Healey has, until the Deval/LaGuer item made the news, been on the defense, always responding and not out in front making Deval do damage control. So, it's fair to say she'd pull out all the stops to widen her base, which, as ArmedMainer stated, would weaken her stance.
But, Healey stated flatly on the Sevrin show that we have a constitutional right to bear arms. And, that the current licensing system is unfair. Those words put her much further into our camp than anything she's said in the past, IIRC.
So, it comes down to trust; can we believe her? For me it doesn't matter, she had my vote, anyway.
I just thought it was great to hear the words come out of her mouth. In fact, after hearing how well the question was framed (the caller was very well-spoken), I nearly fell off the step I was sitting on as she responded cooly and matter-of-factly. Which brings me to the point of how I believe she means Shall Issue. She didn't waffle nor mince words. She didn't add anything like, "I believe it should be shall issue, but I think we also need to look at registering handguns," as the true anti- typically does. She sounded quite genuine, unrehearsed.
I don't think she can do anything to change the draconian laws that are in place now (we need Frisoli to help on that). But she's not Deval Patrick who we know would blow us all out of the water if elected.