Dan Hagan’s open letter to every Massachusetts district attorney isn’t just a polite request for clarity—it’s a strategic shot across the bow at a system that has weaponized ambiguity against lawful gun owners. By demanding public commitments on whether prosecutors will pursue technical, non-violent Chapter 135 violations, Hagan and the Civil Rights Coalition are forcing DAs to choose between enforcing a statute so convoluted that even the Hemani decision couldn’t untangle it and admitting that the law’s real purpose is to criminalize otherwise peaceful citizens. This move exposes the soft underbelly of Massachusetts’ gun-control regime: when enforcement relies on prosecutorial whim rather than clear statutes, the Second Amendment becomes a privilege granted or revoked at the discretion of local officials rather than a protected right.

The 2026 referendum to repeal Chapter 135 now carries even greater weight because Hagan’s letter highlights how the law’s complexity invites selective prosecution and red-flag-style overreach without due process. Lawful owners shouldn’t have to navigate a minefield of paperwork traps just to exercise a constitutional right, yet that’s exactly what the current framework demands. The Boston Globe’s predictable op-ed attacking the ballot effort only underscores how threatened the anti-2A establishment feels when citizens organize to restore clarity and fairness. For the broader 2A community, this episode is a reminder that victories in courtrooms and at the ballot box both matter—because when prosecutors refuse to say they won’t jail people over technicalities, the fight isn’t theoretical anymore; it’s personal.