Massachusetts Criminal Defense of Firearms Offenses

Unlicensed Carrying, Possession, Registration, Sensitive Locations, and Defense

Massachusetts enforces firearms laws that are stricter than those of most other states. This page addresses unlicensed carrying and possession, Chapter 135 registration and serialization, sensitive-location charges, license consequences, and the principal defenses to these cases.

Carrying a firearm without a License to Carry is a felony under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). Unlicensed carrying under § 10(a) is punishable by two and one half to five years in state prison or 18 months to two and one half years in a house of correction, with a mandatory minimum of 18 months.

A § 10(a) case may not be resolved by a continuance without a finding or placed on file. A person convicted under § 10(a) cannot receive a suspended sentence or probation in place of the committed sentence.

An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, added registration and serialization requirements. A regulation of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, 501 CMR 20.08(1), required the owner of a firearm without a valid serial number to serialize the firearm by October 2, 2026, unless an exemption applies. The Executive Office’s firearm modernization page states that firearms must be serialized and registered by October 28, 2026. An unserialized firearm must be serialized first because a firearm cannot be registered until it has a serial number.

An out-of-state visitor who drives into Massachusetts with a lawfully owned firearm and no Massachusetts License to Carry can be charged with a felony under § 10(a) from the moment of entry. The exception is a visitor whose circumstances fall within a statutory exemption or the federal transit provision discussed below.

In every Massachusetts firearms case, defense counsel first examines whether the police acted constitutionally in the encounter in which the police found the weapon. A judge can suppress a firearm found through an unconstitutional stop or illegal search. Suppression of the firearm may leave the Commonwealth without admissible evidence sufficient to prove the charge. A defense lawyer must also understand who controls a dismissal and when a judge can grant one.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for an immediate consultation.

Massachusetts Firearms Offenses and Penalties

Unlicensed Carrying Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a)

Carrying a loaded or unloaded firearm outside the home or place of business without a valid Massachusetts License to Carry is a felony under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). A defendant convicted under § 10(a) receives a sentence of two and one half to five years in state prison or 18 months to two and one half years in a house of correction.

The statute prohibits a continuance without a finding, a suspended sentence, and probation in place of the jail sentence. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant had no license, as an element of the crime. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 690 (2023).

The firm’s page on carrying a firearm without a license covers the elements, what carrying and possession mean, and the current definition of a firearm. The same page also covers how the Commonwealth proves that the defendant had no license, the rules for an expired license, the separate § 10(n) charge for a loaded firearm, the penalties, and the defenses.

Unlicensed Possession Inside the Home Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(h)

Possessing a firearm inside the home or place of business without a firearm identification card or a license to carry, or possessing ammunition anywhere without either document, is a misdemeanor under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(h). A defendant convicted under § 10(h) faces up to two years in a house of correction or a fine of up to $500.

The statute sets no mandatory minimum sentence. A judge may continue the case without a finding. The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant had no firearm identification card. An admission that the defendant had no license to carry does not prove that the defendant had no firearm identification card.

The firm’s page on possession of a firearm or ammunition without an FID card covers the elements, what counts as ammunition, the exemptions, the rules for an expired card, possession in a shared home, and the defenses.

Carrying While Under the Influence Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10H

Carrying a loaded firearm, or having a loaded firearm under control in a vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol or drugs is a misdemeanor under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10H. Section 10H applies to people who hold a license to carry.

Section 10H applies whether or not the person is in a vehicle. Since October 2, 2024, the Commonwealth can also prove the charge with a blood alcohol percentage of .08 or greater.

A defendant convicted under § 10H faces a fine of up to $5,000, up to two and one half years in a house of correction, or both. After a conviction, the person cannot hold a license to carry. After a traffic stop, the police usually bring the § 10H charge together with an OUI charge.

