MA GUN LAWYER

In the April 2, 2025 decision in the case of Chief of Police of Southborough v. Paul A. Dwiggins, the Southborough police chief had denied Dwiggins’s application for a Class A large-capacity license to carry firearms under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 140, Section 131. The denial was based on concerns that issuing the license might create a risk to public safety, given the volatile environment of Dwiggins’s residence, which included incidents of domestic violence and serious mental health issues involving his wife and son. ​Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

A District Court judge reversed the chief’s decision, and this reversal was upheld by a Superior Court judge. However, upon appeal, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reinstated the police chief’s original denial. Rather shockingly, the court concluded that the chief’s determination was neither an abuse of discretion nor arbitrary and capricious, emphasizing that the presence of domestic violence and mental health concerns in the household constituted “existing factors” suggesting that granting the license could pose a risk to public safety. ​Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Desmond argued that the applicant himself did not pose a risk to public safety and that the decision to deny the license was improperly based on the conduct of third parties.

The Appeals Court’s decision can be found here: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2025/04/02/u23P1474.pdf

This is a truly stunning decision for multiple reasons. As the dissent pointed out, the relevant statute says as follows:

“A determination of unsuitability shall be based on:
(i) reliable and credible information that the
applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in
behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the
applicant or licensee may create a risk to public
safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if
issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create
a risk to public safety” (emphasis added).”

Even assuming the statute’s constitutionality- a proposition I for one do not now, and will never agree with- the police chief’s decision here is plainly outside of the parameters of the law because that law focuses on “the applicant or licensee” and his or her past behavior, not the possible, hypothetical, theoretical actions of 3rd parties.

It remains to be seen whether the applicant will ask the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to hear the case. As far as I can tell, perplexingly, no constitutional arguments seem to have been made in the case.