- Free Consultation: 617.936.0201 Call us in Boston or Quincy
The Supreme Judicial Court Takes Up Massachusetts’ Firearm Suitability Standard in Pratt v. Westbrook
By Attorney Joe Serpa | Georgetown University Law Center
September 23, 2026
The Holyoke police chief denied Randy Westbrook a license to carry a firearm, pointing to charges filed more than a decade earlier that never led to a conviction. Westbrook asked a court to overturn the denial. The Supreme Judicial Court has now agreed to decide whether the Massachusetts suitability standard, which allows a licensing authority to deny a license to an applicant it considers a risk to public safety, is consistent with the Second Amendment after the United States Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This post describes the case, the licensing standard now in force, and what the decision could change for a person who applies for a license or faces a firearms charge in Massachusetts.
The Massachusetts Suitability Standard
A person in Massachusetts needs a license to carry to possess a handgun. A resident applies to the local police chief or the Colonel of the State Police. The 2024 firearms law, St. 2024, c. 135, recast the licensing scheme so that under G.L. c. 140, § 131(d), the licensing authority shall issue a license to an applicant who is neither a prohibited person nor found unsuitable under G.L. c. 140, § 121F. The suitability limit is the part of the scheme the Court will examine.
The licensing authority may find an applicant unsuitable only on a defined basis. Under G.L. c. 140, § 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 license, the applicant may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others. The authority states the specific reasons for a denial in writing.
A person denied a license to carry may petition the District Court for review within 90 days under G.L. c. 140, § 121F. The court may order the license issued where it finds no reasonable ground for the denial and finds that the applicant is not prohibited by law from holding one. Westbrook took that review path after the Holyoke chief denied his application. His case reached the Supreme Judicial Court from there.
What the Second Amendment Requires After Bruen
The Supreme Court held in Bruen that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. The Court struck down a New York law that issued a carry license only to an applicant who showed a special need for protection beyond that of the general public. The Court rejected that kind of open-ended discretion, under which an official weighed whether an ordinary applicant had a good enough reason to exercise the right.
The Court distinguished two kinds of licensing systems. A system that grants an official broad discretion to decide who may carry, based on the official’s own judgment of need or worthiness, is unconstitutional. A system that issues a license to any applicant who meets objective criteria, such as a background check, a training requirement, and defined disqualifications, remains permissible. In a footnote the Court cautioned that even an objective system can be applied in a way that denies ordinary, law-abiding citizens their rights through lengthy delays or standards that operate as open-ended discretion in practice.
Massachusetts amended its statute after Bruen to fit the permissible category, replacing discretionary issuance with a shall-issue rule and a defined suitability exception. Whether the suitability exception, as written and as applied to an applicant like Westbrook, is the objective screening the Court approved in Bruen or the open-ended discretion the Court rejected is the question now before the Supreme Judicial Court.
The Question in Pratt v. Westbrook
Pratt v. Westbrook, SJC-13822, asks whether the Massachusetts suitability standard for a license to carry violates the Second Amendment as the United States Supreme Court construed it in Bruen. The Holyoke police chief denied Westbrook’s application after finding him unsuitable. The finding rested on charges from more than a decade earlier that did not result in a conviction. The Second Amendment Foundation and other organizations filed an amicus brief supporting the challenge.
The challenge argues that a denial based on old, unproven allegations is the discretionary judgment the Court rejected in Bruen, because it lets an official disarm a person who was never convicted of anything, on the official’s own assessment of future risk, without objective disqualifying criteria. The Commonwealth’s position is that the suitability standard is the kind of objective public-safety screen the Court preserved in Bruen, applied on reliable, articulable, and credible information rather than on an official’s unguided preference. The Supreme Judicial Court construed the public-safety suitability standard after Bruen in the nonresident licensing context in Commonwealth v. Marquis (2025). Pratt v. Westbrook presses the question for a resident denied on old charges that never led to a conviction. The Supreme Judicial Court will decide which description the standard fits.
The case remains pending before the Supreme Judicial Court, which has not yet ruled. Nothing here predicts how the Court will decide it.
What the Decision Could Change for Applicants and Defendants
A ruling in Pratt v. Westbrook would affect two groups directly. The first is applicants denied a license on suitability, particularly on a record of old charges that never led to a conviction. A decision narrowing the suitability standard would limit the reasons a licensing authority may give for a denial. A decision upholding the standard would confirm the authority’s ability to deny on credible public-safety information.
The second group is people charged with a firearms offense. A person who possesses or carries a firearm without the required license faces prosecution whatever the reason the license was denied. Carrying a firearm without a license is charged under G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). Possessing a firearm or ammunition without a firearm identification card is charged under G.L. c. 269, § 10(h). A person denied a license on suitability who then possesses a firearm anyway is exposed to those charges. Because the license determines who may lawfully possess and carry, the standard that governs a denial also shapes who ends up charged. A defendant who was denied a license under a standard the Supreme Judicial Court later limits may have an argument that depends on the Court’s reasoning. Counsel would assess that argument against the specific record and the decision as written.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Judicial Court agreed to decide in Pratt v. Westbrook, SJC-13822, whether the Massachusetts firearm suitability standard for a license to carry is consistent with the Second Amendment after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
- Under the standard now in force, a licensing authority may find an applicant unsuitable where reliable, articulable, and credible information shows the applicant may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.
- The Holyoke police chief denied Randy Westbrook a license based on charges from more than a decade earlier that never led to a conviction, a denial Westbrook then challenged in court.
- Under Bruen, a licensing system built on objective criteria is permissible and one that gives an official open-ended discretion over who may carry is not, so the outcome depends on which description the suitability standard fits.
- The suitability standard governs who may lawfully hold a license, so it also affects who can be charged with carrying a firearm without a license under G.L. c. 269, § 10(a) or possessing a firearm or ammunition without a firearm identification card under G.L. c. 269, § 10(h).
Related Serpa Law Office resources
We Accept the Following Payment Solutions
