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).” Where the gun was loaded, the police add a second count under § 10(n), which reads “FIREARM, CARRY WITHOUT LICENSE LOADED.” The charge is a felony. If a defendant is convicted, the judge must impose a committed sentence of at least 18 months, and the statute prohibits a continuance without a finding, a suspended sentence, and probation in place of the committed sentence.

This page explains what the Commonwealth must prove and what the words carrying, firearm, and license mean in a § 10(a) prosecution. It covers the loaded firearm count, the penalties, the defenses raised in most of these cases, and what a conviction means for firearms rights, immigration status, and the criminal record. Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995 and 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 it under their control in a vehicle. Second, the item was a firearm as G.L. c. 140, § 121 defines that word. 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), states the elements in that form. Where the evidence raises the question, the Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant was outside their residence or place of business.

The absence of a license is an element of the crime, and the Commonwealth must prove it. Commonwealth v. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, 689-690 (2023). Before that decision, a defendant who claimed to be licensed had to prove the license as an affirmative defense 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), § 7 no longer applies to § 10(a). A judge who fails to instruct the jury on the license element commits an error that ordinarily requires a new trial. Commonwealth v. Crowder, 495 Mass. 552 (2025).

The Meaning of “Carrying”

The word “carry” on the complaint describes possession. The Commonwealth proves the first element by showing that the defendant knowingly had the firearm in their possession or knowingly had it 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, and the Supreme Judicial Court read those words to require movement of a working firearm from one place to another. Commonwealth v. Seay, 376 Mass. 735, 737 (1978). The Legislature replaced that language with “knowingly has in his possession” in St. 1990, c. 511, § 2. Since then the statute has prohibited the knowing possession of a firearm without a license. Commonwealth v. Duncan, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 150, 153 n.4 (2008). A handgun in the center console of a parked car, in a backpack on the train, or in a jacket pocket on the sidewalk is possessed under § 10(a) in the same way.

Possession When the Gun Is Not on the Defendant

Where the police find the firearm in a car with several occupants, in a shared apartment, or anywhere else away from the defendant’s person, the Commonwealth must prove constructive possession. Constructive possession means “knowledge coupled with the ability and intention to exercise dominion and control.” Commonwealth v. Brzezinski, 405 Mass. 401, 409 (1989). Presence in the car or the apartment where the gun is found is not enough by itself. The Commonwealth must show something more, such as the defendant’s statements, a movement toward the place where the gun was hidden, fingerprints or DNA on the gun, or ownership of the bag or container that held it.

In Commonwealth v. Romero, 464 Mass. 648 (2013), the defendant owned and drove the car, and his passenger held the gun. The Supreme Judicial Court held that ownership and operation of the car proved knowledge of the gun and the ability to control it but not the intention to do so. It ordered a verdict of not guilty. Romero, 464 Mass. at 653, 658-659. Convicting on those facts, the court wrote, 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), by contrast, a passenger who pushed his feet under the seat where the gun lay gave the jury the added fact that supported his conviction.

Where the Commonwealth proceeds on a joint venture theory, it must prove that the person who possessed the gun was unlicensed. 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 it 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 its barrel length. Marrero, 484 Mass. at 347-348. It 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 on this element.

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 that definition to every paragraph of § 10.

For an offense committed before October 2, 2024, the earlier definition applies. Under it, 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. The Commonwealth had to prove that the gun could fire. “The proscription against carrying applies to working firearms only.” Sampson, 383 Mass. at 759. The Commonwealth ordinarily proves operability through a ballistics examination, and the examiner must testify in person. A certificate of examination admitted without the examiner violates the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 461 Mass. 431, 432, 434 (2012). Where no examiner testifies, evidence that the gun was fired, the ammunition found in it, or similar circumstantial evidence can prove operability, but the gun alone cannot. Commonwealth v. Nieves, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 1, 3-4 (1997). Testimony from a witness who saw the gun fired is sufficient even where the police never recovered it. 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” and excludes only a “permanently inoperable firearm.” Whether the Commonwealth must still prove that the gun could fire on the day in question is a question the appellate courts have yet to decide under the new language. Until they do, a defendant charged with possession after October 2, 2024 should still demand evidence of operability and object to any ballistics evidence offered without a live witness.

Air rifles and BB guns are regulated exclusively by G.L. c. 269, § 12B, and a BB pistol is not a firearm under § 10(a). Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 389 Mass. 641, 647 (1983).

