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. The statute calls the gun an untraceable firearm. The term covers a pistol built from a kit or printed at home, often called a “ghost gun.” It covers a factory gun whose number was scratched out and a bare frame or receiver that was never numbered.

Since October 2, 2024, the statute has punished knowingly making, assembling, importing, selling, or transferring an untraceable firearm. It also punishes buying or receiving one with knowledge that it is untraceable. Possession of an untraceable firearm is prima facie evidence of a violation. The charge is usually filed with a charge of carrying a firearm without a license.

If a defendant is convicted, the possible penalties are imprisonment for not less than 12 months and not more than two and one half years. The statute sets no fine. It does not say whether the sentence is served in state prison or a house of correction. No appellate court has decided whether the amended offense is a felony or a misdemeanor. A conviction bars a license to carry, bars a firearm identification card for five years, and makes the defendant a prohibited person under federal law. The court orders the gun destroyed.

This page explains what an untraceable firearm is, what the Commonwealth must prove, and how the prima facie evidence clause works. It explains the serialization and registration rules in G.L. c. 140, §§ 121B and 121C that a gun owner can still meet. It 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 and defends firearms charges in the Boston Municipal Court, the District Courts of Greater Boston, and the Superior Court.

The Statute After October 2, 2024

St. 2024, c. 135, § 138 struck the former § 11C and inserted the current one. The former statute punished two acts, defacing the serial number of a firearm and receiving a firearm with knowledge that its number had been defaced. The current statute defines the offense by the condition of the gun rather than by the act of defacement.

The statute applies to a person who knowingly “manufactures, assembles, imports, sells or transfers ownership of an untraceable firearm.” It also covers a person who knowingly participates in any of those acts, and a person who “purchases or receives a firearm with knowledge that it is untraceable.”

The statute keeps the evidentiary rule that the former version contained. Possession or control of an untraceable firearm “shall be prima facie evidence” that the possessor is guilty of a violation. The inference may be rebutted “by evidence that such person had no knowledge that the firearm was untraceable,” or by evidence of no guilty knowledge. After a conviction, the court orders the firearm forwarded to the colonel of the state police for destruction.

Section 11A now 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 but contains no definition of the term serial number itself. Section 11E, which required every firearm to bear a serial number on a visible metal area, was repealed by St. 2024, c. 135, § 139. The serialization requirement is now in G.L. c. 140, § 121C, discussed 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 branch covers a gun that never had a number, such as a pistol assembled from a kit, a receiver finished at home, or a printed frame. The second covers a factory gun whose number has been damaged.

The definition of a firearm changed on the same day. Section 121 now 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 includes the frame or receiver of such a weapon and the unfinished frame or receiver. It excludes an antique firearm made in or before 1899 and a permanently inoperable firearm. Barrel length no longer limits the definition. A bare polymer frame with no number, sold to be finished into a pistol, is an untraceable firearm.

Serialization has a technical meaning. The number must be engraved, cast, or otherwise permanently embedded on the frame or receiver. It must be at least .003 inch deep and at least 1/16 inch high, placed so that it cannot readily be removed. A frame or receiver made of a non-metallic material must carry the number on a metal plate permanently embedded in the material.

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

Older guns raise a question the statute does not fully answer. Section 121C(g) exempts a firearm manufactured before October 22, 1968 from the serialization requirement. The definition of an untraceable firearm does not repeat that exemption. A person charged under § 11C with possessing an unnumbered gun made before that date has an argument that the gun was never required to bear a number. No court has addressed the argument. An antique firearm made in or before 1899 is outside the definition of a firearm altogether.

The Elements

The District Court model jury instructions have not been revised for the amended statute. Instruction 7.640 (2009) still states the elements of the former offenses of defacing a serial number and receiving a defaced firearm. Until a new instruction issues, the elements come from the text. The Commonwealth must prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, the object was a firearm within the definition in § 121. For a gun seized on or after October 2, 2024, the question is whether the weapon was designed, or could readily be converted, to expel a shot or bullet. The definition excludes only a permanently inoperable firearm. Whether the Commonwealth must still prove that the gun could fire on the day in question is undecided under the new language.

For a gun seized before that date, operability was an element. “Operability is an element” of the offenses under §§ 10(a), 10(h), and 11C. Commonwealth v. Sanford, 460 Mass. 441 (2011). The Commonwealth proves operability through a ballistics examiner who testifies in person. A certificate admitted without the examiner violates the confrontation clause. Commonwealth v. Barbosa, 461 Mass. 431, 432, 434 (2012).

Second, the firearm was untraceable, either because it had never been serialized or because its number had been removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated in some manner. The Commonwealth usually proves this element through the gun itself and the testimony of an officer or examiner about where the number belongs and what remains of it.

Third, the defendant knowingly did one of the listed acts, or purchased or received the firearm with knowledge that it was untraceable. The word knowingly modifies each act in the list. For a purchase or a receipt, the statute states the knowledge requirement in terms. The rebuttal clause confirms that knowledge of the condition of the gun is the fact on which these cases are decided. A person who did not know that the gun was untraceable has a defense under the statute’s own words.

Possession is not among the listed acts. The prima facie evidence clause bridges the gap. Proof that the defendant possessed or controlled an untraceable firearm permits the jury to find a violation. The Commonwealth still has to choose a theory and ask for an instruction on it. A conviction cannot rest on a theory that was never presented to the jury. Commonwealth v. Ferrara, 496 Mass. 483, 488-489 (2025).

The Knowledge Rule and the Prima Facie Evidence Clause

The prima facie evidence clause creates a permissible inference, not a mandatory presumption. The Appeals Court rejected a due process challenge to the clause on that ground, because a permissible inference “does not involve lowering the Commonwealth’s substantive burden of proof.” Commonwealth v. Ferrer, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 544 (2007), quoting Commonwealth v. Maloney, 447 Mass. 577, 590 (2006). The instruction tells the jury that it may accept possession as proof of knowledge but is not required to. The Commonwealth must still prove knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Constructive possession is enough to trigger the inference. Where guns were found 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. Commonwealth v. Moore, 54 Mass. App. Ct. 334 (2002). The Commonwealth must still prove possession itself, meaning knowledge of the gun and the ability and intention to exercise control over it. The possession defenses on the firm’s page on carrying a firearm without a license apply to a § 11C charge in the same way.

Rebuttal evidence goes to the jury with the inference. The defendant’s own words can defeat it. A defendant told the police that the number “was already scratched off” when he bought the gun. That statement admitted knowledge at the time of receipt. The judge was warranted in finding the rebuttal evidence insufficient. Commonwealth v. Grant, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 334, 341 (2003).

Where a gun with a blank space in place of a number was taken from the defendant’s person, and no contrary evidence was introduced, the inference alone sustained the verdict. Commonwealth v. Santos, No. 25-P-1253 (Mass. App. Ct. July 6, 2026) (unpublished).

The theory instructed must match the proof. In Ferrara, 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. The Supreme Judicial Court held that possession was prima facie evidence of a violation, but that the Commonwealth had offered no evidence that the defendant himself removed the number.

The conviction was reversed and a judgment of not guilty entered on that count. Ferrara, 496 Mass. at 489. The amended statute lists more acts than the former one, so the question of which theory was charged and instructed arises more often, not less.

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

The 2024 act added a duty to serialize and a duty to register. 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 acquiring a lawfully owned gun to serialize it. A licensed dealer, gunsmith, distributor, or manufacturer has seven days.

Under § 121C(c), a person who makes or assembles a privately made firearm must obtain a serial number from the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services before starting. The builder applies the number during the build and registers the gun under § 121B within seven days.

Section 121C contains no penalty clause. The criminal exposure for an untraceable firearm comes from § 11C. Section 11B punishes possession of an untraceable firearm during the commission of a felony by imprisonment for not less than 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. A violation is punishable by up to one year, a fine of up to $5,000 per firearm, or both. Under § 131N, a covert firearm or an undetectable firearm is a separate offense punishable by one to ten years for a first offense.

The serial number comes from DCJIS through the MIRCS portal under 501 CMR 20.00, effective September 26, 2025. The applicant creates an account and submits the make, model, caliber, barrel length, and means of production, with a license to carry or firearm identification card number. DCJIS verifies the license electronically and issues the number through the portal.

The owner then engraves the number to the .003 inch and 1/16 inch standard, using an embedded metal plate on a polymer frame, and registers the gun under § 121B. The issuance of a number is not a determination that the gun is legal under state or federal law. A frame or receiver registered before it is built must be registered again once it is a complete firearm.

The deadline for guns owned before the act is stated two ways. St. 2024, c. 135, §§ 157 and 158 require serialization and registration within one year after the DCJIS systems become available. The Executive Office of Public Safety and Security’s guidance dated September 18, 2026 states that compliance is required by October 28, 2026. The serialization regulation, 501 CMR 20.08(1), still states October 2, 2026. A gun owner who serializes and registers before October 2 satisfies both. The firm’s post on the October 2026 serialization and registration deadlines explains the steps.

A failure to register is punished separately under § 121B(e). 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 subsequent offense is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000, imprisonment for one to five years, or both. A failure to report a transaction, a loss, or a theft is also a ground for suspension or revocation of the license.

Section 121C(g) lists the exemptions. They cover a firearm delivered to the police for destruction, a firearm owned by the United States, and a firearm made before October 22, 1968. They also cover a firearm in the custody of a nonresident traveling through Massachusetts with the gun stored as §§ 131C and 131L require.

