Untraceable Firearms, Ghost Guns, and Defaced Serial Numbers in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 11C

A person found with a gun that has no serial number, or with a gun whose serial number has been ground off, is charged under G.L. c. 269, § 11C. Under G.L. c. 140, § 121, a gun with no serial number, or with a serial number that has been removed or defaced, is an untraceable firearm.

An untraceable firearm includes a pistol built from a kit or printed at home, often called a “ghost gun.” An untraceable firearm also includes a factory gun whose serial number was scratched out, and a bare frame or receiver that never had a serial number.

Since October 2, 2024, § 11C has punished knowingly making, assembling, importing, selling, or transferring an untraceable firearm. Section 11C also punishes buying or receiving a firearm with knowledge that the firearm is untraceable. Possession of an untraceable firearm is prima facie evidence of a violation, which means that a jury may find a violation from proof of possession alone. The police usually bring a § 11C charge together with a charge of carrying a firearm without a license.

The possible penalty for a defendant convicted under § 11C is imprisonment for at least 12 months and no more than two and one half years. The statute sets no fine. The statute does not say whether the defendant serves the sentence in state prison or in a house of correction. No appellate court has decided whether the amended offense is a felony or a misdemeanor.

After a § 11C conviction, the defendant cannot hold a license to carry. The ban on a license to carry has no time limit. The defendant also cannot hold a firearm identification card for at least five years. Under federal law, the defendant may not possess any firearm or ammunition. The judge orders the gun destroyed.

This page explains what an untraceable firearm is, what the Commonwealth must prove, and what the prima facie evidence clause allows a jury to find. This page also explains how a gun owner can comply with the registration and serial number rules in G.L. c. 140, §§ 121B and 121C. This page covers the penalties, the former statute that governs conduct before October 2, 2024, the constitutional challenges, and the defenses.

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. Attorney Serpa defends firearms charges in the Boston Municipal Court, the District Courts of Greater Boston, and the Superior Court.

The Statute After October 2, 2024

In St. 2024, c. 135, § 138, the Legislature replaced the former § 11C with the current version of § 11C. The former statute punished two acts. The first act was defacing the serial number of a firearm. The second act was receiving a firearm with knowledge that the serial number had been defaced. The current statute punishes making, selling, transferring, buying, or receiving an untraceable firearm, whether or not the defendant defaced the serial number.

Section 11C applies to a person who knowingly “manufactures, assembles, imports, sells or transfers ownership of an untraceable firearm.” Section 11C also applies to a person who knowingly participates in making, assembling, importing, selling, or transferring an untraceable firearm. A person who “purchases or receives a firearm with knowledge that it is untraceable” also violates § 11C.

Under § 11C, possession or control of an untraceable firearm “shall be prima facie evidence” that the possessor is guilty of a violation. The former § 11C contained the same prima facie evidence rule. A jury may find a violation from proof of possession alone. The defendant may respond to the evidence of possession “by evidence that such person had no knowledge that the firearm was untraceable,” or by other evidence of no guilty knowledge. After a conviction, the judge orders the firearm forwarded to the colonel of the state police for destruction.

Section 11A provides that the terms “firearm,” “serial number,” and “untraceable firearm” have the definitions in G.L. c. 140, § 121. Section 121 defines serialization and a valid serial number. Section 121 contains no definition of the term “serial number” itself. In St. 2024, c. 135, § 139, the Legislature repealed § 11E, which had required every firearm to bear a serial number on a visible metal area. The requirement that every firearm bear a serial number is in G.L. c. 140, § 121C, which this page describes below.

What Counts as an Untraceable Firearm

Section 121 defines an untraceable firearm as “a firearm that has not been serialized or a firearm whose serial or other identification number has been removed, defaced, altered, obliterated or mutilated in any manner.” The first part of the definition covers a gun that never had a serial number, such as a pistol assembled from a kit, a receiver finished at home, or a printed frame. The second part of the definition covers a factory gun whose serial number has been damaged.

The Legislature also changed the definition of a firearm in the 2024 act, effective October 2, 2024. The amended § 121 lists nine kinds of weapons, from a stun gun to a machine gun, “which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet.”

