Key Takeaways
- The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in Pratt v. Westbrook, arguing that police chiefs can’t deny carry licenses based on subjective opinions of suitability.
- This case addresses a Massachusetts statute that allows subjective determinations on whether an applicant poses a public safety risk, despite not having any convictions.
- The brief references the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, which prohibits discretionary licensing systems that are based solely on an official’s judgment.
- Amici argue that indefinitely stripping the right to carry from someone with unproven allegations contradicts both Bruen and historical firearm regulations.
- The case questions whether Massachusetts can exclude individuals from carrying firearms based on an opinion from a police chief without any recent evidence of danger.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
BOSTON, MA — The Second Amendment Foundation and four allied organizations have filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court arguing that the Commonwealth cannot deny a carry license based on a police chief’s opinion that an applicant is “unsuitable.” The case is Pratt v. Westbrook, docketed as SJC-13822, an appeal from a judgment of the Hampden County Superior Court. The brief is signed August 31, 2026, and SAF announced the filing on September 2, 2026.
A friend-of-the-court brief, or amicus brief, is filed by outside groups who are not parties to the case but want the court to hear a legal argument the parties may not fully develop. SAF is joined here by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Attorney Jason Guida served as local counsel and did the work pro bono, meaning free of charge.
The underlying facts are short. According to SAF, Holyoke Police Chief David Pratt, acting as the local licensing authority, denied Randy Westbrook a license to carry based on charges from more than a decade earlier that never resulted in a conviction. Not a conviction. Charges. More than ten years old.
The statute that permits this is G.L. c. 140, § 131(d), which lets a licensing authority refuse a license on a subjective determination that the applicant is unsuitable or “may create a risk to public safety.” That is the whole standard. One official, one appraisal of the applicant’s character, one denial that follows a person indefinitely. Anyone reading through Massachusetts carry permit requirements runs into this quickly: the objective boxes are only half the process, and the other half is whatever the chief thinks of you.
The brief’s lead argument is that the Supreme Court already answered this in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Footnote 9 of that opinion said a shall-issue licensing system cannot turn on a discretionary “appraisal of facts, exercise of judgment, and formation of an opinion” by the issuing official. Shall-issue means exactly what it sounds like: if you meet the written qualifications, the state issues the permit. Amici argue the Massachusetts suitability standard is that prohibited discretion written into statute.
“Bruen already resolved this question,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros in the organization’s announcement. “What the official may not do is decide whether an applicant ‘may’ pose a risk based on old, unproven allegations. Massachusetts’ suitability standard is textbook subjective discretion, and it cannot stand.”
The second half of the argument is about time. The brief contends that neither Bruen nor the historical tradition of firearm regulation supports permanently or indefinitely stripping a law-abiding adult of the right to public carry over non-conviction allegations from more than a decade ago. SAF points to United States v. Rahimi and United States v. Hemani for the proposition that disarming someone who has not been convicted of anything must be temporary and tied to whether that person is dangerous now. The Massachusetts statute, the brief argues, has neither limit. There is no clock on it and no requirement that the danger be current.
“Americans who have never been convicted of a crime should not have to live indefinitely under the threat of a subjective veto over a fundamental right,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.
Subjective veto is the right phrase for it. A charge that a prosecutor could not or did not convert into a conviction is, legally, an accusation and nothing more. Under § 131(d) an accusation from 2013 can still function as a permanent disqualification in 2026, without a hearing on whether the person poses any risk today, because the standard asks what an official believes rather than what the record proves.
Fair caveats. Everything above is the argument amici are making, not a ruling. The Supreme Judicial Court has not decided the case, the Commonwealth will defend the statute, and amici are not parties, which means the court is free to take their reasoning or ignore it entirely. I also have not seen a description of the specific charges against Westbrook beyond SAF’s account that they are over a decade old and never produced a conviction.
More from USA Carry:
Still, this is the cleanest possible test of whether Bruen means anything in a state that has spent years finding ways around it. Massachusetts is not being asked to arm someone with a violent record. It is being asked to explain why an adult who was never convicted of a crime is barred for life from carrying a firearm in public because one police chief formed an opinion. If the answer to that is “because the statute says he can,” Bruen’s footnote 9 was decorative.
I will continue tracking Pratt v. Westbrook as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court takes it up.