Defense counsel can raise the same breath test and field sobriety test defenses on the § 10H charge as in the drunk driving case. The firm’s page on carrying a loaded firearm while under the influence covers the elements, what “under the influence” means, the .08 blood alcohol rule, the penalties, and the defenses.

Untraceable Firearms Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 11C

Knowingly making, assembling, importing, selling, transferring, buying, or receiving an untraceable firearm is a crime under M.G.L. c. 269, § 11C, as rewritten by the 2024 act. An untraceable firearm is a firearm that never had a serial number, or a firearm whose serial number has been removed or defaced.

Possession of an untraceable firearm is prima facie evidence of a violation, which means that a jury may find a violation from possession alone. The defendant may respond to the evidence of possession with evidence that the defendant did not know the firearm was untraceable.

A defendant convicted under § 11C faces imprisonment for at least 12 months and no more than two and one half years, with no fine. A person who owned a gun before the 2024 act can still put a serial number on the gun and register the gun through the online portal of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services.

M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 121B and 121C govern registration and serialization. The firm’s page on untraceable firearms, ghost guns, and defaced serial numbers covers the definitions, the elements, the knowledge rule, the October 2026 deadline, the penalties, and the defenses.

The Armed Career Criminal Enhancement Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10G

A defendant previously convicted of a violent crime or a serious drug offense who violates M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a), (c), or (h) faces enhanced sentencing under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10G. With one qualifying prior conviction, the sentencing range is three to fifteen years in state prison. With two qualifying prior convictions arising from separate incidences, whether two violent crimes, two serious drug offenses, or one of each, the range is ten to fifteen years.

With three qualifying prior convictions arising from separate incidences, the range is fifteen to twenty years. The sentence may not be reduced below the minimum or suspended. The defendant is not eligible for probation, parole, furlough, work release, or good conduct deductions until the minimum is served. A prosecution under § 10G may neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file.

A serious drug offense means a manufacturing or distribution offense under c. 94C, or a listed federal drug offense, punishable by a maximum term of ten years or more. A violent crime has the meaning given in M.G.L. c. 140, § 121.

The sentencing tiers depend on the predicate convictions, so defense counsel examines each prior conviction to determine whether it qualifies and whether the convictions arose from separate incidences. Defense counsel separately challenges the current charge through any available motion to suppress.

Losing the License to Carry: Prohibited Persons, Suitability, and Protective Order Surrender

A Massachusetts License to Carry can be lost on three different grounds during a criminal case. Different rules apply to each ground. The first ground for losing the license is prohibited-person status.

M.G.L. c. 140, § 121F is the licensing section created by the 2024 firearms law. Section 121F requires the licensing authority to deny an application or renewal, and to suspend or revoke an existing license or card, when the applicant or holder is a prohibited person.

The conviction-based categories of prohibited persons include a felony, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years, and a violent crime as defined in § 121. The conviction-based categories also include a firearms or ammunition offense punishable by imprisonment, a controlled substance offense, and a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33).

For the firearms identification card, a person whose conviction falls in the over 2 year misdemeanor, firearms, or drug category is disqualified for 5 years after conviction or release, whichever occurs later, rather than permanently.

Each disqualifier in the categories listed above depends on a conviction. A person who receives a continuance without a finding is generally not disqualified under those categories. The License to Carry therefore differs from most other licenses, which a person can lose after a continuance without a finding.

The second ground for losing the license is suitability. The Legislature kept suitability as a separate ground in the 2024 firearms law. The licensing authority must deny an application for a license, and may revoke a license, on a determination of unsuitability.

The statute requires the licensing authority to base a determination of unsuitability on reliable, articulable and credible information. The information must indicate that the person has exhibited or engaged in behavior suggesting that a license would create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to the person or to others.

A determination of unsuitability requires no conviction at all. An arrest, the police report underlying a dismissed charge, a continuance without a finding, or a pattern of incidents that never produced a charge can each support revocation.

