A Turning Point in Massachusetts Firearms Law — Westbrook v. Pratt Heads to the SJC

---

A Historic Step Forward for 2nd Amendment Rights in Massachusetts

On September 17, 2025, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) granted Attorney William Smith’s request for direct appellate review in the case of Westbrook v. Pratt. This move catapults the case into the Commonwealth’s highest court, bypassing the intermediate Appeals Court, and signals that the Justices of the high court of Massachusetts recognize the gravity of the constitutional issues at play.

For gun owners and constitutional advocates, this development represents a potential turning point: the first comprehensive appellate-level test of the Massachusetts “suitability” standard for firearms licensing after the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) decision.

---

The Background: From Holyoke to the SJC

The case arises out of Holyoke, Massachusetts, where Police Chief David Pratt denied Randy Westbrook’s license to carry (LTC) in 2023. Pratt deemed Westbrook an “unsuitable person” under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131, relying on decade-old allegations that never resulted in lasting convictions.

Westbrook challenged the denial, and the District Court ruled in his favor, striking down the denial as unconstitutional under Bruen. The court emphasized that Massachusetts’ standard—based on vague “suggestions” of potential danger—lacked the kind of objective, historically grounded criteria that the Second Amendment requires.

The Superior Court later reversed that decision, leaning heavily on the SJC’s March 2025 ruling in Commonwealth v. Marquis. Now, with direct appellate review granted, the SJC will take up the case itself.

---

Westbrook v. Pratt vs. Commonwealth v. Marquis: Key Distinctions

The SJC’s decision in Marquis upheld the Commonwealth’s non-resident licensing scheme, finding it facially constitutional. But as Attorney Smith pointed out, Westbrook is a very different animal, raising arguments Marquis never touched. Let’s break it down:

1. Resident vs. Non-Resident
   • Marquis dealt with a non-resident criminal defendant who never even applied for a license.
   • Westbrook involves a Massachusetts resident who applied, was denied, and has standing to bring both facial and as-applied challenges.
2. As-Applied Constitutional Challenge
   • The defendant in Marquis lacked standing to argue that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him.
   • Westbrook, by contrast, has fully preserved as-applied claims, showing how the vague “unsuitability” language was wielded against him based on stale, non-conviction incidents.
3. Burden of Proof & Standards of Review
   • In Westbrook, Attorney Smith argues that Massachusetts law impermissibly places the burden on the applicant to prove “suitability”—without defining the term or requiring any meaningful standard of proof.
   • Marquis never grappled with this procedural defect.
4. Unbridled Discretion
   • Marquis acknowledged suitability generally, but never squarely addressed the problem of a police chief denying rights based on a mere “suggestion” of risk.
   • Westbrook puts that precise issue front and center, echoing Bruen’s condemnation of “may-issue” regimes that rely on subjective, discretionary determinations.

---

Why This Case Matters

The grant of direct appellate review signals that the SJC understands this case is not just about one man’s license, but about the structure of Massachusetts’ entire licensing framework.

1. The First True Post-Bruen Test of § 131

Unlike Marquis, Westbrook far more directly raises whether § 131’s “suitability” standard—lacking objective criteria and burdening the applicant rather than the government—can survive Bruen’s historical-tradition test.

2. Potential to Reshape Massachusetts Licensing

If the SJC finds that the statute’s vague “may pose a public safety risk” language is unconstitutional, it could force the Legislature to rewrite the licensing law to include clear, objective standards—transforming Massachusetts from a discretionary “may-issue” regime into a true shall-issue state. The same holds true if the Court finds any of the other infirmaties in the law violate the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

3. National Ripple Effect

Massachusetts is one of just a handful of states that cling to discretionary “suitability”- type language. A ruling striking down that standard would not only vindicate Bay State gun owners but also provide persuasive precedent nationwide in ongoing 2nd Amendment litigation.

---

A Constitutional Crossroads

The SJC’s decision to hear Westbrook v. Pratt on direct review is potentially monumental. This case poses the exact kind of first-impression constitutional questions that demand the court’s immediate attention: Does Massachusetts’ vague, discretionary licensing scheme comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s clear command in Bruen? Or does it reduce the Second Amendment to a “second-class right,” subject to the whims of local police chiefs?

This also places the case squarely on-track for Mr. Westbrook to seek review in the United States Supreme Court after the SJC’s decision. The unwavering support of Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) has been, and continues to be instrumental in this case.

For Attorney William Smith, Randy Westbrook, and 2nd Amendment supporters across the Commonwealth, September 17, 2025 may be remembered as the day the fight for objective, constitutional firearms licensing in Massachusetts reached its most critical stage yet.