Bill rewrites offensive weapons rules

Summary#

HB 2855 would amend Pennsylvania’s existing Crimes and Offenses law, Title 18; it would not create a separate law. Its stated goal, as reflected in its title, is to change rules for prohibited offensive weapons and electric or electronic incapacitation devices.

• It would list which weapons count as “offensive weapons,” including bombs, grenades, blackjacks, sandbags and metal knuckles.
• Machine guns, certain short-barrel shotguns and certain firearms would not count as offensive weapons if possessed in compliance with Pennsylvania’s firearms law and applicable federal law.
• Stun guns, stun batons, tasers and other electric or electronic weapons would not count as offensive weapons if possessed in compliance with the rules in section 908.1.
• A person could possess and use an electric or electronic incapacitation device in reasonable self-defense under the existing justification rules without the device being labeled or accompanied by written instructions about its use and possible damage.
• The bill is at the introduced stage and has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is not law; it would take effect 60 days after enactment.

What it means for you#

• People who possess weapons listed in the bill: The bill would change which weapons fall within the “offensive weapons” definition. For several listed firearms, compliance with both state and applicable federal law is a condition for not being treated as an offensive weapon. The supplied text does not include the full section setting out the offence or its penalties.
• People who possess or use electric incapacitation devices: The bill would remove the requirement that the device carry or come with written instructions about use and possible damage for the self-defense rule to apply. The rule would still require reasonable force in defense of a person or property, under the existing justification rules.
• The public: The bill does not create a new licensing system, application process or public service in the supplied text.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill does not specify public spending, fees, fines or staffing costs.

What is unclear#

• The parent law was not supplied, so the bill’s changes could not be checked against the full current law, including the offence and penalty provisions.
• The supplied text does not explain how compliance with the state and federal laws would be assessed in a particular case.
• The amendments do not define terms such as “common lawful purpose” or “reasonable force”; the supplied material does not show whether other parts of the law define them.
• The bill is not law, and its text could change before enactment.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it makes state and applicable federal legal compliance an express condition for certain firearms to be outside the “offensive weapons” definition.
• The bill would keep the reasonable-force requirement for self-defense while removing the instruction-label condition for electric incapacitation devices.
• Listing categories and conditions in the law could make the rules clearer, though the bill does not explain how they would be applied.

Case against#

• One concern is that removing the instruction requirement would mean the self-defense rule no longer depends on users receiving written information about device use and possible damage.
• It may be harder for people to know whether a weapon meets the bill’s conditions, since the bill ties some categories to compliance with other state and federal laws.
• The bill does not explain how its revised definition would interact with the full existing offence and penalty provisions.