The definition of a firearm includes the frame or receiver of each listed weapon, and an unfinished frame or receiver. The definition excludes an antique firearm made in or before 1899 and a permanently inoperable firearm. The definition no longer contains a barrel-length limit. A bare polymer frame with no serial number, sold to be finished into a pistol, is an untraceable firearm.

Under § 121, a firearm is serialized when a serial number is engraved, cast, or otherwise permanently embedded on the frame or receiver. The serial number must be at least .003 inch deep and at least 1/16 inch high. The serial number must be placed so that the serial number cannot readily be removed. A frame or receiver made of a non-metallic material must bear the serial number on a metal plate permanently embedded in the material.

A serial number is valid if a federal licensee placed the serial number on the gun. A serial number placed under the law of another state, or under the federal tax statute, is also valid. A serial number issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) or by the Massachusetts Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) is also valid. A factory gun with its original serial number intact is serialized.

Section 121C(g) exempts a firearm manufactured before October 22, 1968 from the requirement to bear a serial number. The definition of an untraceable firearm does not repeat the 1968 exemption. A person charged under § 11C in connection with a gun made before October 22, 1968 that has no serial number can argue that the gun never had to bear a serial number. No court has decided whether a gun made before October 22, 1968 without a serial number is an untraceable firearm. An antique firearm made in or before 1899 is not a firearm under § 121 at all.

The Elements

The District Court has not revised its model jury instructions for the amended statute. Instruction 7.640 (2009) still states the elements of the former offenses of defacing a serial number and receiving a firearm with a defaced serial number. The judge takes the elements from the text of the statute until the District Court issues a new instruction. The Commonwealth must prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, the object was a firearm within the definition in § 121. For an offense committed on or after October 2, 2024, the Commonwealth must prove that the weapon was designed, or could readily be converted, to expel a shot or bullet. Apart from an antique firearm, the definition excludes a gun that cannot fire only if the gun is permanently inoperable. No appellate court has decided whether, under the new definition, the Commonwealth must still prove that the gun could fire on the date of the alleged offense.

For an offense committed before October 2, 2024, the Commonwealth must prove that the gun could fire. In Commonwealth v. Sanford, 460 Mass. 441 (2011), the Supreme Judicial Court held that “operability is an element” of the offenses under §§ 10(a), 10(h), and 11C. The Commonwealth proves that the gun could fire through a ballistics examiner who testifies in person. In Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 461 Mass. 431, 432, 434 (2012), the Supreme Judicial Court held that 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.

Second, the firearm was untraceable. A firearm is untraceable if the firearm was never serialized, or if the serial number was removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated in some manner. The Commonwealth usually proves that the firearm was untraceable through the gun itself and through the testimony of an officer or examiner about where the serial number belongs and what remains of the serial number.

Third, the defendant knowingly made, assembled, imported, sold, or transferred the firearm, or purchased or received the firearm with knowledge that the firearm was untraceable. The word “knowingly” applies to each listed act. For a purchase or a receipt, the statute states the knowledge requirement expressly. Under the statute’s own words, a person who did not know that the gun was untraceable has a defense.

The acts specified in § 11C do not include possession. Under the prima facie evidence clause, however, the jury may find a violation from proof that the defendant possessed or controlled an untraceable firearm. The Commonwealth must still choose which listed act the Commonwealth claims the defendant committed.

The Commonwealth must also ask the judge to instruct the jury on the act the Commonwealth chose. In Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 496 Mass. 483, 488-489 (2025), the Supreme Judicial Court held that an appellate court cannot uphold a conviction based on an act that the judge never described to the jury in the instructions.

The Knowledge Rule and the Prima Facie Evidence Clause

Under the prima facie evidence clause, the jury may infer a violation from possession, but the jury is free to reject that inference. In Commonwealth v. Ferrer, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 544 (2007), the Appeals Court rejected a due process challenge to the clause because the jury decides whether to draw the inference. The court explained that a permissible inference “does not involve lowering the Commonwealth’s substantive burden of proof,” quoting Commonwealth v. Maloney, 447 Mass. 577, 590 (2006). The judge instructs the jury that the jury may treat possession as proof of knowledge but is not required to find knowledge. The Commonwealth must still prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury may draw the inference from constructive possession as well as from actual possession. A person has constructive possession of a gun that is not on the person’s body when the person knows the gun is there and has the ability and the intention to control the gun. In Commonwealth v. Moore, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 334 (2002), the police found guns in a closet next to the defendants. The Appeals Court held that the statute “makes no distinction between constructive and actual possession” for the presumption. The Commonwealth must still prove possession itself, whether actual or constructive. The possession defenses described on the firm’s page on carrying a firearm without a license apply to a § 11C charge in the same way.

