Reality

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Promise to Practice: Federal Firearm Rights Restoration is Now a Reality

The federal government’s promise to provide a pathway to restore firearm rights is no longer merely a commitment on paper. 

Remembering NRA Benefactor John Mascari II from Indianapolis, Indiana

Take Action  

Monday, September 14, 2026

Remembering NRA Benefactor John Mascari II from Indianapolis, Indiana

John was a dedicated NRA volunteer, recruiter, and FrontLines Activist Leader (FAL) whose commitment to protecting the Second Amendment touched many people throughout central Indiana.

Virginia Case Shows Gun Control is Aimed at Decent Citizens, Not Criminals

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Virginia Case Shows Gun Control is Aimed at Decent Citizens, Not Criminals

Economics has a concept called “revealed preference.” The gist is that a person’s observed actions reveal more about their preferences than what a person might profess to favor. 

Unhealthy Exposure: Gun Ban Advocates Allergic to Defensive Gun Use

News  

Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Unhealthy Exposure: Gun Ban Advocates Allergic to Defensive Gun Use

One of the narratives invented by gun control activists and their political allies to try to make their agenda more palatable to the general public has been to recast gun crime as a “public health ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court “Assault Weapons” Cases

Saturday, September 5, 2026

NRA Files Amicus Brief in Supreme Court “Assault Weapons” Cases

The National Rifle Association, alongside the Independence Institute and the American Suppressor Association, filed an amicus brief on Friday in the consolidated cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which challenge the "assault weapons” bans ...

Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case

Wednesday, August 5, 2026

Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case

In another major victory for the National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas today held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for ...

Questions and Answers About the Texas NFA Case

News  

Monday, August 17, 2026

Questions and Answers About the Texas NFA Case

On August 12, we reported on an important development in the ongoing litigation over the National Firearms Act (NFA) filed by multiple plaintiffs in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. These included, ...

What Does the Texas NFA Decision Mean for You?

News  

Wednesday, August 12, 2026

What Does the Texas NFA Decision Mean for You?

On August 5, 2026, Judge Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

NRA ILA

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.