Massachusetts Criminal Defense of Firearms Offenses

Unlicensed Carrying, Possession, Chapter 135 Registration, Sensitive Locations, and Constitutional Defense

Massachusetts enforces some of the most stringent firearms laws in the United States. Carrying a firearm without a License to Carry (LTC) is a felony under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a), and it carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months in a House of Correction. That minimum admits no CWOF, no probation in lieu of the committed sentence, and no suspended sentence. The 2026 Firearms Modernization Act, Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, added new felony exposure for unregistered and unserialized firearms, with a compliance deadline of October 28, 2026. And the out-of-state visitor who drives into Massachusetts with a lawfully owned firearm and no Massachusetts LTC is committing a felony before the car reaches the highway.

Understanding who controls a dismissal and when a judge can grant one is central to defending a Massachusetts charge.

Every Massachusetts firearms charge begins with the constitutionality of the police encounter that produced the weapon. A firearm found through an unconstitutional stop or illegal search can be suppressed, and when the firearm is suppressed the prosecution has no case. Contact Serpa Law Office at 617.936.0201 for an immediate consultation.

Massachusetts Firearms Offenses: The Complete Statutory Framework

Unlicensed Carrying Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(a): The Core Offense

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). The penalty is a mandatory minimum of 18 months in a House of Correction, with a maximum of 2.5 years in a House of Correction or up to 5 years in state prison. The mandatory minimum is absolute. There is no CWOF, no suspended sentence, and no probation in lieu of the committed sentence. The 18-month floor binds the judge entirely. The only escape from the mandatory minimum is suppression of the firearm.

Under Massachusetts law, “carrying” means having the firearm on the person or under immediate control in a vehicle. A firearm in the glove compartment, under the seat, or in the center console is within the defendant’s immediate control. A firearm in the locked trunk of a vehicle may not be, depending on the specific facts. For out-of-state travelers, the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) defense requires that the firearm be unloaded, that ammunition and firearm be stored separately, and that both travel in the trunk or a locked container rather than the glove box, center console, or passenger compartment.

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

Possessing a firearm inside the home or place of business without a Firearms Identification Card (FID) or LTC is a misdemeanor under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(h). The charge carries up to 2 years in a House of Correction and a fine of up to $500. Unlike the carrying offense under § 10(a), a CWOF is available for first-time offenders under § 10(h) in appropriate circumstances. One caution applies before any plea, and it matters most to licensed professionals. A CWOF on a § 10(h) charge still triggers the Lautenberg Amendment firearms disability if the charge involves a domestic violence nexus, so counsel must assess that exposure before any CWOF is accepted.

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

Carrying a loaded firearm while under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance is a separate criminal offense under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10H, punishable by up to 2.5 years in a House of Correction. These charges frequently arise in combination with OUI charges under M.G.L. c. 90, § 24. Defending the § 10H count means challenging both the constitutionality of the traffic stop and the underlying impairment determination. The same breathalyzer and field sobriety test defenses that apply to the OUI apply here.

Firearm With an Altered Serial Number, M.G.L. c. 269, § 11C

Possession of a firearm with an obliterated, removed, or altered serial number is a felony under M.G.L. c. 269, § 11C, punishable by up to 10 years in state prison. This charge frequently runs alongside § 10(a) unlicensed carrying, and the combination creates exposure to consecutive mandatory minimum sentences. The defense focuses on whether the serial number was altered before or after the defendant acquired the firearm and on the constitutionality of the search that revealed the serial number condition.

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

A defendant with one prior conviction for a violent crime or a serious drug offense who is convicted of unlicensed carrying faces enhanced sentencing under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10G. The minimum is three years in state prison, not eligible for suspension, furlough, or probation. With two or more prior qualifying convictions, the mandatory minimum rises to five years. Defense counsel must attack the predicate offenses, testing whether each prior qualifies under the statute, and must press the constitutional challenge to the current charge through suppression.

