Commonwealth's Firearms Licensing Statute is Facially Constitutional, SJC Rules

A recent criminal case raised a facial challenge to G.L. c. 140, § 131, arguing that the firearms licensing statute violates the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The defendant had not applied for a firearms license and had conditionally pled guilty to carrying a loaded firearm without a license. He reserved his right to pursue motions to suppress and to dismiss.  

Since he had not applied for a firearms license, he could not claim that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him. A statute will be facially constitutional if the Commonwealth demonstrates that it is constitutional in at least some applications. The Supreme Judicial Court noted that many cases, including Supreme Court rulings, have held since Bruen that it does not violate the Second Amendment to deny firearms to felons. Since the statute includes felons among the class of persons prohibited from obtaining a firearms license, it is constitutional in at least some of its applications and the defendant’s claim failed. The case is Commonwealth v. Nathaniel Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025).  

Local licensing authorities are seeing many more challenges to their denials or suspensions of firearms licenses, with some district courts agreeing with challengers that the statute is unconstitutional in light of Bruen. The SJC accepted direct appellate review of a case, Pratt v. Westbrook, SJC-13822, that challenges the statute on both facial and as-applied grounds, and we will keep an eye on how these challenges fare. The Court is soliciting amicus briefs in the Pratt case regarding the constitutionality of the statute.