Actually, this isn't my field and I know very little about it. The matters I observed (by virtue of having my hearings interrupted, and we were all told to just sit around and wait and then we'd resume) were all original applications for 209As and were heard in the Superior Court. So we sat and watched. I believe, without having kept a score, that I saw more ex partes denied than granted, but in any event the judge made a judicial review of the application, affidavit and testimony by the applicant.
My point was quite limited. But I seem to have dragged myself into a larger debate concerning which my knowledge component matches my interest component, so maybe I can effect a graceful exit.
On the way out, though, I have been induced to look at the statute and find that the disqualification for holding a license to carry is in these terms:
"is currently subject to: (A) an order for suspension or surrender issued pursuant to section 3B or 3C of chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another jurisdiction; or (B) a permanent or temporary protection order issued pursuant to chapter 209A or a similar order issued by another jurisdiction". (Emphasis added.)
Since "currently" means "at the present moment," the clear language of the statute is that one who was once subject to a 209A that has since been vacated or has since expired of its own terms is not disqualified. Likewise, where a line has been drawn by the legislature, that line is generally considered to be not subject to re-drawing by the executive. Thus, for instance, if the legislature sets 21 years as the minimum age for a LTC, a police chief could not under the statute decide that the minimum age should be 25 (or 50), either under the guise of "suitable person" or otherwise. By the same logic, where the legislature has declared that LTC disqualification perforce a 209A ceases at its expiration, a chief should not be allowed to overrule the legislature. I don't know, however, if the point has ever been decided by an appellate court. (But cf. Howard v. Chief of Police of Wakefield, 59 Mass. App. 901 (2003) (factual findings underpinning a Probate Court protection order, not the fact of the order itself, concerning a recent violent action, sufficient to sustain non-renewal of LTC, in a case in which, following vacation of a related 209A, the LTC and firearms had been returned).)
And, for the record, I am retired.