Ltc denied......overturned by district judge.....then reversed at appeal to mass superior court.

whacko

NES Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
15,427
Likes
19,424
Feedback: 3 / 0 / 0
From the herald article:

A local police chief who rejected a resident’s bid for a license to carry firearms, claiming the man was “unsuitable” to obtain an LTC, has won his appeal.

The then-Southboro Police Chief Kenneth Paulhus during the pandemic denied Paul Dwiggins a Class A large capacity license to carry firearms.

That decision from the police chief was then reversed by a district court judge, which was later affirmed by a Superior Court judge.

But now, Massachusetts Appeals Court justices reversed the previous court rulings, and they reinstated the police chief’s decision to deny the resident’s LTC.

“The judgment of the Superior Court is reversed, and a new judgment shall enter affirming the denial of Dwiggins’s license to carry,” the appeals court justices wrote in Wednesday’s ruling.

Back in September of 2020, the police chief rejected Dwiggins’ application for the large capacity license to carry firearms on grounds that he was “unsuitable” to obtain such a license.

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.

Another incident involved Dwiggins’ wife being arrested. As the officers arrested her, she remained combative, kicking one of the officers and continuing to scream profanities at them. When the officers finally brought her to the police station, she threatened one of the officers, saying, “If I had a gun right now I would blow your head right off.”

There were also multiple police reports responding to incidents related to both the son’s and the wife’s use of alcohol and other substances.

Related Articles
Boston Police arrest ‘Most Wanted’ suspect after alleged Dorchester breaking and entering
18 Brazilian nationals in Massachusetts charged with illegal gun sales, 110 firearms seized
SJC rules Massachusetts’ nonresident gun laws are legal after post-Bruen changes
The NRA targets Bay State’s gun laws as unconstitutional
Massachusetts has the second strongest gun laws in the U.S., new rankings show
In the chief’s notice to Dwiggins denying his application, the chief noted that he was deeming the applicant an unsuitable person to obtain a license for the following reasons: “Persons residing in your household with histories of substance abuse, criminal behavior, and mental health issues. After a review of the involved police reports, I have found you to be unsuitable.”

After the district and superior court judges reversed the police chief’s decision, the chief brought the appeal to the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

Dwiggins argued that he shouldn’t be denied a license because he said the chief’s decision about “unsuitability” was not about the applicant’s own behavior.

“We note, however, that the police reports on which the chief relied in finding the applicant unsuitable do include evidence of the applicant’s own behavior,” the appeals court wrote. “The applicant was involved in at least one incident of domestic violence in his home.”

“The chief was within his authority when he determined the applicant may create such a risk by bringing a firearm into the volatile, unstable, and violent environment of his residence, to which multiple police responses for domestic violence, substance use, and mental health have been required year after year after year,” the judges added.

One of the appeals court justices wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing there was insufficient evidence that Dwiggins himself posed a risk to public safety.

“… I find no case law suggesting that an unsuitability determination can be based on the conduct of third parties,” wrote Associate Justice Kenneth Desmond Jr.

“While I too believe that there is some wisdom in the chief’s public safety concerns, a plain reading of the statute leaves me unpersuaded that the majority’s interpretation of its language is correct,” Desmond added. “As such, I respectfully dissent.”
 
In the spirit of a good debate....

In about 40 other states the guy would already legally own a gun.......
Yes but that decision would be completely on him with nobody else involved. And it would be a stupid choice for him to bring a gun into that mad house.

However, since this is MA and someone else has to look at his situation and made a judgement call, I completely understand why the chief would say no.

If he is there chalking off a body in a month after the guy gets his LTC, someone is going to ask questions.
 
Yes but that decision would be completely on him with nobody else involved. And it would be a stupid choice for him to bring a gun into that mad house.

However, since this is MA and someone else has to look at his situation and made a judgement call, I completely understand why the chief would say no.

If he is there chalking off a body in a month after the guy gets his LTC, someone is going to ask questions.
Police have qualified immunity......they can ask all the questions they want......chief can't be sued personally right?

If this denial stays......it opens up case law that a chief can deny an ltc based on the actions of others.....and i think that's f***ed up.
 
