A local woman who was denied a license to carry firearms because of her husband’s “violent and aggressive behavior” has won her appeal in state court.

Barbara Guinane applied to the Manchester-by-the-Sea police chief for an LTC more than three years ago.

The police chief ended up ruling that Guinane was unsuitable and denied the LTC application due to her husband. The chief noted her husband’s violent disputes with neighbors, resulting in police responses to the couple’s home, criminal charges, restraining orders against him, and his LTC being suspended.

Ultimately, the chief argued that issuing an LTC to Guinane would allow her husband to have access to weapons.

After Guinane lost her appeal multiple times in court, she brought her case to Massachusetts Appeals Court.

“We agree with Guinane that her husband’s conduct did not, in these circumstances, furnish adequate statutory grounds for the chief to find her unsuitable,” the Appeals Court ruled. “Therefore, without reaching any Second Amendment issue, we reverse.”

The Appeals Court ordered the police chief to grant Guinane’s LTC application.

She had applied for her LTC in October of 2022. Earlier that year, a neighbor had called 911 to report that Guinane’s husband “came to (the neighbor’s) property yelling about trash cans and was carrying a baseball bat and then smashed a light pole in a fit of rage.”

When police responded, they found the Guinanes sitting on their front porch, where the husband told them, “I know I smashed a light.” He explained that he believed someone had broken into his shed, and he had lost his temper.

The husband was criminally charged with vandalizing property, and the neighbors obtained a harassment prevention order against him. The chief also suspended the husband’s LTC.

Then, the husband and a second neighbor had a verbal altercation, leading to the husband being charged with threatening to commit a crime, and with assault with intent to intimidate based on the victim’s race, religion, color and/or disability. The second neighbor also obtained a restraining order against him.

When Guinane applied for her own LTC, the chief found her unsuitable because of his concern that her husband would have access to the weapons. The chief acknowledged that Guinane herself had no criminal record.

The chief agreed that if Guinane were not married to her husband, “she would be a suitable person.” The chief nevertheless ruled that “it may be a threat to public safety” to issue an LTC to Guinane.

Related Articles

Lowell Police investigate shooting at downtown apartment building

Boston Police Blotter: Officers recover guns, crack, fentanyl

Gov. Healey calls $31K buyout to alleged cocaine trafficker ‘unacceptable’

Judge denies LaMar Cook’s bail review

Gov. Healey faces backlash for embattled aide LaMar Cook’s $31K contract buyout

On the other side, Guinane testified that she had taken a gun safety course and had learned “how to use guns safely and to keep them at home also safely.” She had obtained a biometric gun safe and a biometric trigger lock, operable only with her fingerprints, so that “nobody else can use it.”

She further testified that she was a licensed manicurist who operated a nail salon out of their house. Customers sometimes paid her in cash.

In this most recent appeal, the Appeals Court ruled that the chief had no reasonable ground for denying Guinane’s application.

“Although the chief was understandably concerned about public safety, there was no reliable information about behavior by the applicant suggesting that, if issued a license, she would create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to herself or others,” the court wrote.

“There is no evidence that she engaged in violent or aggressive behavior, or that she assisted or contributed to her husband’s past violent and aggressive behavior, or that she engaged in behavior suggesting that she might be negligent in securing her firearms as required by law,” the court added. “Nor was there reliable evidence that she intended to or might be forced to make firearms available to her husband or any other prohibited or unsuitable person.”