A defendant can therefore win the criminal case and still lose the license on the same facts. A person can challenge a denial or revocation by petition for judicial review, but the reviewing judge gives deference to the licensing authority’s decision.

The record made during the criminal case therefore affects the license as much as it affects the charge. Statements made at the clerk-magistrate hearing, statements in police reports, and any statement to the licensing officer become part of the client’s licensing file.

The third ground for losing the license depends on protective orders rather than convictions. Under § 121F, a person is a prohibited person while a temporary or permanent 209A restraining order (abuse prevention order) or a suspension and surrender order under M.G.L. c. 209A, §§ 3B or 3C is in force.

A person is also a prohibited person while a temporary or permanent 258E harassment prevention order or an extreme risk protection order under M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 131R to 131Y is in force. The same status applies while an order described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) or a similar order from another jurisdiction is in force.

Statutes set out the procedure for surrendering licenses and firearms under abuse prevention orders and harassment prevention orders. M.G.L. c. 209A, § 3B applies when a judge issues a temporary or emergency 209A restraining order and finds a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse.

The judge must then order the immediate suspension and surrender of the License to Carry and the firearms identification card, and the surrender of all firearms and ammunition. Under § 3C, the suspension continues after the hearing on the order if the judge determines that returning the license, card, and firearms would present a likelihood of abuse.

Since the 2024 amendments, M.G.L. c. 258E, §§ 4A and 4B apply the same surrender rules to harassment prevention orders on a showing of a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), federal law independently bars possession of a firearm while a qualifying restraining order is in force. Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), federal law also bars possession after conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

The federal bar for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence can apply to a person who received a Massachusetts continuance without a finding, if the continuance without a finding counts as a conviction under federal law. The federal firearms bar for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence is not always permanent.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), the federal bar does not apply to a conviction that has been expunged or set aside, or to a person who has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored. The federal bar still applies when the expungement, set aside, pardon, or restoration of rights expressly withholds firearms rights.

Congress added 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(C) through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022. Under § 921(a)(33)(C), a person with a single conviction involving a dating relationship is no longer disqualified five years after the later of the judgment or the completion of the sentence, if the person has no later qualifying conviction.

Massachusetts sealing under M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100A to 100C is neither an expungement nor a set aside, so the federal bar still applies after a Massachusetts record is sealed.

For a client who holds a License to Carry, every 209A restraining order or 258E harassment prevention order case is therefore also a firearms case. At the two-party hearing after a temporary order issues, counsel defends the client’s license along with every other issue in the case. The effect of a case on the License to Carry depends on the same kinds of rules that apply to every other Massachusetts license. Some of those rules depend on a conviction, some apply without a conviction, and some depend on the charge itself.

The full comparison across licenses, from the License to Carry to the commercial driver’s license to the professional boards, is at Criminal Charges and Professional Licenses in Massachusetts. The firm’s page on expunging or sealing a federal criminal record explains why a Massachusetts seal does not change what the national instant check reports.

Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024: An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws

The October 2026 Registration and Serialization Deadlines Under M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 121B and 121C

All firearms possessed in Massachusetts must be registered in the MIRCS Unified Gun Portal at gunportal.mass.gov. Any firearm lacking a manufacturer’s serial number must first be serialized through DCJIS, under M.G.L. c. 140, § 121C and 501 CMR 20.00, to a minimum depth of .003 inches and a minimum print size of 1/16 inch.

The regulation sets the deadline at October 2, 2026. The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security’s guidance dated September 18, 2026 sets the deadline at October 28, 2026. The October 2 date has passed. A gun owner who has not serialized and registered every firearm should finish both steps before October 28.

Under M.G.L. c. 140, § 121B(e), a first offense of failure to register is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000. A second offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $7,500 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both. A third or subsequent offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years, or both.

Possession of an untraceable firearm is a separate violation under M.G.L. c. 140, § 121C(b). The November 3, 2026 veto referendum does not create a grace period. Prosecution proceeds under the law as it existed at the time of the alleged offense. The separate analysis explains what Question 9 does and does not change before election day.

