The business at Mass Armament “is and has been built around firearms and high-capacity magazines prohibited by law,” according to the complaint, estimating that about 70 percent of the store’s sales will be lost under the new restrictions.

It’s the second lawsuit filed in recent months against the major new law that Governor Maura Healey signed in July, which aims to crack down on untraceable ghost guns, ban firearms in some public places and ban the country’s “red flag” law. expands the state’s ability to allow authorities to remove firearms from anyone deemed a threat to themselves or others, and more.

Another group of residents and the Gun Owners Action League filed a lawsuit on August 1, with their complaint largely focused on revising gun licensing requirements. The law requires Bay Staters to obtain a “firearm safety certificate,” which involves completing live-fire training, to obtain a carry permit.

Plaintiffs in that case alleged that the new training requirements are “impossibly met at this time,” arguing that such live-fire training did not exist and that no regulations had been promulgated.

But about six weeks after they filed their suit, the prospects changed.

On September 12, House and Senate Democrats suddenly announced that they had reached agreement on a mid-year spending bill, which they sent to Healey hours later. The latest 34-page measure was packed with additional policy reforms, including a section that delayed new language for firearm safety certificates until 18 months after the gun law takes effect.

The requirement to complete live-fire training to obtain a permit to carry now will not begin until April 2026, according to Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office.

Lawyers also pointed to a Sept. 30 memorandum that the state Public Safety and Security Bureau sent to law enforcement agencies, licensing authorities, firearms dealers and other parties, stressing that local authorities “must continue to accept and process applications for (firearms).” identity cards) and (travel tickets) in the normal lane” until the changes start.

Campbell’s team on Friday asked a federal judge for about another month to issue a formal response to the GOAL-backed lawsuit, writing that attorneys should work with the plaintiffs to figure out how much of the complaint remains “ operational” remains after the legislative action.

“Until the effective date (in April 2026), applicants may obtain a (license to carry) – provided they meet all other requirements for licensure, see GL c. 140, § 131 – under pre-existing requirements, which do not include a requirement for live fire training,” Campbell’s office wrote. “In light of these recent developments, it will be necessary for the parties to confer to determine how much of the complaint remains valid, and what claims remain to be addressed by Defendants through an answer or motion to dismiss. The parties therefore need extra time to discuss how the case will proceed.”

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Gun Owners Action League, said the plaintiffs plan to keep their lawsuit active in the meantime.

“We need to ensure that regardless of the suspension of the new criteria, (police) chiefs recognize that the old criteria are still in force?” he said. “It seems like (lawmakers) can change their minds at will on all these things. It is very important to keep the trial alive because next week they could change their minds.”

Lawmakers did not draw attention to their amendment to the gun law when they announced and approved the supplementary budget.

House Speaker Ron Mariano’s office said the provision was intended to change an editorial error in the gun bill, which negotiators introduced around 6:30 p.m. on July 17 and which the House and Senate passed the following afternoon had continued working.

The final line of that 115-page bill states that Section 38, which deals with the training of licensed gun sellers, and Section 75, which deals with collecting data on firearms used in crimes, would come into effect 18 months after the rest of the law come into effect.

A line in the September Spending Bill changed the Arms Act by applying the 18-month delay to section 74, not section 75

Wallace argued that the apparent error reflects flaws in the underlying process.

“This thing hasn’t been vetted. The public was not allowed to comment on the final bill. The Legislature didn’t even get a chance to read the final bill before passing it. Certainly, the government authorities were not prepared for this. There are no systems in place to deal with anything in the new law and no money is being appropriated,” he said. “This was all done in haste on purpose because they knew the bill could not stand the light of day. That’s why they rushed to pass it on.”

Gun safety groups have widely praised the law as a major step forward in keeping gun violence rates low in Massachusetts, especially as law enforcement agencies grapple with the increasing prevalence of ghost guns.

Wallace said he expects more lawsuits will be filed challenging other parts of the law.

A coalition of Second Amendment supporters is also pursuing a 2026 ballot question that would attempt to repeal the law. The group must submit at least 37,287 signatures to local election officials by Wednesday, and an organizer said volunteers already collected more than 65,000 last week.

The coalition is planning a press conference outside the State House on Tuesday to make an “important announcement.”

Healey issued an emergency preamble to the law last week, allowing most of it to go into effect and preventing opponents from suspending the law until voters decide its ultimate fate in more than two years.