How the Commonwealth Proves the Absence of a License

The Commonwealth ordinarily proves that a defendant had no license through a witness from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (“DCJIS”), which keeps the statewide firearms licensing database, or through the defendant’s own statements to the police.

The DCJIS witness must have run the database search personally. Testimony relaying a search that a different employee ran is hearsay and violates the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Encarnacion, 105 Mass. App. Ct. 46 (2024). The witness must be familiar with how the database is searched and how its records are kept. The records themselves are not testimonial, so a witness who ran the search may describe the result. 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 no evidence showed that the birth date searched was the defendant’s. Smith, 496 Mass. at 317. Where an officer testifies to the defendant’s name and date of birth and the DCJIS witness testifies that a search under that name and date returned no license, the evidence is sufficient. Commonwealth v. Jones, No. 24-P-161 (Mass. App. Ct. Mar. 27, 2026). A certified record of a prior felony conviction, which disqualifies a person from holding a license, can also prove the element. Commonwealth v. Collins, 496 Mass. 151 (2025).

The defendant’s own words are the simplest evidence. An officer’s uncontradicted testimony that the defendant admitted having no license to carry proves the element. 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 do that.

The Residence or Place of Business Exemption

Section 10(a) applies to possession outside the defendant’s residence or place of business. Possession of a firearm inside the home or business without a license or a firearm identification card is the subject of G.L. c. 269, § 10(h), a misdemeanor. 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. The defendant must produce some evidence that they were in their residence or place of business, and the Commonwealth must then prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were outside it. Guardado, 491 Mass. at 680-681. 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 it. Coren, 437 Mass. at 734. The yard and back stairs of a single-family home are within it. Dunphy, 377 Mass. at 459. A firearm inside a car is within the residence only where the car is parked on the residence itself. Guardado, 491 Mass. 666, citing Commonwealth v. Harris, 481 Mass. 767, 780 (2019). A place of business includes a parking lot only where the business has exclusive control of the lot, so 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). It remains valid where the holder applied for renewal before the expiration date, until the licensing authority approves or denies the renewal. It remains valid while the holder is on active duty with the armed forces and for 180 days after release. And every license remains valid for 90 days after its expiration date unless the licensing authority has revoked or suspended it.

After those 90 days, a person whose license is invalid only because it expired, and who is not otherwise disqualified from renewing it, is subject to a fine of $100 to $5,000. The statute provides that in that situation “section 10 of chapter 269 shall not apply.” G.L. c. 140, § 121F(t). That protection is lost where the licensing authority revoked or suspended the license for a reason other than a failure to report a change of address, where a revocation or suspension is pending, or where a renewal application was denied. Counsel for a defendant charged under § 10(a) on an expired license should obtain the licensing record at once, because § 121F(t) converts the felony charge into a fine.

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 compliance with the exemptions in G.L. c. 140, § 129C. The same 18-month mandatory minimum applies. A firearm identification card is a defense to the rifle and shotgun clause of § 10(a) and is not a defense to the handgun clause. Since October 2, 2024, a firearm identification card entitles 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)

Section 10(n) adds punishment where the firearm was loaded. It is a sentencing enhancement rather than a separate crime, so a defendant can be convicted under § 10(n) only after a conviction 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 it. G.L. c. 269, § 10(o). A magazine holding rounds and inserted in the gun makes the gun loaded even where the chamber is empty. A loaded magazine lying apart from the gun does not.

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 where it could not be seen, and the Commonwealth offered no other evidence of knowledge. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the § 10(n) conviction and affirmed the § 10(a) conviction. Brown, 479 Mass. at 608-609. If a defendant is convicted under § 10(n), the judge may impose up to 2.5 years in the house of correction, and that sentence begins after the § 10(a) sentence ends. G.L. c. 269, § 10(n). The absence of a license is an element of the § 10(n) count as well. Guardado, 491 Mass. at 690-691.

Penalties

If a defendant is 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 it. The defendant is not eligible for probation, parole, work release, furlough, or good conduct deductions until they have served 18 months. The statute prohibits a continuance without a finding and prohibits placing the case on file. Probation under G.L. c. 276, § 87, whether before trial or after a finding of guilty, is unavailable to a defendant 18 or older. A judge may not substitute house arrest with electronic monitoring for the committed 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’s ban applies to adult prosecutions. Commonwealth v. Quahir Q., SJC-13739 (Nov. 20, 2025).