Neither deadline is fixed by a calendar date in the statute. SECTION 157 of Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024 requires that all firearms be registered not later than one year after the electronic firearms registration system is completed and publicly available. SECTION 158 sets the same one-year period for serialization, running from the date the serial number request system is completed and publicly available.

The Department of Criminal Justice Information Services brought the MIRCS firearms portal online for both functions in October 2025. 501 CMR 20.08(1) fixes the serialization date at October 2, 2026. The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security’s firearm modernization page states that firearms must be serialized and registered by October 28, 2026. The Executive Office’s guidance memorandum dated September 18, 2026 also states that compliance is not required until October 28, 2026. No official document reconciles the two dates.

The full analysis is at the October 2026 Massachusetts firearms registration deadline.

Many Chapter 135 violations are committed by previously law-abiding gun owners who were unaware of or confused by the new requirements. The police typically apply for a complaint against a gun owner accused of a Chapter 135 violation rather than arrest the gun owner without a warrant. The gun owner can then have a private clerk-magistrate hearing before any arraignment.

A clerk-magistrate who denies the application issues no complaint. Without a complaint, no arraignment takes place and no CORI entry is created from that application. The clerk-magistrate hearing therefore gives Chapter 135 defendants, including licensed professionals and federal security clearance holders, an opportunity to avoid an arraignment and a CORI entry.

The clerk-magistrate hearing requires careful preparation. The clerk-magistrate may decline to issue a complaint even where probable cause technically exists. At the clerk-magistrate stage, the matter can end without a complaint, an arraignment, or a CORI entry. An arraignment creates a CORI entry that remains however the case later ends. For a defendant who has been arraigned, the remaining remedy is sealing the record after the case concludes.

Preventing the CORI entry avoids a later sealing process, which takes time and requires a waiting period or a court petition. A Massachusetts sealing order does not itself remove a record already held in a federal database. Serpa Law Office prepares firearms clients for the clerk-magistrate hearing as thoroughly as for a suppression hearing. For a licensed professional or a clearance holder, the clerk-magistrate often decides at the show cause stage whether a complaint issues at all.

Sensitive Locations Under M.G.L. c. 269, §§ 10(j) and 10(k)

St. 2024, c. 135 added M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(k), which applies to locations not covered by the older school provision. Under section 10(k), a prohibited area is a place owned, leased, or under the control of state, county, or municipal government and used for government administration, judicial or court administrative proceedings, or correctional services. The prohibited area includes the buildings, grounds, and parking areas of such a place.

State-owned public land available to the public for hunting is excluded from the prohibited areas. A municipality may also vote under M.G.L. c. 4, § 4 to exclude its administrative buildings. A prohibited area also includes a place in use for the storage or tabulation of ballots during the hours when voting or tabulation is occurring. A polling place or early voting site is a prohibited area while open for voting, including the area within 150 feet of the entrance door to that site.

Section 10(k) punishes possession of a firearm in a prohibited area by a person who knows or reasonably should know that the location is a prohibited area. The offense is punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000 or by imprisonment in the house of correction for not more than two and one half years, or both. Section 10(k) supplies a defense. A person holding the necessary license or card who stored the firearm securely in a vehicle within the prohibited area, in accordance with M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 131C and 131L, does not violate § 10(k).

Schools and campuses are governed by a separate provision, M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(j), which predates Chapter 135. Section 10(j) punishes carrying a firearm, loaded or unloaded, or another dangerous weapon in any building or on the grounds of an elementary or secondary school, college, or university. Section 10(j) applies equally to transport used for students of the institution.

