ATTORNEY WILLIAM SMITH’S CHALLENGE TO MASSACHUSETTS’ SUBJECTIVE FIREARMS LICENSING SYSTEM IS HEADED TOWARD ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT — AND THE CASE IS NOW ATTRACTING NATIONAL ATTENTION.
My case, Pratt v. Westbrook, SJC-13822, is moving toward what may be one of the most consequential Massachusetts Second Amendment arguments since the United States Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has scheduled oral argument for October 7, 2026. The case asks a fundamental constitutional question: after Bruen, can Massachusetts continue allowing government officials to deny an otherwise eligible citizen a License to Carry because an official subjectively concludes that the person is “unsuitable” or “may” create a risk to public safety?
The SJC itself has framed the issue as whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments were violated by Massachusetts statutory language prohibiting issuance of an LTC to an applicant deemed unsuitable based upon information suggesting that the applicant “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.”
In our view, Bruen already provides the constitutional answer.
A Fundamental Right Cannot Depend Upon a Government Official’s Opinion
The Second Amendment is not a second-class constitutional right. It does not exist at the pleasure of a police chief, licensing officer, judge, or legislature.
That principle lies at the heart of Pratt v. Westbrook.
Massachusetts attempts to characterize its current licensing system as fundamentally different from the discretionary licensing regime condemned in Bruen. But changing the terminology does not eliminate the constitutional problem.
The question remains: Is the licensing authority applying objective statutory disqualifications, or is the government official exercising personal judgment about whether a citizen should be trusted with a constitutional right?
If it is the latter, the constitutional problem remains.
Bruen specifically distinguished ordinary “shall issue” systems employing narrow and objective criteria from systems that require officials to appraise facts, exercise judgment, and form opinions about applicants.
Massachusetts’ “unsuitability” standard does exactly that.
The statute asks whether past behavior “suggests” that an individual “may” create a risk in the future. That necessarily invites prediction, discretion, judgment and conjecture. It allows one licensing authority to reach a conclusion that another licensing authority might reject on precisely the same facts.
That is not how enumerated constitutional rights are supposed to work.
The Facts of Westbrook Demonstrate the Problem
The constitutional issue in Westbrook is not merely theoretical.
The Holyoke licensing authority relied upon criminal matters dating back more than a decade. Yet Mr. Westbrook was not convicted of the offenses upon which the Commonwealth now seeks to justify denying him the exercise of his Second Amendment right.
That distinction matters.
The government has established objective statutory prohibitions for people who have actually been convicted of specified offenses. If an individual falls within one of those prohibitions, the licensing authority applies the law.
“Unsuitability,” however, gives the government something altogether different: the ability to look beyond those objective prohibitions and make its own prediction about whether a citizen who is not otherwise prohibited should nevertheless be denied the ability to exercise a constitutional right.
As recently reported by the national publication, Reason, Chief Pratt testified that his suitability determinations were not based upon specific criteria, but merely upon his 31 years of police experience. That testimony illustrates precisely why this case matters so much. Constitutional rights cannot vary according to the experience, philosophy, instincts or risk tolerance of whichever government official happens to decide the application.
National Second Amendment Organizations Have Now Entered the Case
One of the most significant recent developments is the filing of an amicus curiae brief by the Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Their participation demonstrates that Westbrook is no longer simply a Massachusetts licensing dispute. The constitutional question presented here has implications for discretionary firearms licensing far beyond Massachusetts.
The amici argue that Massachusetts’ standard permits exactly the type of discretionary judgment that Bruen rejected. As SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros explained in announcing the filing, objective matters such as prohibited-person status and training requirements can be checked ministerially. What government cannot constitutionally do, SAF argues, is decide that somebody “may” pose a danger based upon old allegations and subjective judgment.
That goes directly to the position I have advanced in Westbrook.
Dangerousness Cannot Become a Constitutional Blank Check
There is, of course, a legitimate historical tradition permitting government to disarm individuals who actually present the type of danger recognized by the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
But that proposition does not answer the question in Westbrook. It raises it.
What constitutionally sufficient evidence establishes that a person is dangerous today?
