The Massachusetts firearms licensing statute prohibits certain persons from possessing a firearms license--most prohibitions arising from convictions for specified crimes. * An non-prohibited person seeking a license must additionally satisfy the local licensing authority that he or she is not “unsuitable.” In most instances the “licensing authority” is the local chief of police and, for much of the history of the licensing statute, what made a person suitable or unsuitable was undefined.
“A determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety.”
If an applicant is denied a license due to unsuitability or a license is revoked due to unsuitability, the aggrieved person may appeal to the district court. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 140, § 131 (f). A district court judge may order the grant or reinstatement of the license if the judge finds, after a hearing, “that there was no reasonable ground for denying, suspending, revoking or restricting the license and that the [aggrieved person] is not prohibited by law from possessing a license.” Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 140, § 131 (f).
Before the district court the aggrieved person “may present relevant evidence tending to show that he or she is a proper person to hold a license to carry a firearm, or that the action of the licensing authority was arbitrary or capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” ** Chief of Police of Worcester v. Holden, 470 Mass. 845, 862 (2015).The district court judge, “after an evidentiary hearing, may find facts and direct the licensing authority to issue a license if the judge finds that the licensing authority had ‘no reasonable ground’ for denying the license.” Nichols v. Chief of Police of Natick, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 739, 743-744 (2019). A judge must bear in mind, however, that “[t]he ‘suitable person’ standard gives the licensing authority . . . ‘considerable latitude’ or broad discretion in making a licensing decision.” Chardin v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 465 Mass. 314, 316 (2013).
Prior challenges to license denials or revocations provide some–though not thorough--guidance on what is a reasonable denial due to unsuitability. In Firearms Records Bureau v. Simkin, 466 Mass. 168, 182 (2013), a revocation was found to be unreasonable where the revocation was based upon the licensee’s providing a false name when seeking medical treatment: such conduct did not implicate public safety concerns. Similarly, in Phipps v. Police Commissioner of Boston, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 725, 733-735 (2019), an applicant’s minor and immaterial inaccuracies in responses to questions in a face-to-face meeting with the commander of the licensing unit did not amount to grounds to deny a license.
On the other hand, denial was found to be reasonable in Chief of Police of Worcester v. Holden, 470 Mass. 845, 855 & n.8 (2015), where “specific and reliable information established that [the applicant] had assaulted and beaten his wife” five years earlier. In Nichols v. Chief of Police of Natick, 94 Mass. App. Ct. 739, 747 (2019), the licensing authority was found to have acted properly in denying a license to an applicant with a fifteen-year history of prescription drug abuse. In Chief of Police of Taunton v. Caras, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 182, 186-187 (2019), the licensee’s failure to secure a firearm, allowing his drug-addicted grandson to abscond with the firearm, was sufficient reason to revoke a license.
Some takeaways: A licensing authority’s adverse action need only be reasonable--that reasonable minds may reach different conclusions is not sufficient to overcome an adverse determination. In a district court appeal, the applicant or licensee bears the burden of proving that the denial or revocation was unreasonable. The role of the district court judge is merely to determine if the determination is reasonable--not to substitute his or her judgment for that of the licensing official. The licensing authority’s conclusions need not be based upon criminal prosecutions or criminal investigations: any credible information is sufficient. Chief of Police of Worcester v. Holden, 470 Mass. 845, 855 & n.8, 856 (2015). Finally, what amounts to unsuitability remains unclear: the cases elaborating on the subject seem to be at the extremes, providing little guidance for conduct in the middle. Finally still, the law provides that one may reapply for a license if the reason causing unsuitability has been overcome. Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 140, § 131 (f).
* Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 140, § 131 (d) (i)-(x) provides a list of disqualifying conditions that prohibit a person from obtaining a license to carry, such as certain criminal convictions, prior involuntary commitment for mental illness, being younger than twenty-one years of age, and renunciation of United States citizenship.
** Use of the word “or” suggests that the applicant may obtain a separate suitability determination from the district court judge, though the Massachusetts Appeals Court has not interpreted the statute as such. Chief of Police of Taunton v. Caras, 95 Mass. App. Ct. 182 (2019).
