Carrying a Firearm Without a License in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(a)

A person found with a handgun outside their home or business in Massachusetts, without a Massachusetts license to carry, is arrested and charged with carrying a firearm without a license under G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). The complaint reads “FIREARM, CARRY WITHOUT LICENSE c269 §10(a).” The police add a second count under § 10(n) if the gun was loaded. The § 10(n) count reads “FIREARM, CARRY WITHOUT LICENSE LOADED.”

Carrying a firearm without a license is a felony. The judge must sentence a convicted defendant to at least 18 months in jail or prison. The judge cannot give the defendant a continuance without a finding, a suspended sentence, or probation instead of the 18-month sentence.

This page explains what the Commonwealth must prove and what the words carrying, firearm, and license mean in a § 10(a) prosecution. This page also covers the loaded firearm count, the penalties, the defenses raised in most § 10(a) cases, and how a conviction affects firearms rights, immigration status, and the criminal record. Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. Attorney Serpa has tried firearms cases in the District Court and the Superior Court.

The Elements of the Offense

To convict a defendant of carrying a firearm without a license, the Commonwealth must prove four elements beyond a reasonable doubt. First, the defendant possessed an item or had the item under their control in a vehicle. Second, the item was a firearm as G.L. c. 140, § 121 defines “firearm.” Third, the defendant knew that they possessed a firearm. Fourth, the defendant did not have a valid license to carry firearms.

The District Court’s model jury instruction on the offense, Instruction 7.600 (revised June 2026), lists the same four elements. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant was outside their residence or place of business if the defendant offers some evidence of being at home or at their place of business.

The absence of a license is an element of the crime that, like all elements, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 689-690 (2023). Before Guardado, a defendant who claimed to be licensed had to prove the license under G.L. c. 278, § 7.

The Supreme Judicial Court held that, after New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), the defendant no longer has to prove the license in a § 10(a) case. The defendant is ordinarily entitled to a new trial if the judge does not instruct the jury that the Commonwealth must prove the defendant had no license. Commonwealth v. Crowder, 495 Mass. 552 (2025).

The Meaning of “Carrying”

The complaint uses the word “carry,” but the Commonwealth must prove only possession. The Commonwealth proves the first element by showing that the defendant knowingly had the firearm in their possession or knowingly had the firearm under their control in a vehicle. The Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant moved the gun from one place to another.

Before 1991, the statute punished a person who “carries on his person” a firearm. The Supreme Judicial Court read the words “carries on his person” to require proof that the defendant moved a working firearm from one place to another. Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 737 (1978). The Legislature replaced the words “carries on his person” with “knowingly has in his possession” in St. 1990, c. 511, § 2. Since then, the statute has prohibited knowingly possessing a firearm without a license. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 153 n.4 (2008). A person with a handgun in the center console of a parked car, in a backpack on the train, or in a jacket pocket on the sidewalk possesses the handgun under § 10(a).

Possession When the Gun Is Not on the Defendant

The Commonwealth must prove constructive possession when the police find the firearm in a car with several people in it, in a shared apartment, or anywhere else away from the defendant’s body. Constructive possession means “knowledge coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control.” Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401, 409 (1989).

The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew the gun was there, was able to control the gun, and intended to control the gun. Being in the car or the apartment where the police found the gun is not enough by itself to prove possession. The Commonwealth must offer additional evidence, such as the defendant’s statements, a movement toward the place where the gun was hidden, fingerprints or DNA on the gun, or the defendant’s ownership of the bag or container that held the gun.

In Commonwealth v. Romero, 464 Mass. 648 (2013), the defendant owned and drove the car. The defendant’s passenger held the gun. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the Commonwealth proved the defendant’s knowledge of the gun and his ability to control the gun through his ownership and operation of the car. The Commonwealth did not prove that the defendant intended to control the gun. The court ordered a verdict of not guilty. Romero, 464 Mass. at 653, 658-659. The court wrote that a conviction on the facts of Romero would come “perilously close to endorsing guilt by presence at the scene of contraband.” Romero, 464 Mass. at 658, quoting Commonwealth v. Sespedes, 442 Mass. 95, 102 (2004).