 
I seriously question this guys judgement bringing a firearm into what sounds like a volitile situation.

The right thing to do is take the sane kid and get out.

But this guilt by association is a really a BAD precedent. If this stands why is unreasonable to disarm a whole apartment complex as there may be bad resident in that building?
 
Police have qualified immunity......they can ask all the questions they want......chief can't be sued personally right?

If this denial stays......it opens up case law that a chief can deny an ltc based on the actions of others.....and i think that's f***ed up.

Chief said "unsuitable". As I understand his reasoning, it is still a denial of his rights. Would you like to be denied something because of family members? I'm on the fence
Suitability is a pretty big issue for me, having been labeled unsuitable in MA (although under the old "broad discretion" standard), but I'm with the Chief on this one. The home situation has every appearance of being unstable and violent, and it is his home, he choses to be there. Bringing a gun into that picture is just a bad idea. And this isn't about the actions of others. It's about his decision to bring a gun into a home that is already a violent environment. That's his action, not the action of others. And this is an ongoing situation with multiple incidents, it's not some decades old one time event. I see bad things happening if there is a gun in that home, under the current circumstances.
 
Eh, I’ll say it. The last thing that guy needs is a gun in his house. I’m with the chief in this one.

Get a divorce, put the son in a mental hospital and then we can discuss it.
Isn't Mass proper storage law designed for this very purpose? Which is it- the guy can't have his LTC and the storage law is bullshit or the storage law is legit and he can have his LTC?

In my opinion, he may someday need a firearm to defend himself against dirtbag kid and associates. Agreed he should divorce and move on. Disagreed regarding the LTC.
 
Suitability is a pretty big issue for me, having been labeled unsuitable in MA (although under the old "broad discretion" standard), but I'm with the Chief on this one. The home situation has every appearance of being unstable and violent, and it is his home, he choses to be there. Bringing a gun into that picture is just a bad idea. And this isn't about the actions of others. It's about his decision to bring a gun into a home that is already a violent environment. That's his action, not the action of others. And this is an ongoing situation with multiple incidents, it's not some decades old one time event. I see bad things happening if there is a gun in that home, under the current circumstances.

I agree. Bringing a gun into that environment is probably a bad idea.

Gun ownership is a right not the privilege is has become today. It is not for us to decide to deny him his right because we think he shouldn’t do that. Rights are messy and inconvenient because we aren’t supposed to be deciding who gets them and who doesn’t. That’s not how rights are supposed to work.

I’m in my mid 60’s and I have far fewer freedoms than I had 40 years ago because others have decided what is best for me and I am friggin sick of it.
 
Question: All those who say he should be denied an LTC because he wants to bring a firearm into a volatile home, what would you say if there was a woman applying for an LTC because of an abusive husband? Should she be deprived of her 2A rights/LTC because of her husband’s violence?


Suitability is a pretty big issue for me, having been labeled unsuitable in MA (although under the old "broad discretion" standard), but I'm with the Chief on this one. The home situation has every appearance of being unstable and violent, and it is his home, he choses to be there. Bringing a gun into that picture is just a bad idea. And this isn't about the actions of others. It's about his decision to bring a gun into a home that is already a violent environment. That's his action, not the action of others. And this is an ongoing situation with multiple incidents, it's not some decades old one time event. I see bad things happening if there is a gun in that home, under the current circumstances.

You’re assuming. Maybe he wants an LTC and plans to keep the firearm elsewhere.

… or… maybe he wants a firearm to lock away that only he can access in case his insane son or wife stabs him with a knife.

It’s crazy how many people here are advocating the deprivation of someone’s rights because of the actions of their family members.
 
I agree. Bringing a gun into that environment is probably a bad idea.

Gun ownership is a right not the privilege is has become today. It is not for us to decide to deny him his right because we think he shouldn’t do that. Rights are messy and inconvenient because we aren’t supposed to be deciding who gets them and who doesn’t. That’s not how rights are supposed to work.

I’m in my mid 60’s and I have far fewer freedoms than I had 40 years ago because others have decided what is best for me and I am friggin sick of it.
This.......not a good idea probably....but is it his right or isn't it to make that decision?

