May 15, 2025 Update:

MA Superior Court Declares “Suitability” & “Discretionary” Licensing Constitutional

Westbrook Suitability Case

Download Decision

 

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a decision we know as Bruen. That case represented the most sweeping positive decision for civil rights in modern American history in protecting the Second Amendment. When this landmark decision was given to the public, many in the Second Amendment community thought the fight was over but those of us who understood history knew different. We understood that every branch of Massachusetts government was going to double down and make things even worse for us here in the Commonwealth. In one of GOAL’s suitability cases a Superior Court Judge in Hampden County has continued to prove this theory correct.

In the Westbrook case, Justice Deepika Shukla overturned one of many District Court Judges that have ruled the “suitability” firearm licensing standard to be unconstitutional. This decision is only one of several cases we have seen come from Massachusetts higher courts that are working to build a wall, keeping Bruen out of Massachusetts.

 

Justice Shukla - “Nor does Bruen prohibit licensing authorities from exercising any amount of discretion at all”.

To bolster the decision, the Justice cites pre Bruen Massachusetts case law like Holden and Ruggiero. This is reminiscent of Chairman Day citing pre-revolution law on the House floor to defend his unconstitutional actions.

 

Justice Shukla also cited Marquis, a recent collaborated decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on non-resident licensing, claiming that decision ruled “suitability” as constitutional.

 

GOAL will certainly be appealing this heinous ruling that flies in the face of Bruen and the Second Amendment.

 

Summary of the Westbrook

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.

10. Superior Court overturns District Court Ruling.

• Justice Deepika Shukla overturned one of many District Court Judges that have ruled the “suitability” firearm licensing standard to be unconstitutional. This decision is only one of several cases we have seen come from Massachusetts higher courts that are working to build a wall, keeping Bruen out of Massachusetts.
• Download Decision

11. Motion to appeal filed.

• Download Appeal