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

A second offense under § 10(a), (b), or (c) after a prior conviction under any of those paragraphs is punished by 5 to 7 years in state prison. A third offense is punished by 7 to 10 years and a fourth by 10 to 15 years. The sentence cannot be suspended, and 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 the armed career criminal enhancement under G.L. c. 269, § 10G, which the firm’s Massachusetts firearms defense page explains.

At arraignment, the Commonwealth may move for pretrial detention based on dangerousness, because § 10(a) is a listed offense under G.L. c. 276, § 58A(1). The firm’s page on dangerousness hearings under § 58A explains that 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. Where the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the stop, a lawful basis for an exit order, or probable cause or a warrant for the search, the judge suppresses the firearm. The Commonwealth is then usually left without evidence to 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 on a traffic violation alone. They need a reasonable belief that their safety is threatened, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, 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, and the defendant’s consent to the search that followed was tainted by it. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated 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 illegal searches and seizures cover the motion to suppress in detail.

Possession. Where the gun was found in a car or an apartment shared with others, the constructive possession rules discussed above apply. Counsel examines who had access to the place where the gun was found, whether anyone saw the defendant handle it, and what the fingerprint and DNA evidence shows.

The license element. Counsel holds the Commonwealth to its burden on the license element and challenges the DCJIS witness’s personal knowledge and the name and date of birth used in the search. Counsel also moves to suppress any statement about whether the defendant held a license that the police took in violation of Miranda or art. 12.

The residence exemption and the expired license. A defendant who was within an area under their exclusive control, or whose license remained valid under § 121F(s) or fell within the fine provision of § 121F(t), has a defense to the § 10(a) charge.

Operability and the definition. For an offense before October 2, 2024, counsel demands that the Commonwealth prove, through a live ballistics witness, that the gun could fire. For a later offense, counsel makes the same demand under the new definition and holds the Commonwealth to the statutory exclusion for a permanently inoperable firearm.

Necessity. A defendant who took a gun away from an attacker and was carrying it to the police, or who picked it up during an armed struggle, may raise necessity. The defense requires evidence of a clear and imminent danger, a reasonable expectation that the defendant’s action would abate the danger, the absence of an effective legal alternative, and no legislative choice to preclude the defense. Commonwealth v. Hood, 389 Mass. 581, 591 (1983). Once the defendant produces some evidence on each condition, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no necessity. Commonwealth v. Iglesia, 403 Mass. 132, 134 (1988). A defendant who armed himself at home in anticipation of an attack and then went out was not entitled to the instruction. Commonwealth v. Lindsey, 396 Mass. 840, 841 (1986). A defendant who grabbed a gun during an armed struggle in a van was entitled to the instruction, and the Appeals Court reversed his conviction because the judge refused to give it. 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 facial challenge. Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, 496 Mass. 627 (2025), upheld the resident licensing scheme, and Commonwealth v. Marquis, 495 Mass. 434 (2025), upheld the nonresident scheme in force since August 2022. A defendant who never applied for a license has no standing to argue that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to them. Marquis, 495 Mass. at 439. Commonwealth v. Donnell, 495 Mass. 471 (2025), held the nonresident scheme in force before August 10, 2022 facially unconstitutional, and Rodriguez limited that holding. The defense of a § 10(a) case is therefore fought on the facts of the stop, the search, the possession, and 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 faces the same charge and the same mandatory minimum.

Firearms Rights, Immigration, and the Record After a Conviction

A conviction under § 10(a) is a felony conviction. It makes the defendant a prohibited person under G.L. c. 140, § 121F(j), which bars the person from a license to carry and from a firearm identification card for life, and a prohibited person under federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which forbids possession of any firearm or ammunition anywhere in the United States.

Federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a firearms conviction. A conviction for carrying a firearm without a license can make a noncitizen deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C), and the arrest and the police report can create obstacles of their own when an officer asks about them at an interview. An immigration lawyer should review 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 a Massachusetts case is reviewed by immigration authorities.

The arraignment creates an entry in the defendant’s criminal offender record information, whatever the outcome of the case. A § 10(a) conviction can be sealed under G.L. c. 276, § 100A once seven years have passed since the disposition and any period of incarceration, with no new conviction in that time. A dismissal or a verdict of not guilty can be sealed sooner under § 100C. Licensed professionals and holders of security clearances should identify their reporting obligations before arraignment.

Attorney Serpa’s Representation in Firearms Cases

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. He 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 he reviews the stop, the search, the evidence of possession, the licensing record, and the Commonwealth’s evidence of operability before advising a client on a motion to suppress, a trial, or a plea. He 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
• 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