In Commonwealth v. Cotto, 69 Mass. App. Ct. 589, 593 (2007), a passenger pushed his feet under the seat where the gun lay. The Appeals Court held that the passenger’s movement of his feet under the seat was the additional evidence that supported his conviction.

Under a theory called joint venture, the Commonwealth claims that the defendant knowingly joined the person who had the gun in carrying the gun without a license. On a joint venture theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the person who had the gun had no license. Commonwealth v. Nunez Severino, No. 24-P-1211 (Mass. App. Ct. Oct. 15, 2025).

Knowledge

The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew they possessed the item and knew that the item was a firearm in the ordinary sense of the word. Commonwealth v. Marrero, 484 Mass. 341, 347-348 (2020), reaffirming Commonwealth v. Sampson, 383 Mass. 750, 762 (1981). The Commonwealth does not have to prove that the defendant knew the gun could fire or knew the length of its barrel. Marrero, 484 Mass. at 347-348. The Commonwealth also does not have to prove that the defendant knew Massachusetts requires a license. Commonwealth v. Jackson, 369 Mass. 904, 916-917 (1976). A defendant who did not know that a gun was in the bag they were carrying, or who believed the object was a replica, has a defense, because the Commonwealth cannot prove knowledge.

The Definition of a Firearm and the Evidence That It Works

For an offense committed on or after October 2, 2024, G.L. c. 140, § 121 defines a firearm as “a stun gun, pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, sawed-off shotgun, large capacity firearm, assault-style firearm and machine gun, loaded or unloaded, which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet.” The definition includes the frame or receiver of such a firearm and excludes an antique firearm and a permanently inoperable firearm. St. 2024, c. 135, § 20. Section 10(o) applies the § 121 definition of a firearm to every paragraph of § 10.

For an offense committed before October 2, 2024, the court uses the definition of a firearm that was in effect before that date. Under the definition in effect before October 2, 2024, a firearm was a pistol, revolver, or other weapon from which a shot or bullet could be discharged, with a barrel less than 16 inches long. For an offense committed before October 2, 2024, the Commonwealth must prove that the gun could fire. “The proscription against carrying applies to working firearms only.” Sampson, 383 Mass. at 759.

The Commonwealth ordinarily proves through a ballistics examiner that a gun can fire. The examiner must testify in person. A judge who admits the examiner’s certificate without the examiner’s testimony violates the defendant’s right to cross-examine the examiner under the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 461 Mass. 431, 432, 434 (2012). Without testimony from an examiner, the Commonwealth can use other evidence, such as evidence that the gun was fired or that ammunition was found in the gun, to prove that the gun could fire.

The Commonwealth cannot prove that the gun could fire by showing the jury the gun alone. Commonwealth v. Nieves, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3-4 (1997). Testimony from a witness who saw the gun fired can prove that the gun worked, even if the police never recovered the gun. Commonwealth v. Housewright, 470 Mass. 665, 680 (2015).

The current definition covers a gun that “is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet.” Apart from an antique firearm, the current definition excludes only a “permanently inoperable firearm.” The appellate courts have not yet decided whether, under the new definition, the Commonwealth must still prove that the gun could fire on the date of the alleged offense.

A defendant charged with possession on or after October 2, 2024 should still demand evidence that the gun could fire, until an appellate court decides whether the Commonwealth must still prove that the gun could fire. The defendant should also object to any ballistics evidence offered without a live witness.

G.L. c. 269, § 12B alone regulates air rifles and BB guns. A BB pistol is not a firearm under § 10(a). Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 389 Mass. 641, 647 (1983).

How the Commonwealth Proves That the Defendant Had No License

The Commonwealth ordinarily proves that a defendant had no license through a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (“DCJIS”). DCJIS keeps the statewide firearms licensing database.

The DCJIS witness must have run the database search personally. A witness who only repeats the result of a search that another employee ran is reporting what someone else found. The judge cannot admit the witness’s report of the other employee’s search, because the defendant has the right to cross-examine the employee who ran the search. Commonwealth v. Encarnacion, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 46 (2024).