Penalties and Where the Case Is Heard

If a defendant is convicted under § 11C, the possible penalty is imprisonment for not less than 12 months and not more than two and one half years. The statute authorizes no fine and contains no enhancement for a second offense. It names no place of confinement.

Under G.L. c. 274, § 1, a crime is a felony only if it is punishable by a sentence to state prison. The former § 11C, with the same maximum term, was a misdemeanor. No appellate decision has classified the amended offense. The District Court has jurisdiction under either classification, because G.L. c. 218, § 26 covers misdemeanors and felonies punishable by up to five years in state prison.

The 12-month minimum is stated without the language that makes a minimum mandatory. Section 10(a) says in terms that its sentence shall not be reduced or suspended and that the case shall not be continued without a finding. Section 11C says none of that. 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. The Legislature had not used the word mandatory or barred a suspended sentence.

Whether a judge may suspend the 12-month term, impose probation, or accept a continuance without a finding under the amended § 11C has not been decided. Sentencing on the companion § 10(a) charge, which has its own mandatory term, usually decides the outcome.

A § 11C charge standing alone is not a predicate for a dangerousness hearing under G.L. c. 276, § 58A. The statute lists § 10(a), (c), and (m) and § 10G, not § 11C. Unlicensed possession of a firearm “does not, by its nature, involve a substantial risk that physical force against another may result.” Commonwealth v. Young, 453 Mass. 707, 714 (2009). The companion § 10(a) charge is a predicate, so the hearing is held in most of these cases anyway.

Where the police apply for a complaint without an arrest, the person has the right to a clerk-magistrate hearing before the complaint issues. The Commonwealth must bring the charge within six years. G.L. c. 277, § 63.

Cases Charged for Conduct Before October 2, 2024

The former statute governs a gun seized before October 2, 2024. The repeal of a statute does not affect a prosecution for an offense committed while it was in force. G.L. c. 4, § 6. Those cases are still being tried and decided.

The former § 11C punished whoever “removes, defaces, alters, obliterates or mutilates in any manner” the serial number of a firearm. It also punished whoever received a firearm with knowledge that its number had been so treated. The 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. Defacement requires proof that the item was a firearm and that the defendant knew it was a firearm. It also requires proof that the defendant intentionally removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated some part of the number. The instruction directs the judge to charge the jury on specific intent. Receiving requires proof that the defendant knowingly took custody or control of a firearm whose number had been defaced, with knowledge of the defacement at the time of receipt.

The instruction cites Commonwealth v. Rupp, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 377 (2003), where an expert testified that the number “had been destroyed and appeared to have been scratched out.” The conviction was affirmed.

The condition of the number is a question of fact for the jury. Officer testimony that a number was scratched out, together with the jury’s own inspection of the gun, was sufficient in Commonwealth v. Pacheco, No. 13-P-1940 (Mass. App. Ct. Apr. 10, 2015) (unpublished).

No decision holds that a worn, corroded, or partly legible number falls outside the statute. None holds that such a number falls within it. The difference between a number that was removed and a number that was never stamped deeply enough is a defense. It is proved through the gun itself and, where warranted, a defense examiner.

Constitutional Challenges

Second Amendment challenges to serial number laws have failed so far. 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.” Commonwealth v. Gilkes, No. 2181CR00484 (Mass. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2024).

The Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upheld the federal statute on possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, 18 U.S.C. § 922(k), on the same reasoning. United States v. Price, 111 F.4th 392 (4th Cir. 2024). The First Circuit has not decided the question. No appellate court has considered a challenge to the amended § 11C or to § 121C. The question should be raised and preserved, because the serialization duty for guns owned before the act is a new one.

The prima facie evidence clause has survived a due process challenge because the inference is permissive. Ferrer, 68 Mass. App. Ct. 544. An instruction that told the jury it was required to find knowledge from possession would present a different question. The ballistics certificate raises a confrontation clause question whenever the Commonwealth offers it without the examiner. Barbosa, 461 Mass. at 432. The Appeals Court reversed a conviction for receiving a defaced firearm on that ground in Commonwealth v. Harrison, No. 10-P-257 (Mass. App. Ct. May 10, 2011) (unpublished).

Defenses

The search. Almost every § 11C case begins with a stop, an exit order, an inventory search, or a search of a home. The gun in Ferrara was found in an inventory search of a moped. A motion to suppress that succeeds ends the § 11C count with the § 10(a) count. The firm’s page on traffic stops, exit orders, and pretext stops describes the rules that govern the stop.

Possession. The inference from possession requires proof of possession. A gun in a shared car, a shared apartment, or a closet that several people used raises the same constructive possession questions as any other firearms charge. Without proof that the defendant knew of the gun and intended to control it, the prima facie evidence clause never comes into play.

