Massachusetts Criminal Defense of Firearms Offenses

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

Massachusetts enforces some of the most stringent firearms laws in the United 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). It is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months in a House of Correction. On a conviction under that subsection, no continuance without a finding, no probation in lieu of the committed sentence, and no suspended sentence is available.

An Act Modernizing Firearm Laws, Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024, added registration and serialization requirements. Both are due by October 2, 2026. An unserialized firearm must be serialized first because a firearm cannot be registered until it carries a serial number. An out-of-state visitor who drives into Massachusetts with a lawfully owned firearm and no Massachusetts License to Carry is exposed to a felony charge under § 10(a) from the moment of entry, unless a statutory exemption or the federal transit provision discussed below applies to the circumstances.

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. Suppression of the firearm may leave the Commonwealth without admissible evidence sufficient to prove the charge. Understanding who controls a dismissal and when a judge can grant one is also central to defending a Massachusetts charge.

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). 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 on a conviction.

There is no continuance without a finding, no suspended sentence, and no probation in lieu of the committed sentence. Because the 18-month floor applies only to a person convicted under this subsection, the defense work is in defeating the charge rather than in arguing the sentence.

That work includes suppression of the firearm, the requirement that the Commonwealth prove the absence of a license as an essential element under Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 690 (2023), S.C., 493 Mass. 1 (2023), the exemptions written into § 10(a) itself, and the sufficiency of the proof that the defendant knowingly possessed or controlled the weapon.

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 and that neither the firearm nor the ammunition be readily accessible or directly accessible from the passenger compartment. Where the vehicle has no compartment separate from the driver, the firearm or ammunition must be kept in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

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 firearms identification card or License to Carry is a misdemeanor under M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(h). The charge is punishable by up to 2 years in a House of Correction and a fine of up to $500. Unlike the carrying offense under § 10(a), a continuance without a finding 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. The federal Lautenberg Amendment firearms disability turns on conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, an offense with an element of force against a family or household member. The exposure therefore lies in any companion domestic violence count rather than in the § 10(h) charge itself, and counsel must assess it before any continuance without a finding is accepted.

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

M.G.L. c. 269, § 10H is written for license holders. It applies to a person who, having in effect a license to carry firearms issued under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131 or § 131F, carries a loaded firearm on the person or has one under their control in a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, marijuana, narcotic drugs, depressants or stimulant substances, or with a blood alcohol percentage of eight one-hundredths or greater.

The penalty is a fine of up to $5,000, imprisonment in a House of Correction for up to two and one half years, or both. 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.

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

M.G.L. c. 269, § 11C punishes knowingly manufacturing, assembling, importing, selling or transferring ownership of an untraceable firearm, knowingly participating in any of those acts, or purchasing or receiving a firearm with knowledge that it is untraceable. The penalty is not less than 12 months and not more than two and one half years.

M.G.L. c. 140, § 121 defines an untraceable firearm as one that has not been serialized or one whose serial or other identification number has been removed, defaced, altered, obliterated or mutilated. Possession or control of such a firearm is prima facie evidence of a violation rather than conclusive. The prima facie evidence may be rebutted under § 11C by evidence that the person had no knowledge that the firearm was untraceable.

Section 11C does not require a sentence to run from and after any other sentence. The defense focuses on knowledge, 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 condition of the serial number.

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.

Three qualifying prior convictions arising from separate incidences carry a sentencing range of fifteen to twenty years. The sentence may not be reduced below the minimum or suspended, and 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, carrying a maximum term of ten years or more. A violent crime carries the meaning given in M.G.L. c. 140, § 121. Because the sentencing tiers depend on the predicate convictions, defense counsel examines each prior conviction to determine whether it qualifies and whether the convictions arose from separate incidences, and 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 three different ways in a criminal case, and each way follows different rules. The first is prohibited-person status. M.G.L. c. 140, § 121F, the licensing section created by the 2024 firearms law, requires the licensing authority to deny an application or renewal, and to suspend or revoke an existing license or card, when the person is a prohibited person.

The conviction-based categories include a felony, a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 2 years, a violent crime as defined in § 121, a firearms or ammunition offense carrying possible 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, the over 2 year misdemeanor, firearms, and drug categories disqualify for 5 years after conviction or release rather than permanently.

These disqualifiers turn on conviction. A continuance without a finding generally does not itself trigger them, which makes the License to Carry one of the few licenses a continuance without a finding still protects.

The second is suitability, which survived the 2024 overhaul as a separate ground. The licensing authority may deny or revoke on a determination of unsuitability. The statute requires that determination to rest on reliable, articulable and credible information 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.

Suitability 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. The criminal case can therefore 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 way turns on protective orders rather than convictions. Section 121F makes a person a prohibited person for as long as any of the following is in force: a temporary or permanent 209A abuse prevention order, a suspension and surrender order under M.G.L. c. 209A, §§ 3B or 3C, a temporary or permanent 258E harassment prevention order, an extreme risk protection order under M.G.L. c. 140, §§ 131R to 131Y, an order described in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), or a similar order from another jurisdiction.