A defendant may offer evidence that they did not know the gun was untraceable. The jury then considers the defendant’s evidence together with the evidence of possession. The defendant’s own statements to the police can prove knowledge. In Commonwealth v. Grant, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 341 (2003), the defendant told the police that the serial number “was already scratched off” when he bought the gun.

The defendant’s statement showed that he knew of the defacement when he received the gun. The Appeals Court held that the judge was correct to find that the defendant’s evidence did not overcome the evidence of possession.

In Commonwealth v. Santos, No. 25-P-1253 (Mass. App. Ct. July 6, 2026) (unpublished), the police took a gun from the defendant’s person. The gun had a blank space where the serial number belonged. The defendant offered no evidence that he did not know the serial number was missing. The Appeals Court held that the evidence that the defendant possessed the gun was enough, by itself, to support the defendant’s § 11C conviction.

The Commonwealth must offer evidence of the act on which the judge instructs the jury. In Ferrara, the police found a loaded handgun with its serial number removed in a backpack under the seat of a moped. The defendant’s identification card was in the backpack. The judge instructed the jury only on intentional defacement of the serial number. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the defendant’s possession of the gun was prima facie evidence of a violation, which means that a jury could find a violation from possession alone. The Supreme Judicial Court also held that the Commonwealth had offered no evidence that the defendant himself removed the serial number.

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed the § 11C conviction and ordered a judgment of not guilty on the § 11C charge. Ferrara, 496 Mass. at 489. The amended statute lists more acts than the former statute, so the Commonwealth has more acts to choose from. Defense counsel checks which act the Commonwealth charged and which act the judge instructed the jury on.

Registration and Serialization Under G.L. c. 140, §§ 121B and 121C

The 2024 act requires gun owners to put a serial number on every firearm and to register every firearm. Under § 121C(a), all firearms “shall have a serial number.” Under § 121C(b), no person may knowingly possess, manufacture, assemble, purchase, sell, transfer, or import an untraceable firearm. A new resident or an heir has 60 days after importing or acquiring a lawfully owned gun to put a serial number on the gun. A licensed dealer, gunsmith, distributor, or manufacturer has seven days after importing or acquiring a gun to put a serial number on the gun.

Under § 121C(c), a person who makes or assembles a privately made firearm must obtain a serial number from DCJIS before starting the build. The builder puts the serial number on the gun during the build and registers the gun under § 121B within seven days.

Section 121C contains no penalty clause. The Commonwealth prosecutes a person with an untraceable firearm under § 11C. Section 11B punishes possession of an untraceable firearm during the commission of a felony by imprisonment for at least two and one half years.

Under § 121D, a person needs a license to carry to make a firearm with a three-dimensional printer or a computer numerical control milling machine. The possible penalties for a person convicted under § 121D are imprisonment for up to one year, a fine of up to $5,000 per firearm, or both. Section 131N separately prohibits covert firearms and undetectable firearms. The possible penalty for a person convicted of a first offense under § 131N is imprisonment for one to ten years.

DCJIS issues the serial number through the Massachusetts Instant Record Check System (MIRCS) portal under 501 CMR 20.00, effective September 26, 2025. The gun owner creates an account and submits the make, model, caliber, barrel length, and means of production of the gun. The gun owner also submits the owner’s license to carry or firearm identification card number. DCJIS verifies the license electronically and issues the serial number through the portal.

The owner then engraves the serial number on the gun at least .003 inch deep and at least 1/16 inch high. On a polymer frame, the owner uses an embedded metal plate. The owner then registers the gun under § 121B. In issuing a serial number, DCJIS does not decide that the gun is legal under state or federal law. An owner who registers a frame or receiver before completing the gun must register the gun again once the gun is complete.

