MA GUN LAWYER

​In recent years, Massachusetts has enacted yet more significant changes to its firearm laws, great many of which have rather dubious alignment with the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. These developments have led to legal challenges.​

Key Legislative Changes

In July 2024, Governor Maura Healey signed into law yet another comprehensive gun “reform” law supposedly aimed at modernizing the state’s firearm regulations. This law introduced several notable provisions:​

• Regulation of Ghost Guns and 3D-Printed Firearms: The legislation addressed the rising concern of untraceable firearms by regulating “ghost guns” and 3D-printed weapons.
• Expansion of Red Flag Laws: The law enhanced the state’s “Red Flag” provisions, allowing not only family members but also healthcare professionals and school officials to petition courts for the removal of firearms from individuals deemed a risk to themselves or others. ​ I find this puzzling, at best, given that almost no licensing authority (i.e. chief of police) bothers to use this “red flag law” given that under existing Massachusetts law, they are empowered to unilaterally strip a gun owner of his or her 2nd Amendment right on an entirely subjective basis and without the judicial process required by the red flag law.
• Age Restrictions on Firearm Ownership: The minimum age for purchasing certain firearms, including semiautomatic rifles, was raised from 18 to 21, aligning the requirements for rifles with those for handguns.
• Live-Fire Training Requirement: Applicants for firearm licenses are now required to complete live-fire training, ensuring practical handling experience. ​ The implementation of this provision remains up in the air.

Legal Challenges and Judicial Responses

The enactment of these laws has led to several legal challenges:​

• Challenges to Age Restrictions: In February 2025, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other groups filed a lawsuit contesting the prohibition on firearm possession and carrying by individuals aged 18 to 20, arguing it infringes upon Second Amendment rights. ​
• Nonresident Licensing Requirements: The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the state’s mandate that nonresidents must obtain a Massachusetts license to carry firearms within the state, affirming the state’s authority to enforce its firearm regulations.
• Switchblade Knife Ban Overturned: In August 2024, the state’s highest court struck down a longstanding ban on switchblade knives, citing inconsistency with the Second Amendment. ​

Impact of Federal Precedents

These state-level developments occur against the backdrop of significant federal rulings:​

• Bruen Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen established that modern firearm restrictions must align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This precedent has strongly influenced challenges to Massachusetts’ firearm laws. ​
• Rahimi Case: In June 2024, the Supreme Court upheld federal laws restricting firearm possession by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, indicating that disarming dangerous individuals aligns with historical traditions.
• However, contrary to how the media has portrayed Rahimi, the Court there took pains to emphasize that its upholding this disqualification’s constitutionality was based on two main factors: (1) the deprivation entails a prior judicial finding of dangerousness; and (2) the deprivation in a restraining order disarmament is merely temporary in nature. Neither factor is present in the Massachusetts “unsuitability” law (G.L. c. 140, s131) procedure, with its empowerment of licensing authorities to unilaterally take a gun license and to do so without any durational limitation.

Key Legal Challenges to the Massachusetts “Unsuitability” law for denial and suspension of LTCs and FIDs

Legal challenges to Massachusetts’ unsuitability firearms licensing law focus primarily on constitutional concerns, particularly under the Second Amendment and Due Process protections. The law allows local police chiefs discretion to deny or revoke a license to carry firearms if they determine an applicant or licensee to be “unsuitable,” even in the absence of a disqualifying criminal conviction. The sole definition of “unsuitability” is that if the chief of police believes an applicant or license-holder “may pose a public safety risk…” he or she can deny or suspend the firearms license.

Second Amendment Concerns

Challenges to this law argue that the discretionary nature of the “unsuitability” standard gives licensing authorities unconstitutionally-broad leeway to deny individuals their right to bear arms, without requiring any clear and objective criteria. This, they contend, creates an arbitrary system that infringes on constitutionally protected rights under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which emphasized that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.

1. Due Process Issues
   Challengers to this law, myself included, also point out that the law lacks any adequate procedural safeguards. Since determinations of unsuitability are often based on subjective assessments or non-criminal behavior, individuals may be denied a license or have one revoked without clear notice, an opportunity to respond, or the ability to confront evidence used against them—potentially violating due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Westbrook v. Pratt (2024)

This Massachusetts case of mine is a very significant recent challenge to the Massachusetts unsuitability standard. In Westbrook v. Pratt, the plaintiff, Westbrook, had his firearms license denied by the Holyoke Police Chief, Pratt, on the grounds that he was “unsuitable” due to past incidents that did not result in criminal convictions. Westbrook argued that the denial violated his Second Amendment rights and lacked due process. The District Court agreed with my arguments.

Key Legal Arguments in Pratt:

• I argued in Westbrook v. Pratt that the unsuitability clause was unconstitutionally vague and allowed for arbitrary enforcement.
• I also argued that the denial occurred without a fair hearing or notice of the specific evidence against him, violating procedural due process, etc. The defense, on the other hand, maintained that the unsuitability clause was necessary for public safety and consistent with the state’s authority to regulate firearms.

Status (as of 2025):

The case is now pending in Superior Court, with motions on both sides addressing whether the unsuitability standard can withstand scrutiny under the Bruen framework. The courts eventual decisions may ultimately influence how Massachusetts and potentially other “may-issue” states can enforce discretionary gun licensing provisions.