Under § 10(j), carrying a firearm or another dangerous weapon is lawful only with the written authorization of the board or officer in charge. A License to Carry is not a substitute for the written authorization. A defendant convicted under § 10(j) faces a fine of not more than $1,000 or imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. Section 10(j) applies to every campus in the Commonwealth, including Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston University, Boston College, Northeastern University, Tufts University, Brandeis University, Bentley University, Emerson College, and Suffolk University.

The first question in a campus case is whether written authorization was given, and by whom. A § 10(j) charge is prosecuted in the court with jurisdiction over the location of the campus. Serpa Law Office represents clients charged with sensitive-location offenses in BMC Central and Cambridge District Court.

Students and university employees face particular exposure under § 10(j) because campus boundaries are not always obvious. University property often extends into ordinary city blocks. Section 10(j) applies to a person who carries a firearm on the person. The Legislature used language covering a firearm under the control of a person in a vehicle in § 10(a) and in § 10H, and did not use that language in § 10(j).

No Massachusetts appellate court has decided whether § 10(j) applies to a firearm left in a parked campus vehicle. A person who leaves a firearm in a parked campus vehicle can be charged under § 10(a) or for violating the storage requirements of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131L, rather than under § 10(j). For a student, a university disciplinary process with its own deadlines and its own lower standard of proof proceeds at the same time as the criminal case. For an international student, federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a firearms charge, beginning at arraignment.

Serpa Law Office handles the criminal case and the disciplinary case together for college and university students in Boston and Cambridge.

Common Defenses in Massachusetts Firearms Cases

Constitutional Stops and Suppression of the Firearm

In a Massachusetts firearms case, the defense often challenges the constitutionality of the police encounter in which the police found the weapon. Under the Fourth Amendment and Article 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, police must have reasonable articulable suspicion before initiating a stop and independent probable cause or a recognized exception before searching a vehicle.

A firearm found in an unconstitutional stop or vehicle search is suppressible through a Motion to Suppress under article 14, which the Supreme Judicial Court has read to give greater protection than the Fourth Amendment in this setting. Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658 (1999).

Massachusetts limits a search incident to an arrest by statute as well as by the constitution. M.G.L. c. 276, § 1 provides that a search incident to an arrest may be made only for two purposes. The first purpose is to seize fruits, instrumentalities, contraband, and other evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made. The second purpose is to remove weapons the arrestee might use to resist arrest or escape. Property seized in violation of M.G.L. c. 276, § 1 is not admissible in a criminal proceeding.

The police therefore may not automatically search the entire passenger compartment as a search incident to a lawful arrest. Massachusetts provides broader protection than the federal rule under New York v. Belton. A firearm found in a vehicle search that exceeded the permissible scope is suppressible even if the initial arrest was lawful. Suppression of the firearm may leave the Commonwealth without admissible evidence sufficient to prove the § 10(a) charge and its 18-month mandatory minimum.

Constructive Possession of a Firearm

For a firearm found in a car with multiple occupants or in an apartment shared by roommates, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew the firearm was present. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant had the intent and ability to exercise dominion and control over the firearm. Proof of knowledge together with the intent and ability to exercise dominion and control is the constructive possession standard from Commonwealth v. Brzezinski and Commonwealth v. Romero.

Simply being present in a vehicle or apartment where a firearm is found is not possession. Defense counsel examines the specific location of the firearm relative to each occupant and who had exclusive access to the storage location. Defense counsel also examines whose fingerprints or DNA are on the firearm and what statements, if any, were made at the scene that connect a specific person to the weapon.

The FOPA Defense for Out-of-State Travelers

The Firearm Owners Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 926A, provides a limited federal transit defense for travelers transporting firearms through Massachusetts. The journey must begin and end in states where the person may lawfully possess the firearm. The firearm must be unloaded. Neither the firearm nor any ammunition may be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment. In a vehicle with no compartment separate from the driver, the firearm or ammunition must be kept in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

The statute does not require the firearm and the ammunition to be kept apart from each other. Protection under § 926A depends on access to the firearm and ammunition rather than on elapsed time. In Revell v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 598 F.3d 128 (3d Cir. 2010), the court held that an overnight stay fell outside § 926A. The court reasoned that the firearm and ammunition were readily accessible to the traveler at the hotel.

