GOAL'S SUITABILITY CASE SCHEDULED FOR ORAL ARGUMENTS
Oral arguments in Pratt v. Westbrook have been scheduled before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on October 7, 2026.
After the historic civil rights case Bruen declared “unsuitability” standards for firearm licenses unconstitutional, the Massachusetts legislature apparently decided that as long as something was “codified” then it's constitutional. So, on August 1, 2022, not two months after Bruen, the legislature snuck an amendment into: H.5163, An Act to Improve and Modernize the Information Technology Systems and Capacities of the Judiciary became Ch. 175 of the Acts of 2022.
The Massachusetts law now reads (after the more recent Chapter 135 changes):
Chapter 140, Section 121F: “A determination of unsuitability shall be based on reliable, articulable and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a permit, card or license, the applicant may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to themselves or others.”
The case began when Massachusetts resident Randy Westbrook applied for a License to Carry (LTC) and was denied by Holyoke Police Chief David Pratt based on the Commonwealth’s grossly-subjective “unsuitability” standard. Westbrook challenged the denial, arguing that Massachusetts’ discretionary licensing system is unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision. A Holyoke District Court judge agreed and ordered that Westbrook be issued his LTC.
That unprecedented victory was later reversed by a Hampden Superior Court judge.
Attorney William Smith of Princeton, MA represents Mr. Westbrook. He appealed the Superior Court’s decision to the Massachusetts Appeals Court, then asked the highest Court in the state- the Supreme Judicial Court- to take the case directly, which they did. GOAL is supporting Westbrook and Attorney Smith to challenge that ruling, as well as the issue of the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ unsuitability standard.
At the heart of the landmark case is whether, notwithstanding US Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, local licensing authorities can continue exercising subjective, broad discretion over who is considered “suitable” to exercise a constitutional right. And, can something the Supreme Court has held is unconstitutional, be somehow made constitutionally acceptable simply because it has become “codified” with what remains entirely subjective standards devoid of any objective criteria?
GOAL and Attorney Smith will continue fighting to restore and protect Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts.
More great news: An amicus (“friend of the court”) brief has been filed by the following major Second Amendment rights groups in support of Attorney William Smith’s constitutional arguments in the Westbrook case:
· SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION
· CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED
· SECOND AMENDMENT LAW CENTER, INC.
· MINNESOTA GUN OWNERS CAUCUS, AND
·
THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS