What I think we have here is a lack of understanding of suitability as applied in MA.
Currently, even before Bruen, it requires an articulable reason. They cannot just say all of any group can't have an LTC. This is why it survives Bruen, it's individual. But the court still applies the "broad discretion" standard that existed prior to 2015. Effectively this only mean that whatever the reason given is, they don't really need to clearly articulate it. And the law on suitability has absolutely nothing to do with providing a reason for issue. Please, read the actual law.
As for the "stand up in court" , you need to remember that this is NOT a trial with all the process and standards that go along with that. It is an administrative hearing. So hearsay is admissible, there are no witnesses, there is no questioning or cross examination. In fact the LO isn't likely to even be there, providing just a written statement. That statement will be taken as fact and since the LO isn't even there, there can be no question of it's validity. So for example a statement of "the applicant appeared to be agitated, even aggressive, during the interview, causing me to be concerned how he may react during a stressful situation should he have a firearm in his possession", meets the requirements for a suitability denial, and will be taken as fact without question. And no, you do not have a right to question the source. (this statement does not come from my own suitability hearing, it's just an example).
Add to all this that the AG came out AFTER Bruen and made it clear that sutability as MA uses it is still OK, why would any department change how they apply it.
There was a comment that if it was still happening we would hear about it. WHY? NES isn't that well known and certainly not to a new applicant. The chances that they happen across the small group of 2a focused lawyers that post here is similarly unlikely. Heck, I was a gun dealer in MA and NH and I didn't know about NES until 2010. And the PDs certainly aren't advertising this. I know there were 100s before Bruen, I don't see them mentioned on NES.
Another poster said something about, if there was a suitability denial it would be challenged in court now that we have Bruen. Really? This assumes the applicant is aware of Bruen and can afford the high legal costs associated with taking it beyond the administrative hearing. And before you say Comm2a, they explained it to me, the denied person would have to be "squeaky clean" for them to pick it up. And if you think about it, who would possible qualify for this and still be called unsuitable. In my case it revolved around my divorce, and even though there was no accusation of any type from my ex, even had a written statement where she stated she had no reason I shouldn't have an LTC, the existence of the divorce made it too "complicated".
What it comes down to is you haven't heard of any so you assume they don't exist. But you never heard of the 100s that happened before Bruen either, yet they certainly exist. You assumption is based on seriously flawed logic.