The witness must know how the database is searched and how its records are kept. The database records themselves were not made for use at a trial. A witness who ran the search may therefore describe the result of the search. Commonwealth v. Smith, 496 Mass. 304, 312, 315 (2025). The search must use the defendant’s actual name and date of birth. In Smith, the Supreme Judicial Court ordered judgments of not guilty because the Commonwealth offered no evidence that the birth date used in the search was the defendant’s. Smith, 496 Mass. at 317.

An officer’s testimony about the defendant’s name and date of birth, combined with the DCJIS witness’s testimony that a search under that name and date found no license, is sufficient to prove that the defendant had no license. Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 24-P-161 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 27, 2026). The Commonwealth can also prove that the defendant had no license with a certified record of a prior felony conviction, because a person with a felony conviction cannot hold a license. Commonwealth v. Collins, 496 Mass. 151 (2025).

The Commonwealth can also prove that the defendant had no license with the defendant’s own words. An officer’s uncontradicted testimony that the defendant admitted having no license to carry is enough to prove that the defendant had no license to carry. Commonwealth v. Bookman, 492 Mass. 396, 401 (2023). A person questioned by the police about a gun should decline to discuss whether they hold a license and should ask for a lawyer. The firm’s page on the right to remain silent in Massachusetts explains how to exercise the right to remain silent.

The Residence or Place of Business Exemption

Section 10(a) applies to possession outside the defendant’s residence or place of business. G.L. c. 269, § 10(h), a misdemeanor, punishes possession of a firearm inside the home or business without a license or a firearm identification card. The Supreme Judicial Court has described the § 10(a) exemption as the provision that allows a person with a firearm identification card to possess a firearm at home or at work. Commonwealth v. Harris, 481 Mass. 767 (2019). The exemption is an affirmative defense, which means the defendant must first produce some evidence that they were in their residence or place of business. The Commonwealth must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was outside their residence or place of business. Guardado, 491 Mass. at 682. See also Commonwealth v. Dunphy, 377 Mass. 453, 460 (1979).

A residence means the areas, including outside areas, over which the defendant has exclusive control. Dunphy, 377 Mass. at 459. See also Commonwealth v. Coren, 437 Mass. 723, 734 (2002). The common hallway, foyer, stairway, or yard of a multifamily building is outside the residence, even for the owner of the building. Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 743 (1978). See also Commonwealth v. Belding, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 435, 437-438 (1997). Public streets and sidewalks are outside the residence. Coren, 437 Mass. at 734. The yard and back stairs of a single-family home are within the residence. Dunphy, 377 Mass. at 459.

A firearm inside a car is within the residence only if the car is parked within the residence as defined above. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, citing Commonwealth v. Harris, 481 Mass. 767, 780 (2019). A place of business includes a parking lot only if the business has exclusive control of the lot. A gun in a car parked in a lot shared with other businesses is outside the exemption. Guardado, 491 Mass. at 682-683.

An Expired License

An expired license to carry remains valid in three situations. G.L. c. 140, § 121F(s). First, the license remains valid if the holder applied for renewal before the expiration date, until the licensing authority, which is usually the local police chief, approves or denies the renewal. Second, the license remains valid while the holder is on active duty with the armed forces and for 180 days after release. Third, every license remains valid for 90 days after its expiration date, unless the licensing authority has revoked or suspended the license.

After the 90-day period following expiration, a person whose license is invalid only because the license expired, and who is not otherwise disqualified from renewing the license, faces a fine of $100 to $5,000 instead of a criminal charge. The statute provides that “section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply” to a person whose license lapsed only because the license expired. G.L. c. 140, § 121F(t).

The fine provision does not apply if the licensing authority revoked or suspended the license for a reason other than a failure to report a change of address. The fine provision also does not apply if a revocation or suspension is pending for a reason other than a failure to report a change of address, or if the licensing authority denied a renewal application. Defense counsel for a person charged under § 10(a) with an expired license should obtain the licensing record at once, to find out whether the fine provision applies.

