Suitability is ripe for a federal challenge now that gun ownership, and the right not to have subjective "need" applied to licensing is the law of the land.
I would speculate the questions presented to the court would be something like:
- "Can an individual be denied a constitutional right because they have been found not guilty of a crime; had criminal charges dropped or resolved by a mechanism such as deferred adjudication that does not involve a conviction or loss of any other constitutional right"?
- "Can heresay evidence be used in a judicial proceeding held to determine if an individual is to be stripped of a constitutional right?"
- "Does an individual facing judicial action to determine if (s)he will be stripped of a constitutional right have access to discovery; identity of witnesses used against him/her; require actual witness testimony rather than written reports, and confront all witnesses against him (including the power to compel witness attendance)"
Those three currently common practices would be hard to justify given that was is being deprive is no longer an "administrative license to which the applicant has not right" but an actual constitutional right.
Much of the MA procedure is based on the now legally obsolete concept that there is no 2A right, so protections applied to constitutional rights exclude those recognized by the 2A. The wheels of change move slowly when those in power do not want them to move.