Question 9 asks voters on November 3 whether to keep the 2024 gun law. Four weeks earlier, on October 7, 2026, the Supreme Judicial Court is scheduled to hear a case that goes to the part of Massachusetts gun licensing that survives either way: a local official’s power to deny a license to carry to someone the official finds “unsuitable.”
The case was brought by a Holyoke man whose application was denied in 2023. CommonWealth Beacon reported on the appeal on September 25. The docket number is SJC-13822.
The case
In 2023, Holyoke Police Chief David Pratt denied Randy Westbrook’s application for a license to carry. According to CommonWealth Beacon’s account of the court record, the chief relied on two sets of charges from more than a decade earlier: an aggravated assault and battery charge involving his then-girlfriend, who was nine months pregnant, and drug charges from a 2014 vehicle stop. Westbrook admitted to sufficient facts on those charges in exchange for continuances and eventual dismissal. He was not convicted.
The Attorney General’s brief, as quoted by CommonWealth Beacon, argues that the underlying offenses “are themselves violent or create the possibility of violence” and that Westbrook “submitted no evidence to Chief Pratt that he no longer posed a danger to public safety.”
Westbrook’s lawyers argue that the suitability standard is “vague, overbroad” and violates due process because it does not say what makes a person unsuitable or how an applicant could fix it. A Holyoke District Court judge agreed and declared the standard unconstitutional. A Hampden County Superior Court judge reversed on appeal by the chief and the Attorney General. The SJC took the case on Westbrook’s further appeal.
What “suitability” means in the statute
The 2023 denial was under the pre-2024 law, but the 2024 law carried the same standard forward almost word for word. It now sits in G.L. c. 140, § 121F(k):
“A licensing authority shall deny any application … to a person the licensing authority determines to be unsuitable to hold a permit, card or license. A determination of unsuitability shall be based on reliable, articulable and credible information that the applicant has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a permit, card or license, the applicant may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to themselves or others.”
The official must give the applicant “the specific reasons for the determination” in writing. The license to carry statute, G.L. c. 140, § 131, cross-references this standard and requires a personal interview on an initial application.
One detail in the 2024 law matters for the argument. For a firearm identification card, § 121F(l) takes the decision away from the licensing authority. The chief cannot deny an FID card as unsuitable. The chief must petition the District Court, which must find unsuitability by a preponderance of the evidence within 90 days, or the card issues automatically. For a license to carry, the chief decides.
What Bruen said about this kind of discretion
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement, which made applicants show a special need to carry. It named Massachusetts among the handful of jurisdictions with similar “may issue” laws.
Both sides of the SJC case lean on the same footnote. In footnote 9, the Court said nothing in its analysis should suggest that the 43 states’ “shall-issue” regimes are unconstitutional, because they appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, “rather than requiring the ‘appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion'” that typifies proper cause standards.
- The Commonwealth’s reading. The Superior Court judge, according to CommonWealth Beacon, concluded that Bruen approved licensing regimes with suitability requirements. The distinction is between asking why someone needs to carry, which Bruen forbids, and asking whether this particular person is dangerous, which it does not.
- Westbrook’s reading. A standard that turns on whether someone “may create a risk,” based on an official’s evaluation of “behavior that suggests” it, looks more like the “exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion” than a “narrow, objective, and definite” standard. The District Court judge found no historical tradition supporting such “spongy terms.” An amicus brief from the Second Amendment Foundation and others argues it is especially problematic when it rests on charges that never produced a conviction.
The same footnote also says the Court does not “rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes” when a permitting scheme is “put toward abusive ends.” That sentence is the doorway for an as-applied challenge like Westbrook’s.
Why it matters beyond Holyoke
If the SJC holds the suitability standard unconstitutional, the ruling would reach the current § 121F(k), not just the old statute, because the language is nearly identical. Licensing officials would be left with the statute’s objective disqualifiers and without the catch-all.
If the SJC upholds it, the standard survives, and the question becomes how much evidence an official needs and how old it can be. A ruling on the facts here could address whether dismissed charges more than a decade old, with no evidence of later conduct, count as “reliable, articulable and credible information” of present risk.
Either way, the vote on Question 9 does not settle it. This case arises under the pre-2024 statute, and the 2024 law uses nearly the same words, so the constitutional question is live whichever way the vote goes.
We will not predict the outcome. The SJC usually issues decisions months after argument.
Frequently asked questions
What is the SJC gun license suitability case?
SJC-13822 is a Holyoke man’s challenge to the police chief’s 2023 denial of his license to carry on suitability grounds. He argues the suitability standard is unconstitutionally vague and inconsistent with Bruen. Argument is scheduled for October 7, 2026, according to CommonWealth Beacon.
What does “unsuitable” mean for a Massachusetts gun license?
Under G.L. c. 140, section 121F(k), a licensing authority must deny a license to someone it finds unsuitable based on reliable, articulable and credible information of behavior suggesting the person may create a risk to public safety or a danger to self or others. It must give specific written reasons.
Can a police chief deny an FID card as unsuitable?
Not directly under the 2024 law. For an FID card, the licensing authority must petition the District Court, which decides suitability within 90 days. For a license to carry, the licensing authority decides.
Does Question 9 affect this case?
Not directly. The case arises under the prior law, and the 2024 law uses nearly identical suitability language, so the SJC’s constitutional ruling will matter whichever way the vote goes.
Sources: CommonWealth Beacon, September 25, 2026, for the case facts, procedural history, argument date and quotations from the briefs; we were unable to retrieve the docket or briefs from the appellate courts’ website, which blocks automated access. Statutory text of G.L. c. 140, sections 121F and 131 read at malegislature.gov. Bruen’s footnote 9 read in the slip opinion; citation verified: New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The facts about Mr. Westbrook’s prior charges come from the court record as described by CommonWealth Beacon; those charges did not result in convictions. General information about Massachusetts law, not legal advice.