The state’s regulation and the state’s guidance state two different deadlines for guns owned before the 2024 act. St. 2024, c. 135, §§ 157 and 158 require an owner to put a serial number on the gun and register the gun within one year after DCJIS makes its systems available to gun owners. Guidance from the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, dated September 18, 2026, states that owners must comply by October 28, 2026. The serial number regulation, 501 CMR 20.08(1), still states October 2, 2026. The October 2 date has passed. A gun owner who has not yet put a serial number on the gun and registered the gun should complete both steps before October 28, 2026. The firm’s post on the October 2026 serialization and registration deadlines explains the steps.

Section 121B(e) separately punishes a failure to register a gun. A first offense is punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. A second offense is punishable by a fine of up to $7,500, imprisonment for up to six months, or both. A third or later offense is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for one to five years, or both. The licensing authority, usually the local police chief, may also suspend or revoke the license of a person who fails to report a transaction, a loss, or a theft.

Section 121C(g) exempts certain firearms from the serial number requirement. The exemptions cover a firearm delivered to the police for destruction, a firearm owned by the United States, and a firearm made before October 22, 1968. The exemptions also cover a firearm in the custody of a nonresident traveling through Massachusetts, if the gun is stored as §§ 131C and 131L require.

Penalties and Where the Case Is Heard

The possible penalty for a defendant convicted under § 11C is imprisonment for at least 12 months and no more than two and one half years. The statute authorizes no fine. The statute sets no higher penalty for a second offense. The statute does not say whether the defendant serves the sentence in state prison or in a house of correction.

Under G.L. c. 274, § 1, a crime is a felony only if the crime is punishable by a sentence to state prison. The former § 11C had the same maximum term and was a misdemeanor. No appellate court has decided whether the amended offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. The District Court can try a § 11C case whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. Under G.L. c. 218, § 26, the District Court has jurisdiction over misdemeanors and over felonies punishable by up to five years in state prison.

Section 11C does not state that the 12-month minimum is mandatory. Section 10(a), by contrast, states expressly that the § 10(a) sentence shall not be reduced or suspended and that a § 10(a) case shall not be continued without a finding. Section 11C contains no language barring a reduced sentence, a suspended sentence, or a continuance without a finding. In Commonwealth v. Lightfoot, 391 Mass. 718, 721 (1984), the Supreme Judicial Court declined to read a sentencing statute as removing the judge’s discretion to suspend the sentence. In the statute that the court reviewed in Lightfoot, the Legislature had not used the word “mandatory” and had not barred a suspended sentence.

No appellate court has decided whether a judge may suspend the 12-month term, impose probation, or continue the case without a finding under the amended § 11C. In most § 11C cases, the defendant also faces a charge of carrying a firearm without a license under § 10(a). The judge must impose the § 10(a) mandatory minimum sentence of 18 months on a defendant convicted of the § 10(a) charge, whatever the judge does on the § 11C charge.

The Commonwealth cannot ask a judge to hold a defendant without bail as dangerous on a § 11C charge alone, except in two situations. The Commonwealth can ask for detention if the § 11C charge involves abuse as defined in G.L. c. 209A, § 1.

The Commonwealth can also ask for detention if the defendant was arrested and charged while a 209A restraining order (abuse prevention order) was in effect against the defendant. A judge may hold a dangerousness hearing under G.L. c. 276, § 58A only on a charge that § 58A lists.

Section 58A lists § 10(a), (c), and (m) and § 10G, but does not list § 11C. In Commonwealth v. Young, 453 Mass. 707, 714 (2009), the Supreme Judicial Court held that unlicensed possession of a firearm “does not, by its nature, involve a substantial risk that physical force against another may result.” In most § 11C cases, however, the police also bring a § 10(a) charge. The Commonwealth can ask for a dangerousness hearing on the § 10(a) charge.

A person has a right to a clerk-magistrate hearing before the clerk-magistrate issues a criminal complaint for a misdemeanor, if the police apply for the complaint without arresting the person. On a police application for a felony complaint, the person has a right to a hearing only if the officer requests one.

The clerk-magistrate may issue either complaint without a hearing if there is an imminent threat of bodily injury, of the commission of a crime, or of flight from the Commonwealth by the person. G.L. c. 218, § 35A.

No appellate court has decided whether the amended § 11C offense is a misdemeanor or a felony, so the right to a hearing on a § 11C complaint is unsettled. The Commonwealth must bring a § 11C charge within six years of the offense. G.L. c. 277, § 63.