The surrender mechanics are statutory on both sides. When a court issues a temporary or emergency 209A order and finds a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse, M.G.L. c. 209A, § 3B requires the immediate suspension and surrender of the License to Carry and the firearms identification card and the surrender of all firearms and ammunition. The suspension continues under § 3C after the hearing where return would present a likelihood of abuse.

Since the 2024 amendments, M.G.L. c. 258E, §§ 4A and 4B apply the same structure to harassment prevention orders on a showing of a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of harassment. 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 after conviction of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33) and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).

A Massachusetts continuance without a finding, if treated as a conviction under federal law, can trigger that federal bar. The bar is not always permanent. Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii), it does not apply where the conviction has been expunged or set aside, or where the person has been pardoned or has had civil rights restored, unless that relief expressly withholds firearms rights.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(C), added by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, a single conviction involving a dating relationship stops disqualifying five years after the later of the judgment or the completion of the sentence, if no further qualifying conviction follows. Massachusetts sealing under M.G.L. c. 276, §§ 100A to 100C is neither an expungement nor a set aside and does not lift the federal bar.

For a client who holds a License to Carry, every 209A or 258E case is therefore also a firearms case. The two-party hearing that follows a temporary order is where the license is defended alongside everything else. The License to Carry 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 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 2, 2026 Registration Deadline Under M.G.L. c. 140, § 121B and St. 2024, c. 135, § 157

All firearms possessed in Massachusetts must be registered in the MIRCS Unified Gun Portal at gunportal.mass.gov by October 2, 2026. 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, by October 2, 2026, before registration, to a minimum depth of .003 inches and a minimum print size of 1/16 inch.

Failure to register is punished on a graduated scale under M.G.L. c. 140, § 121B(e): a fine of not more than $1,000 for a first offense; a fine of not more than $7,500 or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, for a second offense; and a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years, or both, for a third or subsequent offense.

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 states on its firearm modernization page that firearms must be serialized and registered by October 2, 2026.

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. These defendants typically arrive at the clerk-magistrate hearing rather than through a warrantless arrest, which means a private, pre-arraignment hearing is available. When a clerk-magistrate denies the application, no complaint issues, no arraignment follows, and no CORI entry is created from that application. This makes the hearing especially important for Chapter 135 defendants, including licensed professionals and federal security clearance holders.

That hearing requires careful preparation. The clerk-magistrate may decline to issue a complaint even where probable cause technically exists. At that stage, the accusation can end before a complaint, arraignment, or CORI entry. Once a complaint issues and the case proceeds to arraignment, the CORI entry exists no matter how the case later resolves. 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, because for a licensed professional or a clearance holder the show cause stage often determines whether a complaint issues at all.

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

St. 2024, c. 135 added M.G.L. c. 269, § 10(k), which applies to locations the older school provision does not. 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, including the buildings, grounds, and parking areas.

State-owned public land available to the public for hunting is excluded, and a municipality may 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, and a polling place or early voting site while open for voting, including the area within 150 feet of the entrance door to that site.

Possession of a firearm in a prohibited area, by a person who knows or reasonably should know that the location is a prohibited area, 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 the paragraph.

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. It applies equally to transport used for students of the institution.

Carrying is lawful only with the written authorization of the board or officer in charge, and a License to Carry is no substitute for that authorization. A conviction is punishable by 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.

Whether written authorization was given, and by whom, is the first question in a campus case. The 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).

Whether § 10(j) applies to a firearm left in a parked campus vehicle has not been decided by a Massachusetts appellate court. The exposure in that situation runs through § 10(a) and the storage requirements of M.G.L. c. 140, § 131L rather than through § 10(j). For a student, the criminal case runs parallel to a university disciplinary process with its own deadlines and its own lower standard of proof. For an international student, a firearms charge has immigration consequences that begin 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

A central defense in a Massachusetts firearms case is often 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 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).

The key Massachusetts distinction is statutory as well as constitutional. M.G.L. c. 276, § 1 provides that a search incident to an arrest may be made only to seize fruits, instrumentalities, contraband, and other evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, and to remove weapons the arrestee might use to resist arrest or escape. Property seized in violation of that paragraph is not admissible in a criminal proceeding.

A search incident to a lawful arrest therefore does not automatically authorize a search of the entire passenger compartment. 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

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.

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. Where the vehicle has 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. The protection turns on access 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 because the firearm and ammunition were readily accessible to the traveler at the hotel.

That 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 does not answer a handgun charge. The card appears only in the rifle and shotgun clause of § 10(a), and M.G.L. c. 140, § 129B(c) 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. 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. 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. 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 can create consequences beyond the criminal case. An arraignment on a firearms charge creates a CORI entry. Whether that entry must be reported 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, and an arraignment on a firearms charge is commonly reportable under them. The applicable requirement and its timing depend on the agency and the clearance level, and a report can result in review of the clearance. A denial at the clerk-magistrate hearing prevents 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 because at least some of its applications 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 reached the same conclusion for the nonresident scheme under M.G.L. c. 140, § 131F.

The distinction between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge matters here. 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.

Two limits are worth stating plainly. 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 Massachusetts appellate decision has yet tested the 2024 act. Neither decision disturbs Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 690 (2023), S.C., 493 Mass. 1 (2023), which holds that the absence of a license is an essential element the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

A firearms defense is therefore built 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. 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 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, 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

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