Pratt v. Westbrook Oral Arguments Draw National Attention
On October 7, 2026, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard oral arguments in Pratt v. Westbrook, a potentially landmark Second Amendment case challenging the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ subjective firearms licensing “unsuitability” standard.
I had the privilege of representing Randy Westbrook before the Commonwealth’s highest court in a case that could have far-reaching consequences for the constitutional rights of Massachusetts gun owners.
At the heart of this case is a straightforward constitutional question: Can Massachusetts continue allowing police chiefs to deny otherwise legally eligible citizens their Second Amendment rights based on subjective predictions that they “may” pose a public safety risk, without clear, objective standards?
Our position is that it cannot.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the United States Supreme Court made clear that firearms licensing cannot depend upon the unbridled discretion of government officials. Yet Massachusetts continues to employ an “unsuitability” standard that allows licensing authorities to make highly subjective judgments about whether an individual might pose some future risk.
The Westbrook case illustrates the problem. My client was denied a license based upon allegations arising more than a decade earlier, despite having no criminal convictions resulting from those matters. A District Court judge initially agreed that Massachusetts’ suitability standard was unconstitutional, but that decision was subsequently reversed by the Superior Court.
Yesterday’s arguments also attracted significant media attention, including national coverage through Yahoo News of a MassLive article entitled “Mass. justices look to Shays’ Rebellion in deciding gun licensing question.” The article highlights the Court’s consideration of historical events dating to the Founding Era, including Shays’ Rebellion, in evaluating the Commonwealth’s authority to restrict firearm rights.
Read the nationally distributed Yahoo News article here.
The historical inquiry is important. But restrictions imposed in connection with an actual armed rebellion are hardly equivalent to giving modern police chiefs open-ended authority to disarm ordinary citizens based upon speculation about their future conduct. The Second Amendment requires more than governmental predictions of possible dangerousness.
The fundamental issue is not whether genuinely dangerous individuals may be disarmed. It is whether government officials may decide who gets to exercise a constitutional right based upon subjective standards that lack meaningful objective limits.
Although this litigation arose under an earlier version of Massachusetts firearms licensing law, the challenged suitability language survives in the Commonwealth’s newer statutory framework. Consequently, the SJC’s eventual decision could have implications extending well beyond my client’s individual case.
I am grateful to the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) for its support of this important litigation, as well as to the national Second Amendment organizations that have submitted amicus arguments in support of our constitutional position.
A decision remains forthcoming. Whatever the outcome, Pratt v. Westbrook raises a question that Massachusetts can no longer avoid:
If the exercise of a constitutional right depends upon whether a government official personally considers you “suitable,” is that right truly being treated as a right—or merely as a privilege?
More national news coverge of this case: https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/10/08/can-massachusetts-deny-gun-rights-for-charges-but-no-convictions-n1234062
Attorney William S. Smith
The Law Office of William S. Smith
Counsel for Randy Westbrook
Leave a Reply