Rifles and Shotguns

Section 10(a) also punishes possession of a rifle or shotgun outside the home or business without a license to carry, a firearm identification card, or an exemption under G.L. c. 140, § 129C. A person convicted of possessing a rifle or shotgun outside the home or business without a license also faces the 18-month mandatory minimum. A firearm identification card is a defense to the rifle and shotgun part of § 10(a), but not to the handgun part. Since October 2, 2024, a firearm identification card allows the holder to possess only rifles and shotguns that are not large capacity and not semiautomatic. G.L. c. 140, § 129B(c).

The Loaded Firearm Count Under § 10(n)

The judge can add a separate sentence under § 10(n) if the firearm was loaded. Section 10(n) is not a separate crime. A defendant can be convicted under § 10(n) only if the defendant is also convicted under § 10(a) or § 10(c). Commonwealth v. Brown, 479 Mass. 600, 604 (2018).

A firearm is loaded when ammunition is in the gun or in a magazine or other feeding device attached to the gun. G.L. c. 269, § 10(o). A gun with a loaded magazine inserted is loaded even if the chamber is empty. A loaded magazine lying apart from the gun does not make the gun loaded.

The Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knew the gun was loaded. Brown, 479 Mass. at 601. In Brown, the magazine sat inside the handle, out of sight. The Commonwealth offered no other evidence that the defendant knew the gun was loaded. The Supreme Judicial Court set aside the § 10(n) conviction and upheld the § 10(a) conviction. Brown, 479 Mass. at 608-609.

For a defendant convicted under § 10(n), the judge may impose up to 2.5 years in the house of correction. The § 10(n) sentence begins after the § 10(a) sentence ends. G.L. c. 269, § 10(n). The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant had no license on the § 10(n) count. Guardado, 491 Mass. at 690-691.

Penalties

For a defendant convicted of carrying a firearm without a license, the possible sentences are 2.5 to 5 years in state prison or 18 months to 2.5 years in a jail or house of correction. G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). The judge may not reduce the sentence below 18 months or suspend the sentence. The defendant is not eligible for probation, parole, work release, furlough, or good conduct deductions until the defendant has served 18 months.

Under § 10(a), a judge cannot continue the case without a finding and cannot place the case on file. Placing a case on file means that, after a guilty finding, the judge imposes no sentence and leaves the case open. A judge may not place a defendant 18 or older on probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87, whether before trial or after a finding of guilty. A judge may not substitute house arrest with electronic monitoring for the jail sentence. Commonwealth v. Cowan, 422 Mass. 546, 548-549 (1996).

In the Juvenile Court, a judge may continue a juvenile’s § 10(a) case without a finding, because the statute bans a continuance without a finding only in adult prosecutions. Commonwealth v. Quahir Q., SJC-13739 (Nov. 20, 2025).

The District Court and the Boston Municipal Court can sentence a defendant to the house of correction but cannot sentence a defendant to state prison. G.L. c. 218, § 27. A state prison sentence requires an indictment and a prosecution in the Superior Court. The district attorney decides whether to present a § 10(a) case to a grand jury.

For a defendant with a prior conviction under § 10(a), (b), or (c) who is convicted again under any of those paragraphs, the sentence is 5 to 7 years in state prison. For a third offense, the sentence is 7 to 10 years.

For a fourth offense, the sentence is 10 to 15 years. The judge may not suspend the sentence. The defendant is not eligible for probation or good conduct deductions. G.L. c. 269, § 10(d). A defendant with prior convictions for a violent crime or a serious drug offense faces a longer sentence under the armed career criminal statute, G.L. c. 269, § 10G. The firm’s Massachusetts firearms defense page explains the armed career criminal statute.

At arraignment, the Commonwealth may ask the judge to hold the defendant without bail as dangerous, because § 10(a) is listed in G.L. c. 276, § 58A(1). The firm’s page on dangerousness hearings under § 58A explains the dangerousness hearing. The Commonwealth must bring the charge within six years of the offense. G.L. c. 277, § 63.

Defenses

Suppression of the firearm. Most § 10(a) cases begin with a traffic stop, a street encounter, or a search of a car or a home. The judge suppresses the firearm if the police had no reasonable suspicion for the stop, no lawful basis for an exit order, or no probable cause or warrant for the search. The Commonwealth cannot use a suppressed firearm as evidence. Without the firearm, the Commonwealth usually cannot prove the charge.

