Westbrook Case - Suitability

Holyoke District Court


Court Record

 

In a case that originated from the town of Holyoke, MA, Mr. Westbrook applied for a License to Carry (LTC) and was denied by Chief David Pratt of the Holyoke Police Department. His denial was due to Westbrook being determined “unsuitable” by the Chief. Mr. Westbrook then sued the Town asserting that the decision to deny him his license based on “suitability” was unconstitutional (Bruen). The judge handling the case at the local District State Court agreed with him and ordered the Town to issue him his LTC.

 

Of course, the Commonwealth has appealed the decision and it is likely headed to the MA Supreme Judicial Court for appeal. GOAL has decided to fund Mr. Westbrook’s defense moving forward and is proud to be working with Attorney William Smith to ensure this precedent stands for all citizens of the Commonwealth who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

 

If you would like to review some of the court documents related to this case click here: https://www.mass.gov/doc/westbrook-v-pratt-holyoke-district-court-2024/download


 

Summary of the Westbrook Hearing on Judgment on the Pleadings
Hampden Superior Court, March 5, 2025


1. Case Overview

The case before the Hampden Superior Court involves Pratt v. Randy Westbrook et al. (24 CV 392), concerning a challenge to the constitutionality of Massachusetts' firearm licensing suitability standard under Chapter 140, Section 131. The motion at hand is the plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings  and the defendant’s opposition. Judge Deepika Shukla presides.


2. Judicial Disclosure

Judge Shukla disclosed prior interactions with the plaintiff, Chief Pratt, during her tenure as Chief of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Springfield. She confirmed no conflict of interest but allowed parties to object. No objections were raised.


3. Procedural Context

The parties reviewed filed documents, including:

  • Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
  • Defendant’s opposition.
  • The Commonwealth’s memorandum defending the constitutionality of Chapter 140, Section 131.
  • Defendant’s motion to report the case to the appeals court.
  • Joint opposition by the plaintiff and the Commonwealth.


4. Motion to Report to the Appeals Court

The defendant argued that similar cases are pending and should be consolidated at the appellate level. The Attorney General's office opposed, stating the appeals court prefers superior court rulings first. The judge leaned toward deciding the merits rather than reporting the case.


5. Plaintiff’s Argument for Judgment on the Pleadings

Attorney Denegan (representing the plaintiff) contended that:

  • The district court’s reversal of Chief Pratt’s denial of Westbrook’s license was legally incorrect.
  • Bruen v. New York did not foreclose suitability requirements.
  • Westbrook’s past criminal charges (assault and battery, including against a pregnant woman) justified denial based on suitability.
  • The Massachusetts suitability standard aligns with other jurisdictions deemed constitutional.


6. Commonwealth’s Argument Supporting Constitutionality

Attorney Groban (for the Attorney General) emphasized:

  • Bruen did not invalidate suitability standards.
  • Massachusetts’ suitability criteria resemble Connecticut’s, which the Supreme Court referenced favorably.
  • The standard is not vague and provides procedural safeguards.
  • The appeals court previously ruled the standard is not highly discretionary.
  • The system allows for judicial review via a de novo evidentiary hearing.


7. Defendant’s Argument Against Suitability Standard

Attorney Smith argued that:

  • Massachusetts’ law grants excessive discretion to police chiefs without objective criteria.
  • The process violates Bruen, which rejected discretionary licensing regimes.
  • Rahimi is inapplicable as it involved active restraining orders, whereas this case lacks judicial findings of dangerousness.
  • The judicial review process is not truly de novo but deferential to licensing authorities.
  • The standard should include clear procedural protections akin to sex offender registries.
  • Massachusetts remains a "may-issue" state rather than a "shall-issue" state.


8. Rebuttals and Judicial Considerations

  • The Commonwealth countered that the law provides a statutory review process and that suitability standards have been upheld in similar cases.
  • The judge questioned the variance in decisions across licensing authorities, suggesting potential vagueness concerns.
  • The defense argued that the standard lacks explicit guidelines, violating due process.


9. Conclusion and Next Steps

The judge took the matter under advisement, signaling a lean toward deciding on the merits rather than deferring to the appeals court. The ruling (and others like it) will determine whether Massachusetts’ suitability standard for firearm licenses withstands constitutional scrutiny post-Bruen.