Estimated studying time: 3 minutes
In a uncommon however welcome dose of widespread sense out of Massachusetts, a state Appeals Courtroom has dominated {that a} girl can’t be denied a license to hold merely due to points involving her husband.
The unanimous determination got here in Guinane v. Chief of Police of Manchester-by-the-Sea, the place the court docket ordered native authorities to grant Barbara Guinane her License to Carry (LTC). This, even supposing her husband beforehand had his personal license suspended.
The Residents Committee for the Proper to Hold and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) stated the ruling was: the proper name.
On the middle of the case was a troubling however more and more widespread idea pushed by licensing authorities in restrictive states. Specifically, that guilt (or “danger”) may be transferred by affiliation. On this case, police denied Guinane’s LTC software primarily based not on her actions, conduct, or background. However on previous incidents involving her partner.
That argument didn’t survive appellate overview.
Throughout court docket testimony, the police chief conceded there was no conduct by Guinane herself suggesting she posed any hazard to public security. That admission mattered. Quite a bit.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Justice Peter Sacks made it clear that Massachusetts legislation requires individualized proof. Not hypothesis, not proximity, and never guilt-by-marriage.
“Though the chief was understandably involved about public security,” Sacks wrote, “there was no dependable details about conduct by the applicant suggesting that, if issued a license, she would create a danger to public security or a danger of hazard to herself or others.”
That distinction proved decisive.
The court docket emphasised that licensing selections should be primarily based on concrete proof tied to the applicant. Not hypothetical considerations or unrelated conduct by another person. In brief: the legislation doesn’t enable rights to be denied primarily based on vibes.
Sacks, joined by Justices Gregory Massing and Jennifer Allen, went even additional, stating that denial of an LTC can not relaxation on “hypothesis,” irrespective of how well-intentioned the considerations could also be. With out precise proof exhibiting unsuitability, the denial merely didn’t meet the authorized normal.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb stated the ruling reinforces a fundamental precept that too typically will get misplaced in gun management debates.
“One particular person is probably not penalized due to the conduct of one other particular person, even a partner,” Gottlieb stated. “You may’t deny one particular person’s rights primarily based on one other particular person’s previous conduct.”
For Massachusetts gun house owners, who’re already navigating one of the restrictive licensing regimes within the nation, the choice may have broader implications. Whereas slim in scope, it attracts a transparent line: licensing authorities should consider the applicant, not the family.
It could be a small win on paper. However for lawful gun house owners dealing with arbitrary denials, it’s a reminder that courts can nonetheless acknowledge the distinction between public security and overreach, even in Massachusetts.





