Knowledge. The statute itself provides the defense. Evidence that the defendant had no knowledge that the gun was untraceable rebuts the inference and sends the question to the jury. Examples are a gun received in a case or a bag, a number hidden under a grip, or a sale with no chance to inspect the weapon. Statements to the police are the usual obstacle. A defendant who describes the missing number to an officer has proved the knowledge element for the Commonwealth, as in Grant. The right to remain silent protects this defense.

The theory charged and instructed. Under Ferrara, the verdict must rest on a theory the Commonwealth charged and the judge instructed. Counsel holds the Commonwealth to a theory before trial, objects to an instruction on a theory without evidence, and moves for a required finding on each theory separately.

Whether the object was a firearm. For a gun seized before October 2, 2024, counsel demands proof through a live examiner that the gun could fire. For a later seizure, counsel makes the same demand under the new definition and holds the Commonwealth to the exclusion for a permanently inoperable firearm. A frame or receiver with no barrel or slide presents the question whether it was an unfinished frame or receiver within the definition.

Defaced versus worn. The Commonwealth must prove that the number was removed, defaced, altered, obliterated, or mutilated. Holster wear, corrosion, and a shallow factory stamp are not defacement. A firearms examiner can examine the frame and, in some cases, restore a number that was ground off. The restoration shows how the number was removed, which bears on whether the defendant did it. It can also identify the gun’s origin.

A gun that never needed a number. A firearm made before October 22, 1968 is exempt from the serialization requirement under § 121C(g). A firearm bearing a number placed by a federal licensee, placed under the law of another state, or issued by the ATF or DCJIS is serialized. An antique made in or before 1899 is not a firearm.

The compliance window. Sections 157 and 158 of the 2024 act gave owners of existing guns until the deadline described above to serialize and register them. Section 11C contains no transition clause. A person charged with possessing an unserialized gun during the window has an argument that the possession was lawful under the act’s own terms. The rebuttal clause is the vehicle for that argument. No court has decided the question.

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

The license usually goes before the case does. The licensing authority may suspend or revoke a license to carry or a firearm identification card on a determination of unsuitability under G.L. c. 140, § 121F(u). An arrest with an untraceable gun is reported at once.

A conviction makes the person a prohibited person under § 121F(j). The offense is punishable by more than two years. It is also a violation of a law regarding the possession or transfer of firearms for which a term of imprisonment may be imposed. Either description bars a license to carry with no time limit. Either bars a firearm identification card for five years after the conviction or the release from confinement, probation, or parole. The firm’s page on criminal records and the firearms license application explains how the licensing authority reads the record.

The federal prohibition on possessing a firearm after a conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), excludes a state misdemeanor punishable by two years or less. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)(B). Section 11C is punishable by two and one half years, so a conviction makes the defendant a federally prohibited person whatever the state classification. Federal law separately prohibits possessing a firearm with a removed, obliterated, or altered serial number that has traveled in interstate commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). The federal offense is punishable by up to five years. A state arrest can become a federal case.

The arraignment creates an entry in the defendant’s criminal record. A § 11C conviction can be sealed under G.L. c. 276, § 100A after the waiting period, three years for a misdemeanor and seven years for a felony.

The related offenses in c. 140 are treated differently. Section 100A does not apply to convictions under §§ 121 to 131H of c. 140. A conviction for failing to serialize or register under § 121B or § 121C therefore stays on the record. So does a conviction under § 121D or § 128. That difference is a reason to resolve a case under c. 269 rather than c. 140 where the facts allow it.

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). The First Circuit held that a conviction under the former § 11C was not categorically a firearms offense. The Massachusetts definition of a firearm then included antique firearms that federal law excludes. Portillo v. United States Department of Homeland Security, 69 F.4th 25 (1st Cir. 2023).

The amended definition in § 121 excludes antique firearms. It includes stun guns and unfinished frames that the federal definition may not. No court has decided whether the amended § 11C is a categorical match.

An immigration lawyer should review the exact charge, the offense date, the client’s immigration status, and the court record before a plea or a continuance without a finding. The same review applies before the client files a petition or sits for an interview at which an officer may ask about the arrest. The firm’s immigration consequences pages describe the review.

Attorney Serpa’s Representation in Untraceable Firearm Cases

Attorney Joe Serpa has practiced Massachusetts criminal defense since 1995. In every § 11C case he reviews the stop and the search, the evidence of possession, the condition of the serial number, and the examiner’s report. He reviews the theory the Commonwealth has charged, the statements attributed to the client, and the client’s licensing and registration history. He then advises on a motion to suppress, a trial, or a disposition, and on the effect of each on the license. He 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 Firearm While Under the Influence in Massachusetts: 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