AG Handgun Sales Enforcement Notice

940 CMR 16.00^[1], promulgated in October 1997 by the Attorney General under the Consumer Protection Act (MGL Chapter 93A, Section 2(c)), defines unfair or deceptive practices in handgun sales and imposes safety and performance requirements that go beyond both federal standards and the state's Approved Handgun Roster.

Applicability

Applies to "handgun-purveyors," any person or entity transferring handguns to Massachusetts customers. Excludes: persons transferring fewer than 5 handguns per year; law enforcement and military transfers; museum and collector transfers; antiques; and formal target shooting competition firearms.

Testing Requirements

• Performance test (Section 16.04(1)): Working parts must be entirely steel, or the model must pass a 600-round performance test (stopping every 100 rounds to tighten/clean; first 20 rounds without malfunction; no more than 6 total malfunctions; no crack or breakage)
• Drop test (Section 16.04(2)): Five handguns in new condition must pass drops from specified heights at various angles with no discharge
• Childproofing (Section 16.05(2)): Must contain a mechanism effectively precluding an average five-year-old child from operating the handgun. Acceptable methods include trigger resistance of at least 10-pound pull, firing mechanism too small for a child's hands, or requiring multiple motions to fire
• Load indicator or magazine safety disconnect (Section 16.05(3)): Semi-automatic pistols must contain either a load indicator (device plainly indicating a cartridge is in the firing chamber) or a magazine safety disconnect (prevents firing when magazine is removed)
• Safety device (Section 16.05(1)): Must include a lock approved by the Colonel of State Police per Section 131K

The Glock Issue

In 2004, AG Reilly issued a consumer advisory determining that Glock's "extractor indicator" was not an effective load indicator. As a result, Glock handguns cannot be sold to consumers by Massachusetts dealers. Glock recalled all handguns shipped to Massachusetts dealers and ceased in-state sales. This remains in effect. Consumers can still obtain Glocks through private sales from other LTC holders, purchase of pre-October 21, 1998 manufactured guns from dealers, or frame-only purchases.

Critical Distinction from the Approved Roster

A handgun can be on the Approved Handgun Roster (501 CMR 7.00^[2]) yet still violate 940 CMR 16.00. The Roster tests for materials quality, drop safety, mechanical reliability, and accuracy, but does not test for the AG's additional requirements. Three AG requirements are independently enforced even for Roster-listed handguns: child-safety features, load indicators or magazine safety disconnects, and tamper-resistant serial numbers.

Enforcement

Enforced through MGL Chapter 93A civil actions: injunctive relief, restitution, civil penalties up to $5,000 per violation, costs, and attorney's fees.

Granata v. Campbell: Constitutional Challenge

940 CMR 16.00 and the Approved Handgun Roster are subject to an active constitutional challenge in Granata v. Campbell (formerly Granata v. Healey).^[3]

On August 29, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted summary judgment for the Commonwealth for a second time, holding that the handgun roster and AG regulations do not substantially impair access to arms.^[4] Plaintiffs (Firearms Policy Coalition and individual gun owners) appealed to the First Circuit on September 9, 2025.

On January 28, 2026, the Trump DOJ filed an amicus brief siding with the plaintiffs, arguing the Massachusetts handgun roster violates the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework.^[5] Federal government intervention significantly increases the likelihood of the First Circuit reversing the district court. If reversed, the entire handgun sales regulatory framework -- both the AG regulations and the roster -- could be struck down.

Current Status

940 CMR 16.00 remains fully in effect. It was not repealed or superseded by Chapter 135 of the Acts of 2024. Current AG Andrea Campbell continues active enforcement. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 4, 2026, before the First Circuit Court of Appeals.^[6] The FPC has drawn parallels between this case and its similar California challenge, Renna v. Bonta, where a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against key provisions of California's handgun roster (now stayed pending appeal).