Charged With Carrying Without a License (LTC)? Defenses That Work in Massachusetts
Most carrying cases begin the same way: a traffic stop, a street encounter, or a suspicious-person call. If police lacked constitutional grounds to:
stop the vehicle,
order you out,
pat-frisk you, or
search your bag, waistband, or car,
then the firearm may be suppressed.
When the gun is suppressed, the case usually ends in dismissal.
Key issues include:
Did officers claim to smell marijuana without corroboration?
Was the exit order based on vague “nervousness”?
Did police search the vehicle before establishing probable cause?
Was the patfrisk justified by specific, articulable safety concerns?
Massachusetts judges take these issues seriously. Many § 10(a) cases are won—not at trial—but at the motion to suppress stage.
3. Defense Two: Lack of Knowing Possession
Possession is often the weakest link in the Commonwealth’s case, especially when the firearm is found:
in a car with multiple passengers,
under a seat,
in a console,
in a shared home,
in a borrowed vehicle, or
near other people or belongings.
The prosecution must prove you knew the gun was there and had the ability and intent to control it. Being near a firearm is not enough.
Examples where possession can be defeated:
The gun was found under a seat you were not sitting in.
Someone else regularly used the vehicle.
No fingerprints, DNA, or evidence ties you to the weapon.
A co-occupant makes statements inconsistent with your possession.
The gun was wrapped, concealed, or inaccessible.
Even guns found “at your feet” or “next to you” can result in acquittal when knowledge is unclear.
4. Defense Three: Operability Challenges
Massachusetts requires the Commonwealth to prove the weapon:
is capable of firing a shot,
is not missing essential components, and
functions according to statute.
If the gun is inoperable—or operability tests were not performed properly—the firearm may not meet the statutory definition at all.
This comes up frequently in cases involving:
rusted or jammed guns,
missing firing pins,
stripped slides,
damaged triggers or springs.
If it cannot fire, it may not be a “firearm” under § 10(a).
5. Defense Four: Location Matters—Home, Business, and “Carrying” vs. “Possessing”
Section 10(a) criminalizes carrying outside your home or business.
If the defense demonstrates:
You were inside your home,
You were inside your place of business,
You were on your property, or
You were not “carrying” the firearm but possessed it in a protected context,
the charge may be reduced to a non-mandatory offense—or dismissed.
6. Defense Five: Challenging the Commonwealth’s Licensing Proof
A surprising number of § 10(a) cases involve errors in proving that the defendant lacked a license.
The Commonwealth must enter certified licensing records showing:
you did not have a valid LTC,
at the time of the incident,
and in the correct jurisdiction.
If records are missing, uncertified, or inconsistent, the case may fail.
This is particularly important for:
newly expired licenses,
out-of-state license holders,
individuals who moved recently, and
administrative errors by local licensing authorities.
7. Defense Six: Innocent Possession Theory (Rare but Real)
Massachusetts recognizes a narrow doctrine of transitory or innocent possession—usually applying when someone discovers a firearm and attempts to turn it over to authorities.
To succeed, the defense must show:
the possession was momentary,
there was no intent to use the gun, and
you acted to dispose of or surrender it safely.
Though courts apply it carefully, it remains a viable defense in the right fact pattern.
8. Defense Seven: The Commonwealth Overcharged the Case
Many officers and prosecutors charge § 10(a) when the correct charge is:
§ 10(h) (possession without an FID), or
§ 131L (improper storage), or
another non-mandatory offense.
An experienced attorney can often negotiate reductions by:
challenging constructive possession,
raising suppression issues,
highlighting licensing confusion, or
presenting significant mitigation.
The difference between § 10(a) and § 10(h) is the difference between 18 months of mandatory incarceration and a possible probationary outcome.
9. Defense Eight: Joint Possession Problems in Vehicle Cases
Vehicle firearm cases are uniquely vulnerable to attack.
Prosecutors must show:
you knew the gun was in the vehicle,
you had the ability to control it, and
the circumstances point to you—not another occupant.
Factors that weaken the Commonwealth’s case:
No fingerprints or DNA
Gun found near someone else’s belongings
Backseat passengers
Multiple people reaching or moving during the stop
Conflicting statements by occupants
Lack of illumination or visibility
A borrowed or rental car
Many acquittals are won here.
10. Why Early Legal Representation Matters
§ 10(a) cases move quickly, and mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion. A strong defense requires immediate action:
Demanding body-camera and dash-camera footage
Obtaining dispatch logs and 911 calls
Filing suppression motions early
Challenging operability
Securing forensic testing
Investigating ownership and access
Negotiating reductions before arraignment or pretrial conference
Waiting can close off opportunities for dismissal.
Conclusion: A “Carrying Without a License” Charge Is Serious—But Beatable
No one should face an 18-month mandatory minimum without understanding their defenses. Many people charged under § 10(a)—including visitors from out of state, new Massachusetts residents, workers coming from late shifts, or passengers in a vehicle—find themselves swept into a system they never intended to enter.
The law is strict, but it is not unbeatable. Suppression issues, possession challenges, licensing errors, and evidentiary gaps can all result in dismissal, reduction, or acquittal.
If you or someone you love has been charged under G.L. c. 269, § 10(a), speak with an attorney immediately. The right strategy—executed early—can make all the difference.