BELCHERTOWN — Saying that Police Chief Kevin Pacunas’ decision to deny a firearms license to a resident earlier this year was “overly broad, vague and therefore arbitrary and capricious,” a judge last month ordered the town to grant the license.

In February, Pacunas, who acts as the firearms licensing authority for Belchertown, denied a License to Carry Firearms application submitted by resident Connor Doran. The chief deemed Doran “unsuitable” to carry a firearm, claiming that he omitted a 2019 incident on his application for which he was charged with possessing a firearm while intoxicated. That incident occurred in the restroom of a Chicopee restaurant when the gun Doran was carrying went off, prompting a police response and two criminal charges, neither of which were upheld in court.

Gun lawyer Daniel Hagan of Springfield petitioned the denial on behalf of Doran, alleging that not only is Pacunas’ reasoning false, but a state law allowing local licensing authorities the power to deny a license based on subjective criteria is unconstitutional.

Eastern Hampshire District Court Judge Bruce S. Melikian agreed with Hagan, saying that Pacunas’ reasoning for determining Doran is unfit to carry a gun is “overly broad, vague and therefore arbitrary and capricious.” Melikian additionally determined that Pacunas did not provide evidence to prove the applicant threatened public safety.

Pacunas declined to comment on the lawsuit, citing pending litigation.

According to state law, applicants for a license to carry a firearm must pass a “suitability” test as determined by a firearms licensing authority, in this case the Belchertown Police Department and Pacunas.

The licensing authority must decide whether an applicant or licensee may “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others” if granted a license. Since the test relies on an individual police chief’s judgment and not a criminal charge, background check or other objective data, it’s considered subjective criteria, Hagan argued. What one licensing authority considers “suitable,” another might find “unsuitable.”

Subjective judgments in granting gun licenses were declared unconstitutional in the 2022 Supreme Court case “New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen,” according to Hagan and Melikian.

Massachusetts General Law allows gun licensing authorities to deny or revoke a gun license if the applicant is a risk to public safety, but Hagan argues in the petition that this entire section of the law is unconstitutional because it’s too subjective.

Hagan argued that Pacunas’ determination was based on a single incident five years ago and his personal opinion about the gun going off in public, and that Doran was wrongfully denied his Second Amendment rights.

Melikian agreed that the 2022 Supreme Court case invalidated a gun licensing’s authority to decide if a person is suitable to own a gun. The decision still allows licensing authorities to maintain public safety: The law is in place to prevent an irresponsible person from handling a destructive weapon like a firearm, and the Bruen case upholds that right, the judge said.

However, he said that any discretionary denial of a license is unconstitutional. Under this reasoning, the authority that denies an applicant a gun license must have evidence as to why the applicant may be dangerous, which Melikian writes that Pacunas did not have.

An affidavit in support of Hagan’s petition cited two other district judges in Massachusetts ruling the same way in similar court cases.

Judge Kevin Finnery of Fall River District Court ordered that the local police chief must grant Isaiah Echeverre a gun license because the decision to suspend his license was based on a single criminal complaint.

And in Holyoke District Court, First Justice William Hadley ruled that the Holyoke police chief did not prove that resident Randy Westbrook’s ability to carry a firearm presents a danger to the public. Both judges made their decisions based on the Bruen ruling.