A prediction that somebody “may” create a risk is not necessarily a finding of present dangerousness. Nor does the existence of allegations from many years ago establish that a person presently poses a danger.
This distinction has become even more important following the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment cases. The government cannot simply invoke the words “public safety” and thereby escape Bruen’s constitutional analysis.
If that were enough, Bruen would mean very little.
Virtually every gun-control law ever enacted can be defended rhetorically in the name of public safety. But Bruen rejected the idea that courts may simply balance the government’s asserted public-safety interests against the constitutional right.
The question instead is whether the restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That is the constitutional test Massachusetts must satisfy.
The Case Is Receiving Growing National Attention
The national significance of Pratt v. Westbrook is increasingly reflected in media coverage.
On September 8, Reason published a lengthy article discussing Westbrook alongside another pending Second Amendment licensing challenge. The article examines the Massachusetts suitability standard, Chief Pratt’s testimony, the history of Mr. Westbrook’s case, and the arguments advanced by the national gun-rights organizations supporting our position.
Read the September 8 Reason coverage of Pratt v. Westbrook
USA Carry also published a detailed September 2 report focusing specifically on Westbrook and the problem of denying an LTC based upon allegations more than a decade old that never produced a conviction.
Read the September 2 USA Carry coverage
The case was also covered by AOL on September 2 following the filing of the national amicus brief.
Read the September 2 AOL coverage
The Shooting Wire followed with additional coverage on September 4, describing the amici’s argument that Massachusetts’ subjective licensing regime cannot be reconciled with Bruen.
Read the September 4 Shooting Wire coverage
The Second Amendment Foundation’s own announcement provides additional information about the amicus filing and the organizations that have joined the challenge.
Read the Second Amendment Foundation announcement
Gun Owners’ Action League has likewise continued to provide information concerning the case and the upcoming oral argument.
GOAL’s Pratt v. Westbrook case update
October 7: The Next Major Step
The next major event is now clear: oral argument before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on October 7, 2026. The case is docketed as SJC-13822, David Pratt, Chief of the Holyoke Police Department, as Licensing Authority v. Randy Westbrook.
The importance of the case extends well beyond Mr. Westbrook.
If Massachusetts can deny an otherwise legally eligible citizen the exercise of the right to bear arms because an official believes that old information “suggests” the citizen “may” pose a future risk, then the Commonwealth retains enormous discretionary power over who gets to exercise the Second Amendment.
And if that is permissible for the Second Amendment, an obvious question follows: What other constitutional right would we permit the government to administer this way?
Imagine requiring a citizen to demonstrate “suitability” before exercising freedom of speech.
Imagine allowing a government official to decide whether somebody “may create a risk” before permitting that person to attend church, publish political criticism, or invoke the privilege against self-incrimination.
We would immediately recognize the constitutional problem.
The Second Amendment deserves the same respect.
The Second Amendment Is a Right, Not a Government-Issued Privilege
At its core, Pratt v. Westbrook is about a very simple principle.
Government may enforce constitutionally permissible objective disqualifications. What it cannot do is transform an enumerated constitutional right into a privilege whose exercise depends upon an official’s subjective assessment of the citizen seeking to exercise it.
The Supreme Court made clear in Bruen that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense. The Commonwealth cannot preserve the substance of its old discretionary licensing system merely by replacing yesterday’s terminology with today’s “public safety” language.
The constitutional question is substance, not labels.
As October 7 approaches, Pratt v. Westbrook is increasingly becoming a case to watch — not only for Massachusetts gun owners, but for Second Amendment advocates across the country.
I am immensely proud to continue representing Randy Westbrook in this important constitutional challenge, and I am particularly grateful for the support that this case is now receiving from Second Amendment organizations both here in Massachusetts and nationally.
The fight is ultimately about something larger than one LTC, one applicant, or one police department.
It is about whether Massachusetts will finally treat the right to keep and bear arms as a constitutional right — rather than a privilege dispensed according to government discretion.
William S. Smith, Esq.
(774) 317-9287
Counsel for Randy Westbrook in Pratt v. Westbrook, SJC-13822
MA GUN LAWYER 
Leave a comment