Cases Charged for Conduct Before October 2, 2024

The former § 11C applies to conduct before October 2, 2024. Under G.L. c. 4, § 6, the repeal of a statute does not affect a prosecution for an offense committed while the statute was in force. The courts are still trying and deciding cases under the former § 11C.

The former § 11C punished whoever “removes, defaces, alters, obliterates or mutilates in any manner” the serial number of a firearm. The former § 11C also punished whoever received a firearm with knowledge that the serial number had been removed or defaced. The possible penalty was a fine of up to $200 or imprisonment for one month to two and one half years. The offense was a misdemeanor.

Instruction 7.640 states the elements of each theory under the former § 11C. Under the defacement theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the item was a firearm and that the defendant knew the item was a firearm. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant intentionally removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated some part of the serial number. The instruction directs the judge to tell the jury that the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant specifically intended to deface the serial number.

Under the receiving theory, the Commonwealth must prove that the defendant knowingly took custody or control of a firearm whose serial number had been defaced. The Commonwealth must also prove that the defendant knew of the defacement at the time the defendant received the firearm.

Instruction 7.640 cites Commonwealth v. Rupp, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 377 (2003). In Rupp, an expert testified that the serial number “had been destroyed and appeared to have been scratched out.” The Appeals Court upheld the defendant’s conviction for receiving a firearm with a defaced serial number.

The jury decides whether the serial number was removed or defaced. In Commonwealth v. Pacheco, No. 13-P-1940 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 10, 2015) (unpublished), an officer testified that the serial number was scratched out. The Appeals Court held that the officer’s testimony, together with the jury’s own inspection of the gun, was sufficient evidence.

No appellate court has decided whether a serial number that is worn, corroded, or partly legible was removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated under the statute. A defendant can argue that the serial number was never stamped deeply enough, rather than removed. Defense counsel proves a shallow factory stamp through the gun itself and, where the facts warrant, through the testimony of a defense firearms examiner.

For an offense committed on or after October 2, 2024, G.L. c. 140, § 121 defines serialization to require a serial number at least .003 inch deep. A firearm that has not been serialized is untraceable under the amended statute.

Constitutional Challenges

Courts have so far rejected Second Amendment challenges to serial number laws. In Commonwealth v. Gilkes, No. 2181CR00484 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2024), a Superior Court judge denied a motion to dismiss a § 11C charge under the former statute. The judge reasoned that the plain text of the Second Amendment “does not cover removing a firearm’s serial number or knowingly carrying a firearm without a serial number.” The judge added that firearms without serial numbers “are not in common use for lawful purposes.”

In United States v. Price, 111 F.4th 392 (4th Cir. 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting with all of its judges, upheld 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). Section 922(k) is the federal statute that prohibits possessing a firearm with an obliterated serial number. The Fourth Circuit held that firearms with obliterated serial numbers are not in common use for lawful purposes. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which hears federal appeals from Massachusetts, has not decided whether § 922(k) is constitutional.

No appellate court has considered a Second Amendment challenge to the amended § 11C or to § 121C. The duty to put a serial number on a gun owned before the 2024 act is new. Defense counsel should therefore raise a Second Amendment challenge in the trial court, so that the defendant can argue the challenge on appeal.

In Ferrer, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 544, the Appeals Court rejected the argument that the prima facie evidence clause violates due process, because the jury decides whether to draw the inference. A judge who instructed the jury that the jury must find knowledge from possession would relieve the Commonwealth of its burden to prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant could therefore argue that the instruction violates due process. The defendant can object when the Commonwealth offers a ballistics certificate without the examiner’s testimony, because the defendant has the right to cross-examine the examiner. Barbosa, 461 Mass. at 432. In Commonwealth v. Harrison, No. 10-P-257 (Mass. App. Ct. May 10, 2011) (unpublished), the Appeals Court reversed a conviction for receiving a firearm with a defaced serial number because the Commonwealth offered the ballistics certificate without the examiner.

Defenses

The search. In almost every § 11C case, the police find the gun during a stop, after an exit order, in an inventory search, or in a search of a home. In Ferrara, the police found the gun during an inventory search of a moped. The Commonwealth cannot use the gun as evidence if the judge allows a motion to suppress the gun.