Under art. 14 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, the police may not order a driver or passenger out of a car because of a traffic violation alone. The police need a reasonable belief that their safety is threatened, reasonable suspicion of a crime, or another lawful basis to search the car. Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 429 Mass. 658, 662-663 (1999). In Commonwealth v. Robinson, SJC-13756 (Feb. 13, 2026), the troopers had no lawful basis for the exit order. After the unlawful exit order, the defendant agreed to a search by the troopers. The Supreme Judicial Court held that, because the exit order was unlawful, the defendant’s consent did not make the search lawful. The Supreme Judicial Court set aside the convictions for carrying a firearm without a license and possession of ammunition. The firm’s pages on traffic stops, exit orders, and pretext searches, and on illegal searches and seizures, explain the motion to suppress in detail.

Possession. The constructive possession rules described above apply if the police found the gun in a car or an apartment shared with others. Defense counsel examines who had access to the place where the gun was found, whether anyone saw the defendant handle the gun, and what the fingerprint and DNA evidence shows.

The license. Defense counsel challenges whether the DCJIS witness ran the search personally and whether the search used the defendant’s correct name and date of birth. Counsel also moves to suppress any statement about whether the defendant held a license, if the police obtained the statement in violation of Miranda or art. 12.

The residence exemption and the expired license. A defendant who was in an area under their exclusive control has a defense to the § 10(a) charge. A defendant also has a defense to the § 10(a) charge if the defendant’s expired license remained valid under § 121F(s), or if the fine provision of § 121F(t) applies to the defendant.

Proof that the gun could fire. For an offense before October 2, 2024, defense counsel demands that the Commonwealth prove, through a live ballistics witness, that the gun could fire. For a later offense, counsel argues that the new definition still requires proof that the gun could fire. Counsel also argues, where the facts support the argument, that the gun was permanently inoperable and therefore not a firearm under the statute.

Necessity. A defendant who took a gun away from an attacker and was carrying the gun to the police, or who picked up a gun during an armed struggle, may raise the defense of necessity. To raise necessity, the defendant must offer evidence of a clear and imminent danger, a reasonable expectation that the defendant’s action would end the danger, and the absence of an effective legal alternative.

A defendant also cannot raise the defense of necessity if the Legislature has barred the necessity defense for the crime charged. Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581, 591 (1983). The Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no necessity once the defendant produces some evidence on each point. Commonwealth v. Iglesia, 403 Mass. 132, 134 (1988).

The Supreme Judicial Court held that a defendant who armed himself at home because he expected an attack, and then went out, was not entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on necessity. Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 396 Mass. 840, 841 (1986). The Appeals Court held that a defendant who grabbed a gun during an armed struggle in a van was entitled to the necessity instruction. The Appeals Court reversed the defendant’s conviction because the judge refused to give the necessity instruction. Commonwealth v. McCambridge, 44 Mass. App. Ct. 285, 291-292 (1998).

The Second Amendment. After Bruen, the Supreme Judicial Court upheld the Massachusetts licensing statute against challenges to the statute as written. In Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025), the court upheld the licensing scheme for residents. In Commonwealth v. Marquis, 495 Mass. 434 (2025), the court upheld the licensing scheme for nonresidents in force since August 2022. A defendant who never applied for a license may not challenge the statute as applied to their own case. Marquis, 495 Mass. at 439.

In Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), the Supreme Judicial Court held that the licensing scheme for nonresidents in force before August 10, 2022 was unconstitutional as written. Later in 2025, in Rodriguez, the Supreme Judicial Court overruled part of the Donnell decision.

Rodriguez, 496 Mass. at 642 n.8. The Supreme Judicial Court has upheld the licensing statute, so defense counsel concentrates on the stop, the search, the evidence of possession, and the proof about the license. Only a resident 21 or older may apply for a license to carry. G.L. c. 140, § 131(d). A defendant aged 18 to 20 who could not have obtained a license still faces the § 10(a) charge and the 18-month mandatory minimum.

