Massachusetts Court Gets It Right on Second Amendment for a Change

Earlier today the Supreme Court denied cert in a case called Marquis v. Massachusetts, upholding a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts that the colonel of the state police has the discretion to decide who is “suitable” to own and carry a firearm in the state. That “suitability” authority is given to local police chiefs as well, and goes well beyond the “shall issue” criteria that SCOTUS said was constitutional in the Bruen decision. 

The SJC will soon have the opportunity to review another “suitability” case, and in this particular matter a Massachusetts appellate court actually got it right. The case involves a woman named Barbara Guinane, who applied for a License to Carry in 2022 but was denied by the police chief in Manchester-by-the-Sea on the grounds she was unsuitable to own a firearm; not because of anything she did, but because of who she was married to. 

[At a trial court hearing,] he chief testified that he found Guinane unsuitable based on the conduct of her husband. In May 2022, a neighbor had called 911 to report that, in connection with a property line dispute, the husband “came to [the neighbor’s] property yelling about trash cans and was carrying a baseball bat and then smashed a light pole in a fit of rage.” When police responded, they found the Guinanes sitting on their front porch, where the husband told them, “I know I smashed a light.” He explained that he believed someone had broken into his shed and that he had lost his temper. The husband was criminally charged with vandalizing property, a charge that remained pending at the time of the hearing, and the neighbors obtained a G. L. c. 258E harassment prevention order against him, effective until June 2023. The chief suspended the husband’s LTC, finding him both unsuitable, based on his “volatile behavior,” and to be a prohibited person, based on the G. L. c. 258E order.

Guinane’s hubby had at least one more run-in with the law, but Guinane herself apparently didn’t take part in her husband’s activities. Still, the chief denied her LTC application because of his concern that her husband would have access to her firearms. 

The chief acknowledged on cross-examination that Guinane herself had no criminal record and had not been charged in any of the incidents involving the husband. The chief agreed that, if Guinane were not married to her husband, “she would be a suitable person.” The chief nevertheless determined that “it may be a threat to public safety” to issue an LTC to Guinane.

The appellate court disagreed, ruling that while the chief’s “natural concern that the husband might somehow obtain access was certainly deserving of consideration…. ultimately it lacked the evidentiary basis statutorily required to support a determination of unsuitability.

An application for an LTC shortly after a family member’s LTC was suspended (or application was denied) might be considered some evidence that the applicant had “exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create” a safety risk by making firearms available to the unlicensed family member. But here it did not amount to the requisite “reliable, articulable and credible information” suggesting any appreciable risk that Guinane might do so and was therefore unsuitable.

If a spouse’s legal trouble can be cause to disarm someone, what about their kids? Their siblings? Their parents? How far does this extend? Can a second cousin’s criminal record make someone “unsuitable” to own a gun? 

This case is a perfect demonstration of just how subjective Massachusetts’ “suitability” standard is, and it’s incredibly frustrating that SCOTUS didn’t grant cert to Marquis v. Massachusetts in order to rein in abuses like this. I suppose the only silver lining is that if the Supreme Judicial Court reverses this decision and decides the chief did have the power to deny Guinane her ability to legally possess and carry a firearm, SCOTUS will have another opportunity to address this issue and right a wrong that should have been curtailed by the Bruen decision more than three years ago.