Without the gun, the Commonwealth usually cannot prove either the § 11C charge or the § 10(a) charge. The firm’s page on traffic stops, exit orders, and pretext stops explains when the police may stop a car and order the people in the car to get out.

Possession. The jury may infer a violation from possession only if the Commonwealth first proves that the defendant possessed the gun. For a gun that the police find in a shared car, a shared apartment, or a closet that several people used, the Commonwealth must prove constructive possession, as in any other firearms case. The jury may not infer a violation from possession if the Commonwealth does not prove that the defendant knew of the gun and intended to control the gun.

Knowledge. Under § 11C, the defendant may respond to the evidence of possession with evidence that the defendant did not know the gun was untraceable. Evidence that a defendant did not know the gun was untraceable includes a gun received in a case or a bag, a serial number hidden under a grip, or a sale with no chance to inspect the gun.

The jury then decides whether the Commonwealth proved knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. The Commonwealth usually proves knowledge through the defendant’s own statements to the police. A defendant who describes the missing serial number to an officer gives the Commonwealth its proof of knowledge. In Grant, the defendant’s statement to the police supplied the proof of knowledge. A person who exercises the right to remain silent gives the Commonwealth no statement to use as proof of knowledge.

The act charged and instructed. Under Ferrara, the jury may convict only on an act that the Commonwealth charged and that the judge explained in the instructions. Defense counsel asks the Commonwealth to name, before trial, the act the Commonwealth says the defendant committed. Defense counsel objects to an instruction on any act that the evidence does not support. Defense counsel also moves for a required finding of not guilty on each act separately. A motion for a required finding asks the judge to find the defendant not guilty, without sending the charge to the jury, when the evidence is insufficient.

The question whether the object was a firearm. For an offense committed before October 2, 2024, defense counsel requires the Commonwealth to prove, through an examiner who testifies in person, that the gun could fire. For an offense committed on or after October 2, 2024, defense counsel argues that the new definition still requires proof that the gun could fire.

Defense counsel also argues that the gun was permanently inoperable where the facts support the argument. For a frame or receiver with no barrel or slide, defense counsel examines whether the item meets the definition of an unfinished frame or receiver.

Defaced or worn. The Commonwealth must prove that the serial number was removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated. Defense counsel can argue that holster wear, corrosion, or a shallow factory stamp is not defacement. A firearms examiner can examine the frame and, in some cases, restore a serial number that was ground off.

From the restored serial number, the examiner can often tell how the serial number was removed. The jury may consider how the serial number was removed in deciding who removed the serial number. With the restored serial number, the police can also learn who made the gun and who first bought the gun.

A gun that never needed a serial number. Under § 121C(g), a firearm made before October 22, 1968 does not need a serial number. A firearm is serialized if the firearm bears a serial number placed by a federal licensee, placed under the law of another state, or issued by the ATF or DCJIS. An antique firearm made in or before 1899 is not a firearm under the statute.

The compliance deadline. Under sections 157 and 158 of the 2024 act, a person who owned a gun before the act has one year to put a serial number on the gun and register the gun. The one-year period begins when the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services makes its systems available.

Section 11C contains no provision for guns owned before the act. A person charged with possessing a gun without a serial number before the compliance deadline can argue that the possession was lawful under the act’s own terms. The defendant can also offer evidence of the compliance deadline as evidence of no guilty knowledge, which § 11C allows a defendant to offer. No court has decided whether possession before the compliance deadline is lawful under § 11C.

Firearms Rights, Sealing, Immigration, and the Federal Ban After a Conviction

In most § 11C cases, the licensing authority suspends the person’s license to carry or firearm identification card before the court decides the criminal case. Under G.L. c. 140, § 121F(u), the licensing authority may suspend or revoke a license to carry or a firearm identification card if the licensing authority finds that the holder is unsuitable. A holder is unsuitable when reliable information shows that the holder may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to the holder or to others. The police report the arrest to the licensing authority right away.

Under § 121F(j), a person convicted under § 11C cannot hold a license to carry. Section 121F(j) applies to a § 11C conviction for two reasons. First, § 11C is punishable by more than two years. Second, § 11C is a law regarding the possession or transfer of firearms for which a judge may impose imprisonment.