Firearms Rights, Immigration, and the Record After a Conviction

A conviction under § 10(a) is a felony conviction. Under G.L. c. 140, § 121F(j), a person convicted under § 10(a) can never hold a license to carry or a firearm identification card. Under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a person convicted under § 10(a) cannot possess any firearm or ammunition anywhere in the United States.

Federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a firearms conviction. A noncitizen convicted of carrying a firearm without a license can become deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C). At an interview, an immigration officer can also ask a noncitizen about the gun arrest and the police report. The officer can consider the arrest and the noncitizen’s answers when deciding the noncitizen’s application, even if the case ended without a conviction.

An immigration lawyer should review the exact question about the arrest, the client’s immigration status, and the court record before the client files a petition or sits for an interview. The firm’s immigration consequences pages describe how immigration authorities review a Massachusetts case.

After arraignment, the charge appears in the defendant’s criminal offender record information, whatever the outcome of the case. The Commissioner of Probation can seal a § 10(a) conviction under G.L. c. 276, § 100A seven years after the case ends, and after any time in custody, if the person has no new conviction during the seven-year waiting period. Under § 100C, a judge can seal a dismissal with no waiting period. The Commissioner of Probation seals a verdict of not guilty under § 100C. Licensed professionals and holders of security clearances should identify their reporting obligations before arraignment.

TSA PreCheck and Global Entry After a § 10(a) Conviction

The Transportation Security Administration keeps a list of felonies for which TSA disqualifies an applicant from TSA PreCheck for a limited time. Unlawful possession of a firearm is on the TSA list of felonies. TSA can treat a § 10(a) conviction as a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm.

TSA disqualifies an applicant who was convicted of a listed felony within seven years before the application. TSA also disqualifies an applicant who was released from incarceration for a listed felony within five years before the application. TSA therefore disqualifies a person convicted under § 10(a) until seven years have passed since the conviction and five years have passed since release from incarceration.

For example, a person convicted in 2026 and released from state prison in 2030 is disqualified until 2035. The seven-year period from the conviction ends in 2033, but the five-year period from release ends in 2035. TSA can deny an application based on any other information that TSA considers relevant to eligibility, even after the seven-year and five-year periods pass.

Under 8 C.F.R. § 235.12(b)(2)(ii), U.S. Customs and Border Protection can deny a Global Entry application from a person with a conviction for any criminal offense, however old the conviction is. The Global Entry regulation sets no waiting period after a conviction. The firm’s page on Global Entry, NEXUS, and TSA PreCheck after an arrest explains both programs in more detail.

Attorney Serpa’s Representation in Firearms Cases

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. Attorney Serpa has tried firearms cases in the District Court and the Superior Court, including a Suffolk County Superior Court trial on a charge of carrying a firearm without a license that ended in a verdict of not guilty. In every § 10(a) case, Attorney Serpa reviews the stop, the search, the evidence of possession, the licensing record, and the Commonwealth’s evidence that the gun could fire. Attorney Serpa then advises the client on a motion to suppress, a trial, or a plea. Attorney Serpa represents clients in the Boston Municipal Court, the District Courts of Greater Boston, and the Superior Court.

Frequently Asked Questions About Carrying a Firearm Without a License

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Massachusetts Criminal Defense of Firearms Offenses
• 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
• Firearms Offenses for Massachusetts Visitors or Out-of-State Travelers
• Massachusetts Traffic Stops, Exit Orders, and Pretext Searches
• Illegal Searches and Seizures in Massachusetts
• The Right to Remain Silent in Massachusetts
• Massachusetts Dangerousness Hearings Under G.L. c. 276, § 58A
• Arraignment in a Massachusetts Criminal Case
• Indictments and Grand Juries in Massachusetts
• Felonies and Misdemeanors in Massachusetts
• Who Can See Your Massachusetts Criminal Record
• Sealing and Expunging a Massachusetts Criminal Record
• Criminal Records and the Massachusetts Firearms License Application
• Immigration Consequences of Massachusetts Criminal Charges
• Criminal Defense for Licensed Professionals in Massachusetts