October 12, 2026
Massachusetts’ Controversial Firearms Licensing “Unsuitability” Law Draws National Attention
Massachusetts firearms attorney William S. Smith appeared today on the nationally viewed gun rights program “Cam & Company,” presented by Bearing Arms, to discuss his ongoing constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’ controversial firearms licensing “unsuitability” law.
The October 12 episode, provocatively entitled “No Conviction Needed to Deny License Under Massachusetts’ Crazy ‘Unsuitability’ Law,” focused on Attorney Smith’s representation of Randy Westbrook in Pratt v. Westbrook, a potentially consequential Second Amendment case argued by Attorney Smith before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on October 7, 2026.
WATCH ATTORNEY SMITH’S APPEARANCE HERE:
The interview brings additional national attention to a fundamental constitutional question: Can the government deny an otherwise legally eligible citizen the right to bear arms based upon a police chief’s subjective belief that the citizen might pose a public safety risk, even where the underlying allegations are more than a decade old and never resulted in a criminal conviction?
A Constitutional Right — Or a Privilege Granted by a Police Chief?
At the heart of Pratt v. Westbrook is Massachusetts’ continued reliance upon discretionary licensing decisions under G.L. c. 140, § 131.
Under the Commonwealth’s licensing framework, a police chief may deny a License to Carry based upon an assessment of an applicant’s alleged “unsuitability,” including a determination that the applicant may create a risk to public safety.
Attorney Smith contends that this statutory framework is fundamentally incompatible with the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
In Bruen, the Supreme Court recognized the constitutional right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry firearms publicly for self-defense. Although the Court acknowledged the permissibility of objective, shall-issue licensing requirements, it expressly cautioned against licensing systems that confer open-ended discretion upon government officials.
Attorney Smith’s position is that Massachusetts continues to preserve precisely the type of subjective discretion that Bruen warned against and held unconstitutional.
The constitutional question is not whether Massachusetts may prohibit genuinely dangerous individuals from possessing firearms. The question is whether the Commonwealth may deny a fundamental constitutional right based upon an official’s prediction of possible future dangerousness without constitutionally sufficient, objective standards.
No Conviction. Allegations More Than a Decade Old. Yet Denied His Second Amendment Rights.
The facts underlying Attorney Smith’s case demonstrate why this constitutional controversy matters.
His client, Randy Westbrook, was denied a Massachusetts License to Carry based substantially upon incidents dating back to 2010 and 2014. Neither incident resulted in a criminal conviction.
Nevertheless, the licensing authority determined that those long-past events justified denying Westbrook the ability to exercise his Second Amendment rights.
Attorney Smith argues that such a system effectively permits government officials to transform old allegations into indefinite barriers to constitutional rights, without establishing that an applicant presently poses an actual danger.
This raises a troubling question: If a citizen can be denied the right to bear arms because of allegations that never resulted in a conviction, what meaningful limits exist upon the government’s discretionary authority?
Why the National Attention Matters
Attorney Smith’s appearance on Cam & Company comes as Pratt v. Westbrook has attracted increasing attention from national firearms rights organizations and media outlets. The case has received support from Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL), while major national Second Amendment organizations have also participated through amicus advocacy.
The broader significance is unmistakable. Although the litigation arises under Massachusetts law, its constitutional implications extend beyond the Commonwealth.
If states can continue employing subjective suitability standards notwithstanding Bruen, similar licensing restrictions could become the subject of litigation elsewhere. Conversely, a decision limiting such discretion could have important implications for how states administer the constitutional right to carry firearms.
The Second Amendment Is Not a Second-Class Right
The central argument advanced by Attorney Smith is straightforward: the Second Amendment must be afforded the same constitutional respect as the other guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights.
Imagine a state requiring citizens to obtain a police chief’s approval before exercising freedom of speech, attending a religious service, or publishing criticism of the government.
Imagine further that such approval could be denied because the official believed the applicant might pose some undefined future risk.
The constitutional concerns would be immediately apparent.
Yet Attorney Smith argues that Massachusetts continues to employ a comparable approach to the right to bear arms.
A constitutional right does not become a mere privilege simply because the government calls its discretionary approval process “licensing.”
The Fight Continues Before the SJC
With oral arguments now completed, Pratt v. Westbrook awaits a decision from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
The case presents an important opportunity for the Court to address the relationship between Massachusetts’ unsuitability law and the constitutional principles announced in Bruen.
Attorney Smith’s appearance on Cam & Company underscores the growing national interest in the outcome of this litigation and the continuing debate over whether Massachusetts’ licensing system satisfies the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
For Massachusetts gun owners, the stakes are substantial.
The question is whether the right to keep and bear arms will be governed by constitutionally permissible standards or continue to depend upon subjective assessments by individual licensing officials.
The Second Amendment protects a constitutional right — not a privilege reserved for those whom government officials happen to consider suitable.
Watch the October 12, 2026 interview with Attorney William S. Smith on Bearing Arms’ “Cam & Company”:
William S. Smith, Esq.
The Law Office of William S. Smith
Counsel for Randy Westbrook in Pratt v. Westbrook, SJC-13822
Telephone: (774) 317-9287
Website: https://www.attorneysmithlaw.com
Attorney Smith represents individuals throughout Massachusetts in firearms licensing denials, suspensions, revocations, restoration of firearms rights, and constitutional litigation involving the Second Amendment.
Leave a Reply