The ban on a license to carry has no time limit. The person also cannot hold a firearm identification card for five years after the conviction or after release from confinement, probation, or parole, whichever is later, if the amended offense is a misdemeanor. The five-year limit does not apply if a court holds that the amended offense is a felony. The firm’s page on criminal records and the firearms license application explains how the licensing authority reads a criminal record.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a person convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year may not possess a firearm. Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B), the § 922(g)(1) prohibition does not apply to a conviction for a state misdemeanor punishable by two years or less. Section 11C is punishable by two and one half years. A person convicted under § 11C is therefore barred by federal law from possessing firearms, whether the offense is a felony or a misdemeanor under state law.

Federal law separately prohibits possessing a firearm that has traveled in interstate commerce and that has a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). The federal offense is punishable by up to five years. Federal prosecutors can also bring a separate federal charge for the same gun.

The § 11C charge appears on the defendant’s criminal record once the defendant is arraigned. The Commissioner of Probation can seal a § 11C conviction under G.L. c. 276, § 100A three years after the case ends, and after any time in custody, if the offense is a misdemeanor. The waiting period is seven years if the offense is a felony. The person must have no new conviction during the waiting period.

Section 100A does not allow the Commissioner of Probation to seal a conviction under §§ 121 to 131H of chapter 140. The Commissioner of Probation therefore cannot seal a conviction under § 121B for failing to register a gun. The Commissioner of Probation also cannot seal a conviction under § 121D or § 128. The Commissioner of Probation can seal a conviction under § 11C of chapter 269. Defense counsel may therefore try to end the case with a chapter 269 conviction instead of a chapter 140 conviction when the facts permit.

Federal immigration law imposes its own consequences on a serial number charge. A conviction for a firearms offense makes a noncitizen deportable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(C). In Portillo v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 69 F.4th 25 (1st Cir. 2023), the First Circuit held that a conviction under the former § 11C did not make a noncitizen deportable as a firearms offense. The court reasoned that the Massachusetts definition of a firearm then included antique firearms, which the federal definition excludes.

The amended definition of a firearm in § 121 excludes antique firearms. The amended definition includes stun guns and unfinished frames, which the federal definition may not include. No court has decided whether a conviction under the amended § 11C makes a noncitizen deportable.

An immigration lawyer should review the exact charge, the offense date, the client’s immigration status, and the court record before the client enters a plea or agrees to a continuance without a finding. At an interview, an immigration officer may ask about the arrest for the untraceable firearm, even if the case ends without a conviction.

The immigration lawyer should also 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 explain how an immigration lawyer reviews a criminal case.

Attorney Serpa’s Representation in Untraceable Firearm Cases

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. In every § 11C case, Attorney Serpa reviews the stop and the search, the evidence of possession, the condition of the serial number, and the examiner’s report. Attorney Serpa also reviews the act the Commonwealth has charged, the statements attributed to the client, and the client’s licensing and registration history. Attorney Serpa then advises the client on a motion to suppress, a trial, or a negotiated resolution, and on how each choice affects the client’s license. Attorney Serpa represents clients in the Boston Municipal Court, the District Courts of Greater Boston, and the Superior Court.

Frequently Asked Questions About Untraceable Firearms and Ghost Guns

Related Serpa Law Office Resources

• Massachusetts Criminal Defense of Firearms Offenses
• Carrying a Firearm Without a License in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(a)
• Possession of a Firearm or Ammunition Without an FID Card in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(h)
• Improper Storage of a Firearm in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 140, § 131L
• Possession of a Large Capacity Firearm or Feeding Device in Massachusetts: G.L. c. 269, § 10(m)
• Carrying a Loaded Gun During an OUI Stop or While Drunk in Massachusetts Under G.L. c. 269, § 10H
• Firearms Offenses for Massachusetts Visitors or Out-of-State Travelers
• Massachusetts Firearms Deadlines in October 2026: Serialization, Registration, and How to Avoid a Criminal Charge
• Massachusetts Question 9: What the 2026 Firearms Referendum Changes Before Election Day, and What It Does Not
• 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
• Massachusetts Clerk-Magistrate (Show Cause) Hearings
• Continuances Without a Finding, Pretrial Probation, and Diversion
• 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