The Revell decision binds no Massachusetts court. Attorney Serpa has asserted FOPA defenses in cases where the traveler’s stop was transitional and the vehicle search was constitutionally defective. The full discussion is at Firearms Offenses for Massachusetts Visitors and Out-of-State Travelers.

A Valid License at the Time of Possession

A defendant charged under § 10(a) who held a valid License to Carry at the time of the alleged possession has a complete defense to the charge. A firearms identification card is not a defense to a § 10(a) charge involving a handgun. The card appears only in the rifle and shotgun clause of § 10(a). M.G.L. c. 140, § 129B(c) also limits the card itself to rifles and shotguns that are neither large capacity nor semiautomatic.

License defense issues arise in several recurring patterns. A license has expired while the defendant was in the process of renewal. A license was suspended but the defendant was never notified of the suspension. A municipal licensing authority revoked a license and the revocation was contested. In another pattern, the defendant holds a valid out-of-state license and mistakenly believed that Massachusetts recognized it.

Massachusetts does not recognize any other state’s firearms license for carry purposes. A defendant who reasonably and in good faith believed they were licensed, however, presents a very different case at the clerk-magistrate stage than a defendant with no license at all.

Good-Faith Evidence Under Chapter 135

For defendants charged under Chapter 135 with failure to register or serialize a firearm, defense counsel at the clerk-magistrate hearing presents evidence of good-faith compliance efforts. Evidence of good-faith compliance efforts includes portal registration attempts that were unsuccessful for technical reasons and documentation of the defendant’s lawful purchase and prior possession. Counsel can also present evidence of confusion arising from Chapter 135’s phased implementation and the absence of any prior firearms-related offense.

Clerk-magistrates regularly decline to issue complaints against previously law-abiding gun owners who made genuine efforts to comply with the new requirements. A clerk-magistrate who declines to issue such a complaint acts under the discretionary authority recognized in Victory Distributors, Inc. v. Ayer Division of the District Court Department, 435 Mass. 136, 142 (2001).

Chapter 135 and Licensed Professionals

For licensed professionals, including physicians, attorneys, financial advisors, engineers, and others holding state-issued licenses or federal security clearances, a Chapter 135 firearms violation can create consequences beyond the criminal case. An arraignment on a firearms charge creates a CORI entry. The question whether a licensed professional must report the CORI entry to a licensing board, and how quickly, depends on the profession, the governing board rule, and the charge. Counsel should identify the reporting rule that applies to the particular license before the arraignment date.

Professionals holding federal security clearances, including Department of Defense contractors, CJIS-access personnel, and federal employees, are generally subject to continuous-evaluation and self-reporting requirements. An arraignment on a firearms charge is commonly reportable under those requirements. The applicable requirement and its timing depend on the agency and the clearance level. After a report, the agency can review the clearance. A clerk-magistrate who denies the complaint application at the hearing prevents an arraignment and the resulting CORI entry.

A facial constitutional challenge to the licensing requirement itself is not likely to succeed. After New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the Supreme Judicial Court twice sustained the Massachusetts licensing scheme against facial attack.

In Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025), the court held that the resident scheme under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a)(2) and M.G.L. c. 140, § 131(d) is not facially unconstitutional. The court reasoned that at least some applications of the scheme are valid, including its application to a person convicted of a felony or of a violent crime. In Commonwealth v. Marquis, 495 Mass. 434 (2025), the court held that the nonresident scheme under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131F is also not facially unconstitutional.

The court asks different questions in a facial challenge and in an as-applied challenge. Counsel should state which challenge the motion raises. Marquis holds that standing to bring an as-applied challenge to the licensing scheme requires having applied for a license or a firearms identification card and having been denied.

