Info on 908.1 Stun guns

[headcase]

Anyone able to post or link the text of 18 pa cs 908.1 ?

I can't find it anywhere, and it is referenced on the Taser company website as a cite for the legality of stun guns in Pa.

[Pa. Patriot]

908.1. Use or possession of electric or electronic incapacitation device

(a) Offense defined.--Except as set forth in subsection (b), a person commits an offense if the person does any of the following:

(1) Uses an electric or electronic incapacitation device on another person for an unlawful purpose.

(2) Possesses, with intent to violate paragraph (1), an electric or electronic incapacitation device.

(b) Self defense.--A person may possess and use an electric or electronic incapacitation device in the exercise of reasonable force in defense of the person or the person's property pursuant to Chapter 5 (relating to general principles of justification) if the electric or electronic incapacitation device is labeled with or accompanied by clearly written instructions as to its use and the damages involved in its use.


(c) Prohibited possession.--No person prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to section 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms) may possess or use an electric or electronic incapacitation device.


(d) Grading.--An offense under subsection (a) shall constitute a felony of the second degree if the actor acted with the intent to commit a felony. Otherwise any offense under this section is graded as a misdemeanor of the first degree.


(e) Exceptions.--Nothing in this section shall prohibit the possession or use by, or the sale or furnishing of any electric or electronic incapacitation device to, a law enforcement agency, peace officer, employee of a correctional institution, county jail or prison or detention center, the National Guard or reserves or a member of the National Guard or reserves for use in their official duties.


(f) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "electric or electronic incapacitation device" means a portable device which is designed or intended by the manufacturer to be used, offensively or defensively, to temporarily immobilize or incapacitate persons by means of electric pulse or current, including devices operating by means of carbon dioxide propellant. The term does not include cattle prods, electric fences or other electric devices when used in agricultural, animal husbandry or food production activities.

[headcase]

Thank you kind sir

[headcase]

OK, so I read this and it seems to say that as long as you do not use it unlawfully, intend to do so, or are not prohibited from possessing a firearm, you may carry one.

That being said, how does this jive with 908? It seems to me that the bolded exception "18 Pa.C.S. § 908: Prohibited offensive weapons
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon. ", allows possession as defined by 908.1, but what about selling them? Is there another sub-section of 908 that applies?

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by headcase

OK, so I read this and it seems to say that as long as you do not use it unlawfully, intend to do so, or are not prohibited from possessing a firearm, you may carry one.

That being said, how does this jive with 908? It seems to me that the bolded exception "18 Pa.C.S. § 908: Prohibited offensive weapons
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon. ", allows possession as defined by 908.1, but what about selling them? Is there another sub-section of 908 that applies?

I repost:
http://forum.pafoa.org/question-answ...tml#post395858 (So the officer says, "Hello sir, mind if we look around?")

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Steve, I got this from the case against my client, who was charged with an M-1 for simple possession of a battery-operated stun gun, under circumstances where it was not even alleged that he was contemplating using it in a crime.

Section 908.1 criminalizes the misuse of a stun gun against another person, it doesn't really deal with possession by non-prohibited persons without intent to misuse it.

908.1 was added to the PA Statutes via the same bill that amended Section 908 to ban possession, back in 2002. If you read 908 (not 908.1), then you'll see that simple possession of a stun gun is an M-1 criminal offense, same as simple possession of a switchblade or a grenade. There's an argument that 908.1 provides the "as authorized by law" exception, but the courts have yet to rule on this, which mostly applies to LEO's. And that exception is not automatic for everyone not engaged in another crime, there are hoops to jump through.

I spoke with a number of knowledgeable folks on this issue, both inside and outside law enforcement and the PA legislative branch, and not one of them was certain that there was an exception for all non-criminal possession. There WAS certainty, however, that the exception under 908.1 requires that your stun gun be labeled with or accompanied by the described label or instructions. If yours came without them, you're screwed.

I do know GL spoke of stun gun legality in the recent workshop, so maybe there is further clarity since this old post I quoted above...

That's all I can do fer ya at this time

[headcase]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

I repost:
http://forum.pafoa.org/question-answ...tml#post395858 (So the officer says, "Hello sir, mind if we look around?")



I do know GL spoke of stun gun legality in the recent workshop, so maybe there is further clarity since this old post I quoted above...

That's all I can do fer ya at this time

I appreciate it. It seems to me that they come right out and say that you may possess and use one in the defense of yourself or your property, as long as it is labeled or you have the instructions. I can't imagine how someone actually got to the charged part in his mentioned incident, it just doesn't seem to have any ambiguity to it...on the possession part. I am really curious about selling restrictions, as I am about to have the ability to start doing so by internet....