Losing the License to Carry: Disqualification, Suitability, and the 209A Surrender

A Massachusetts License to Carry can be lost three different ways in a criminal case, and each way follows different rules. The first is statutory disqualification. M.G.L. c. 140, § 131, as amended by the 2024 firearms law, makes a person ineligible for an LTC following conviction of a felony, a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years, a violent crime, or specified weapons and drug offenses. These disqualifiers turn on conviction. A continuance without a finding generally does not itself trigger them, which makes the LTC one of the few licenses where the CWOF still does its traditional protective work.

The second is suitability. Independent of the statutory list, the licensing authority may deny or revoke on a determination that the person is unsuitable, based on reliable, articulable, and credible information that the person’s behavior suggests a risk to public safety. Suitability requires no conviction at all. An arrest, the police report underlying a dismissed charge, a CWOF, or a pattern of incidents that never produced a charge can each support revocation, so the criminal case can be won and the license lost on the same facts. A denial or revocation can be challenged by petition for judicial review, but the review is deferential. That is why the record made during the criminal case matters to the license as much as to the charge. What is said at the clerk-magistrate hearing, in police reports, and in any statement to the licensing officer follows the client into the licensing file.

The third is automatic, and it moves fastest. When a court issues a 209A abuse prevention order, the defendant must immediately surrender all firearms, ammunition, and the License to Carry. Federal law independently bars possession while a qualifying restraining order is in force under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), and it bars possession permanently after conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). A Massachusetts CWOF, if treated as a conviction under federal law, can trigger that lifetime federal bar. For a client who holds an LTC, every domestic case is therefore also a firearms case, and the ten-day 209A hearing is where the license is defended alongside everything else. The LTC follows the same disposition logic as every other Massachusetts license. Some rules turn on conviction, some do not, and some turn on the charge itself. The full comparison across licenses, from the LTC to the CDL to the professional boards, is at Criminal Charges and Professional Licenses in Massachusetts.

Chapter 135, Acts of 2024: The 2026 Firearms Modernization Act

The October 28, 2026 Registration Deadline, M.G.L. c. 140, § 121B

All firearms possessed in Massachusetts must be registered in the MIRCS Unified Gun Portal at gunportal.mass.gov by October 28, 2026. Any firearm lacking a manufacturer’s serial number must first be serialized through DCJIS before registration, to a minimum depth of .003 inches and a minimum print size of 1/16 inch. Possession of an unregistered or unserialized firearm after October 28, 2026 is a felony under M.G.L. c. 140, § 121B. 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. Our full analysis is at the October 28, 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. These defendants typically arrive at the clerk-magistrate hearing rather than through a warrantless arrest, which means a private, pre-arraignment hearing is available. A successful clerk-magistrate hearing denial means no CORI entry is ever created. The clerk-magistrate hearing is the most important proceeding for Chapter 135 defendants, particularly licensed professionals and federal security clearance holders.

That hearing deserves more preparation than most firearms defendants give it. The clerk-magistrate may decline to issue a complaint even where probable cause technically exists, and the hearing is the only stage of a Massachusetts criminal case where the accusation can end before any public record begins. Once a complaint issues and the case proceeds to arraignment, the CORI entry exists no matter how the case later resolves, and the remaining remedy is sealing the record after the case concludes. Preventing the entry is always better than sealing it later, because sealing takes time, requires a waiting period or a court petition, and never reaches federal databases. We prepare firearms clients for the clerk-magistrate hearing with the same rigor we bring to a suppression motion, because for a licensed professional or a clearance holder the hearing often is the whole case.

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

Chapter 135 expanded the list of “sensitive locations” where carrying is prohibited even for valid LTC holders. Under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(j), prohibited sensitive locations now include all government buildings, all school grounds including every Massachusetts college and university campus, all courthouses, and all polling places. An LTC holder who carries on any Massachusetts university campus, whether Harvard, MIT, BU, BC, Northeastern, Tufts, Brandeis, Bentley, Emerson, or Suffolk, is committing a criminal offense. The charge is prosecuted in the court with jurisdiction over the location of the campus. Serpa Law Office is currently representing defendants in BMC Central and Cambridge District Court on sensitive location violations.

