In the Bruen case, the Supreme Court made it clear that gun licensing schemes that require applicants to demonstrate a “justifiable need” or “good cause” to exercise their right to carry are unconstitutional. But what about “suitability” requirements? The Court was silent on that subjective determination, and several states have either created or continued to enforce a “suitability” standard since Bruen was handed down, giving licensing authorities the ability to deny a permit to someone even if they’ve passed a background check and completed all mandated training. 

Now a Massachusetts court has upheld the denial of a gun permit for a Southboro resident whose application was rejected by then-Police Chief Kenneth Paulhus; overturning lower court decisions that ruled Paulhus had overstepped his bounds. The decision means that, for now anyway, Paul Dwiggins, is once more unable to possess or carry a pistol in the state of Massachusetts despite not having any prohibiting factors under state or federal law. 

The police chief, Paulhus, cited more than 80 police contacts with either Dwiggins’ son or wife over the previous 14 years. Many were for incidents of domestic violence at their house, and many of these contacts were for mental health crises involving his wife.

One of the police reports involved Dwiggins getting into a dispute with his 15-year-old son, who reportedly had a serious substance abuse history and was a drug dealer.

His son had come home drunk and become combative after Dwiggins told him he couldn’t have a sleepover, according to the police report. Dwiggins said his son had pushed him, while the son said his father had grabbed him first.

His son then picked up a kitchen knife, according to Dwiggins who told police that his son said, “He was going to go to his room and hold the knife to his throat so if his mother wanted to kill him he would make it easier for her.” Dwiggins said he then knocked the knife out of his son’s hands.

Another police report involved a different incident with a knife. Dwiggins’ son, after a physical altercation with his brother, reportedly picked up a knife and threatened to kill his brother.

Cops arrested the son, and the son while in custody said he wanted to take his own life by shooting himself with a gun.

Based on the summary above, the “suitability” concerns appear not to have been related to Dwiggins himself, but other family members in his home. But even if the chief was worried that Dwiggins’ wife or son might use a firearm to harm themselves, so long as Dwiggins himself complied with state law they shouldn’t be able to access his handgun. Like it or not, Massachusetts gun owners are required to store their firearms in a locked container or one equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock that renders it inoperable whenever the firearm is not under the “direct control” of its owner. 

If an immediate family member’s actions is enough cause to deny someone’s access to their Second Amendment rights, where does that line get drawn? What about a relative who may regularly visit the home, but doesn’t live there? What about a neighbor who’s had multiple contacts with police?  

Or, to put it another way: if the state of Massachusetts can’t prohibit Paul Dwiggins from keeping knives in his home after his son’s alleged aggression, why should it (or local licensing authorities) be able to prevent Dwiggins from lawfully possessing a firearm? The “suitability” standard is a slippery slope that gives police chiefs the discretion to decide who gets to exercise a fundamental right, and even law-abiding citizens can be deemed unsuitable in the eyes of the law. That’s a huge problem, but thankfully in addition to Dwiggins’ lawsuit there are a number of other legal challenges to that unreasonable (and unconstitutional) standard that are already underway.