"Readily Converted":
The Undefined Middle Ground in Massachusetts Firearms Law

My firearm is not currently functional. Is it still legally a "firearm" under Massachusetts law?

The Old Standard Is Gone

Chapter 135^[1] expanded "firearm" from an item "from which a shot or bullet can be discharged" to one "which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a shot or bullet." This eliminates the prior operability requirement that Massachusetts courts had enforced for decades and replaces it with a forward-looking standard that no Massachusetts court has yet interpreted.

The prior standard was well-developed. Commonwealth v. Sampson, 383 Mass. 750 (1981) required the instrument to be "capable of discharging a shot." Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 389 Mass. 641 (1983) confirmed that "an essential element of the offense... is that the firearm carried be a working one." Most instructively, in a separate Appeals Court decision, the court held that a pistol with a bent sear bar was not a firearm even though a trained ballistician could repair it, because "there was no evidence the defendant or an untrained user could make the repair." The court memorably noted: "Everyone knows how to turn on a television set; few can fix one."

Under Chapter 135, that entire analytical framework is gone.

Federal Parallel

The new language mirrors the federal Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3)^[2], which has used "readily be converted" since 1968. The ATF's 2022 Frame/Receiver Rule defined "readily" in 27 C.F.R. Section 478.11 through eight factors: time, ease, expertise, equipment, parts availability, expense, scope, and feasibility. The Supreme Court affirmed this framework in Bondi v. VanDerStok, 604 U.S. 458 (2025). Federal courts have consistently rejected vagueness challenges to this language.

Massachusetts Has No Definition

Massachusetts, however, does not define "readily" anywhere in Chapter 135. Nor does it define "permanently inoperable," the exclusion from the firearm definition. Benjamin Selman of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, writing in the Boston Bar Journal (Winter 2025), flagged this directly: the Act "offers no guidance as to where the boundary lies between an item that 'may readily be converted' versus an item that is 'permanently inoperable.' Further, the Act does not address the category of weapons that could not be made 'readily' operable."

This creates three categories: firearms (readily convertible), permanently inoperable items (excluded), and an undefined middle category of items requiring substantial but not impossible effort to restore.

Practical Implications

A collector's piece missing a firing pin may now be a "firearm" if the pin is commercially available and easily installed. This is a dramatic change from the Rhodes standard. A welded-shut display piece may or may not qualify depending on whether the weld can be "readily" removed. Museum items, deactivated firearms, and theatrical props face new uncertainty. The ASF exclusion for items "not capable of firing a projectile" that "cannot be readily modified through a combination of available parts" provides some guidance for that specific category but does not resolve the broader question.

None of the four EOPSS guidance memoranda address the "readily converted" or "permanently inoperable" standards. No AG opinion provides interpretive guidance. No vagueness challenge to this specific language has been filed as of early 2026, though the language may be challenged as criminal prosecutions involving borderline items arise.

Bottom Line

Settled: The old operability requirement is gone. Items "designed to" fire are firearms regardless of current condition.

Unsettled: Where the line falls between "readily converted" (firearm) and "permanently inoperable" (not a firearm). Massachusetts has not adopted the ATF's eight-factor "readily" test or any equivalent.

Do: Treat any item that was designed as a firearm and could be restored with commercially available parts as a firearm under Massachusetts law. If you possess deactivated or display items, consult an attorney about compliance.