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, and a lawful LTC holder who parks in a campus-owned lot with a firearm in the vehicle has entered a sensitive location. For a student, the criminal case runs parallel to a university disciplinary process with its own deadlines and its own lower standard of proof, and for an international student a firearms charge carries immigration consequences that begin at arraignment. Our practice for college and university students in Boston and Cambridge addresses the criminal case and the disciplinary case together.

Common Defenses in Massachusetts Firearms Cases

Defense One: The Constitutional Stop and Suppression of the Firearm

The most powerful defense in a Massachusetts firearms case is frequently the constitutionality of the police encounter that produced 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 Commonwealth v. Carrington, 467 Mass. 1 (2014), and Article 14’s more protective vehicle search doctrine.

The key Massachusetts distinction comes from Commonwealth v. Gomes and Article 14. A vehicle search incident to a lawful arrest does not automatically authorize a search of the entire passenger compartment, which means 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. When the firearm is suppressed, the § 10(a) charge and its 18-month mandatory minimum cannot proceed.

Defense Two: Constructive Possession When the Gun Is Not Yours

When a firearm is found in a car with multiple occupants or in an apartment shared by roommates, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that the defendant knew the firearm was present, but that the defendant had the intent and ability to exercise dominion and control over it. That 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, who had exclusive access to the storage location, 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.

Defense Three: 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. Ammunition and firearm must be stored separately in a locked container in the trunk, not the glove box, center console, or passenger compartment. And the stop in Massachusetts must be limited to gas, food, or a brief rest. Stopping in Massachusetts overnight or visiting anyone eliminates the FOPA protection. Attorney Serpa has successfully asserted FOPA defenses in cases where the traveler’s stop was genuinely transitional and the vehicle search was constitutionally defective. The full discussion is at Firearms Offenses for Massachusetts Visitors and Out-of-State Travelers.

Defense Four: A Valid License at the Time of Possession

A defendant charged under § 10(a) who held a valid LTC or FID at the time of the alleged possession has a complete defense to the charge. 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. Or the defendant holds a valid out-of-state license and mistakenly believed Massachusetts recognized it. Massachusetts does not recognize any other state’s firearms license for carry purposes, but a defendant who reasonably and in good faith believed they were licensed presents a very different case at the clerk-magistrate stage than a defendant with no license at all.

Defense Five: Good Faith 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. That evidence includes portal registration attempts that were unsuccessful for technical reasons, documentation of the defendant’s lawful purchase and prior possession, evidence of confusion arising from Chapter 135’s phased implementation, and the absence of any prior firearms-related offense. Under the discretionary authority recognized in Victory Distributors, Inc. v. Ayer Division of the District Court Department, 435 Mass. 136, 142 (2001), clerk-magistrates regularly decline to issue complaints against previously law-abiding gun owners who made genuine efforts to comply with the new requirements.

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 creates consequences beyond the criminal case. A CORI entry from an arraignment on a firearms charge triggers mandatory licensing board reporting obligations for most Massachusetts licensed professions. Professionals holding federal security clearances, including Department of Defense contractors, CJIS-access personnel, and federal employees, must disclose an arraignment on a firearms charge to the security clearance authority immediately, and the disclosure can result in clearance suspension pending investigation. The clerk-magistrate hearing denial, which prevents any arraignment, is the most effective protection.

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. The BMC sees the highest concentration of § 10(a) charges in Eastern Massachusetts. 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. Vehicle stops along the I-93 and Route 128 corridor generate § 10(a) charges here.
• 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 carrying only 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 our Massachusetts criminal defense results.

For further reading, see Firearms Offenses for Massachusetts Visitors and Out-of-State Travelers, our analysis of the October 28, 2026 firearms registration deadline, Illegal Searches and Seizures in Massachusetts, 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 #400A. The Quincy office is at 500 Victory Rd., Suite 400A. We are available 24 hours a day.

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Massachusetts Traffic Stops, Exit Orders, and Pretext Searches
• Felonies vs. Misdemeanors in Massachusetts