Rodriguez confirms that a defendant who never applied may still bring a facial challenge, and that a facial challenge fails unless the defendant establishes that no set of circumstances exists in which the scheme would be valid. A petition for certiorari was filed in Marquis, No. 25-5280, on July 31, 2025. The Supreme Court of the United States denied the petition on January 12, 2026.

The Marquis and Rodriguez decisions have two limits. Neither decision involved Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024. Marquis addressed § 131F as amended by Chapter 175 of the Acts of 2022, and Rodriguez addressed the version of § 131(d) in effect at the time of that offense. No published Massachusetts appellate decision has yet decided a constitutional challenge to the 2024 act. Neither decision changes the holding of Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 690 (2023), S.C., 493 Mass. 1 (2023), that the absence of a license is an element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defense counsel therefore bases a firearms defense on the facts of the search and seizure, on the elements the Commonwealth must prove, and on the specific licensing and exemption provisions. The rules for nonresidents and out-of-state travelers are addressed on a separate page.

Courts Where Serpa Law Office Handles Firearms Cases

Firearms charges are prosecuted in the District Court or the Boston Municipal Court with jurisdiction over where the alleged offense occurred. Serpa Law Office defends firearms cases throughout Eastern Massachusetts, including in these courts.

• Boston Municipal Court, all eight divisions. Suffolk County DA. Section 10(a) charges are brought regularly in the BMC divisions. BMC East Boston handles Logan Airport cases involving travelers, and BMC Central handles Financial District and downtown Boston street cases.
• Cambridge District Court. Middlesex County DA. Sensitive-location cases on the Harvard and MIT campuses, along with Kendall Square cases.
• Woburn District Court. Middlesex County DA. The police bring § 10(a) charges in Woburn District Court after vehicle stops along the I-93 and Route 128 corridor.
• Dedham District Court. Norfolk County DA. Route 1 and I-95 corridor cases, plus Norwood and Westwood residential cases.
• Waltham District Court. Middlesex County DA. Route 128 technology corridor cases and Brandeis campus sensitive-location cases.
• Quincy District Court. Norfolk County DA. Routes 3 and 128 corridor cases and South Shore residential cases.
• Hingham District Court. Plymouth County DA. Route 3 South Shore corridor cases.
• Concord District Court. Middlesex County DA. Route 2 corridor cases and cases near Hanscom Air Force Base involving federal security clearances.
• Framingham District Court. Middlesex County DA. Turnpike corridor vehicle-stop cases.

Felony firearms charges punishable only by a state prison sentence, including Armed Career Criminal cases under § 10G and certain § 10(a) cases with aggravating factors, proceed to Superior Court. Attorney Serpa has tried firearms cases in both District Court and Superior Court, including a not-guilty verdict in a Suffolk County Superior Court case charging unlicensed carrying and possession with intent to distribute. Representative outcomes appear in the Massachusetts criminal defense results.

For further reading, see Firearms Offenses for Massachusetts Visitors and Out-of-State Travelers, the analysis of the October 2026 firearms registration deadline, Illegal Searches and Seizures in Massachusetts, gunshot residue evidence at trial after Commonwealth v. Williams, Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts, and Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges.

Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for a free consultation. The Boston office is at 20 Park Plaza, Suite 400A. The Quincy Office is at 500 Victory Road, Suite 400A.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Carrying a Firearm Without a License in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(a)
• Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition Without an FID Card in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(h)
• Improper Storage of a Firearm in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 140, § 131L
• Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm or Feeding Device in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(m)
• Carrying a Loaded Gun During an OUI Stop or While Drunk in Massachusetts Under G.L. c. 269, § 10H
• Untraceable Firearms, Ghost Guns, and Defaced Serial Numbers in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 11C
• How to Register a Gun in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Traffic Stops, Exit Orders, and Pretext Searches
• Felonies vs. Misdemeanors in Massachusetts