And wow and a lot of people outing themselves as statists here saying he should be denied and are totally for suitability of the government giving you a permission slip. Even with your tough unconstitutional storage laws. Unfxcking believable. You guys that feel that way certainly deserve what you get.
 
I might have been denied for (marginally) similar reasons so I didn’t bother applying in MA. My judgement was not to have a firearm in the house with a known crazy person who was in and out of nut houses and occasionally would try to off herself. Now divorced and living elsewhere I’m never more than a couple steps from one. Crazy women are not to be trusted EVER.

Tough call. I could go back and forth on the denial. But think I’d look at it like having a prohibited person in the same house. Not his fault but close call and I’d have to hold my nose and approve if I was in that position.
 
Eh, I’ll say it. The last thing that guy needs is a gun in his house. I’m with the chief in this one.

Get a divorce, put the son in a mental hospital and then we can discuss it.
Holy Fxck....you actually sound like his parent or something......THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT??

Denying his rights and telling him what do to in his personal life that pleases your authority so you can get your rights back.

JFC.....you people are that brainwashed in the scheme of the government can protect us from ourselves so we have to give up our rights. You have forgotten what freedom actually is.

In before "if it just saves one life.....its all worth it"
 
Last edited:
This is looking like the #1 'statists out yourselves' thread I have seen in a while.

Each and every one of you on that 'deny' track should sell your guns and forfeit your LTC before you venture into any high crime areas or situations. It could potentially be violent!!!

The guy should be smart and either keep his weapons on his person or otherwise secured from the dirtbags, but his rights should not be violated and properly securing a firearm is on him- not the state. If he ends up being irresponsible, he can be held accountable. But go ahead- punish the innocent. JFC, most of the time on the forum I'd just state that I disagree and move on. However, in this case many of you disgust me...

shame-no-sense.gif
 
If the applicant was a perpetrator of domestic violence, why wasn't he arrested? One can understand the chief's concerns, but concerns don't come before rights. If he is "unsuitable," he should have been charged and tried with a variety of crimes. The police had every chance to do so but did not. 80 calls involving the applicant but him not being charged with anything either means that he did not do anything, the police are lazy, or he is a master criminal genius who has found out how to avoid DV/DI/DD charges.

Absence of proof and adjudication of his crimes, siding with the chief is also supporting many scenarios where one could be denied by approximation and association.
 
It is unfortunate to see how many people feel comfortable denying due process to individuals as long as they cannot identify with the person being denied due process. Depriving someone of a constutionally protected right without a judicial finding of mental incompetence or criminal wrongdoing is denial of such process.
 
Last edited:
It is unfortunate to see how many people feel comfortable denying due process to individuals as long as they cannot identify the person being denied due process. Depriving someone of a constutionally protected right without a judicial finding of mental incompetence or criminal wrongdoing to be denial of such process.
JFC....superior court judges in MA reversed the Chiefs decision....yet we have people here that are more liberal and statist than MA judges. Wow.
 
Police have qualified immunity......they can ask all the questions they want......chief can't be sued personally right?

If this denial stays......it opens up case law that a chief can deny an ltc based on the actions of others.....and i think that's f***ed up.
Quilalified immunity isn't saving him from deprivation of rights under color of law.

It doesn't sound like this is a proper denial, but I can see the chiefs angle- 90 contacts in 15 years is a lot, none of them seem to involve the applicant except "being involved in" a domestic. What the f*** does "involved in" mean? He got punched in the face by his son and hit back?

Article is scant on details. While the guy is probably better off alone, he seems to be incurring a miscarriage of rights and justice.
 
Quilalified immunity isn't saving him from deprivation of rights under color of law.
So you say.

Are you aware of any case, anywhere, where QI was stripped and a police official held personally liable for denial of a gun license?
 
Reposting my comment from the other thread on this case:

The silver lining here is that this case was decided based on a prior version of the statute, and the subsection that the chief in this case used to deny the LTC no longer exists, having been removed in 2022. The current statutory language appears to concern only the applicant's behavior--not that of third parties. The Appeals Court tried to hint that it still could have been denied under the current law, but had to admit that it would be a stretch to do so. The dissent is on point.
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top Bottom