In PA, can one carry an ASP / Baton (telescopic baton) without a licence?

[Curmudgeon]

In case anyone's interested, here is Gunlawyer001's thoughts on the issue...


http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/518...stun-guns.html


He is quoted in post #5.
His quote goes back to posts #39 and #54 in this thread... http://forum.pafoa.org/general-2/302...ok-around.html

Hardly seems like the carry of these devices is settled and widely accepted as legal, and a person could easily find themselves in legal hot water if caught with one. Telling people they are legal does not seem like good advice to me.

Anyone want to be a test case?
.

[OldSchoolPC]

Telling people they are legal does not seem like good advice to me.

Anyone want to be a test case?
.

I respect your view that my advice is not good, although I of course disagree. As I have shown, it is legal. As for a test case, it doesn't require a test case. A preliminary judge would throw it out, and if not, you'd easily win. Besides, stun gun or baton or real gun or whatever is probably gonna result in a court case anyway seeing as how the DA is generally blood-thirsty. If I were a chick I'd carry a Taser in my purse. That's my advice. I'd rather have to deal with a court case which I'll win, then get raped up the ass because I chose a less affective means of protecting myself.

[mpan72]

I still believe" stun guns" are illegal. If they ever ammend section 908 to remove referance to them I will then believe them to be legal.
As far as needing a test case I think it would clear it up if one ever comes along.

[gnbrotz]

Acording to the statute tasers are illegal.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...9.008.000..HTM

Under §908, ALL such devices are banned, including "the kind that are like cattle prods, which you press against the skin".

Under §908.1, possession under some circumstances of BOTH "tasers" and "the kind that are like cattle prods, which you press against the skin" is legal.

It's not a matter of "one is legal and one isn't". It's a matter of "which section of law are you referring to?", because either they all are, or they all aren't (under certain conditions).

[leplat]

I respect your view that my advice is not good, although I of course disagree. As I have shown, it is legal. As for a test case, it doesn't require a test case. A preliminary judge would throw it out, and if not, you'd easily win. Besides, stun gun or baton or real gun or whatever is probably gonna result in a court case anyway seeing as how the DA is generally blood-thirsty. If I were a chick I'd carry a Taser in my purse. That's my advice. I'd rather have to deal with a court case which I'll win, then get raped up the ass because I chose a less affective means of protecting myself.

For those who dont want to follow the links, here is GunLawyer's opinion on it. No offence but the dude knows what he is doing. Im gonna go with him on this.

Would I own one? Sure. Would I carry it? No way in hell.

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.

[Curmudgeon]

I respect your view that my advice is not good, although I of course disagree. As I have shown, it is legal. As for a test case, it doesn't require a test case. A preliminary judge would throw it out, and if not, you'd easily win. Besides, stun gun or baton or real gun or whatever is probably gonna result in a court case anyway seeing as how the DA is generally blood-thirsty. If I were a chick I'd carry a Taser in my purse. That's my advice. I'd rather have to deal with a court case which I'll win, then get raped up the ass because I chose a less affective means of protecting myself.

You cannot state with certainty that "a preliminary judge would throw it out, and if not you'd easily win" until that happens. Further, what is the cost of said defense? $1200? $5000? Hardly a fair outcome of a clearly legal act. Gunlawyer001 stated in one of the links I posted that he was already attempting to defend someone at the time.

Here's the deal... if a person is not prohibited, why bother with an electronic device? Get your LTCF and carry a firearm. No legal issues with possession, and far more effective than anything else mentioned in this thread.

For those who don't feel like hunting through the links...

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.

And...

I spoke with VERY good people, I'd tell you who but they were talking to me, not the universe at large. I don't quote people from private conversations without their consent. I'm not relying on their authority to convince you, however, just their arguments.

The law is not self-explanatory, the law is inconsistent as written. Don't confuse an exception under 908.1 as clear-cut authorization under the law for purposes of 908. "(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." This is not blanket permission for every non-prohibited person to possess a stun gun, it's merely a 908.1 prohibition for certain people. It sure doesn't override the blanket prohibition in 908, which forbids all possession by all people except for certain LEO types.

The terminology used is different; why is it a "stun gun" under 908, but the same device is called an "electronic incapacitation device" under 908.1? Rules of construction would have us presume that the use of different terminology in the same legislative act passed on the same day would be significant and done intentionally; what's the significance?

Also, pay attention to the words "and" and "or". Section 908.1 permits you to "possess AND use" in self defense; does that mean that it allows possession alone, in the absence of exigent circumstances and the need for defensive use? "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." Are you "exercising" self-defense if you have a stun gun sitting in your pocket or dresser drawer? It doesn't say that you can possess it for purposes of self-defense, it says that you can possess and use it in the "exercise" of self-defense. Yes, logically you can't possess and use your device on Wednesday afternoon when you're attacked by zombies, without having possessed it Wednesday morning when the sun was bright and the day was peaceful; but logic doesn't supersede statutory language.

On a fundamental level, why was the stun gun possession ban added to Section 908 if the rules in 908.1 are to govern and supersede 908? The legislation was simultaneous, it's not like they forgot about the outright ban in 908 when they created 908.1.
Section 908.1 bans criminal use, it bans possession with intent to commit crimes, it bans all possession by felons and other prohibited persons, it allows possession AND use of a labeled device in the exercise of self-defense. What does the "stun gun" ban in 908 accomplish that isn't accomplished by 908.1's "electronic incapacitation device" rules? If you want to argue that the stun gun ban in 908 is a legal nullity, you're arguing against the traditional rules of construction, where every word must be given meaning.

Also notice that the exception for machineguns in 908 appears right in 908, not in some other statute. The exception for blackjacks appears in 908. The affirmative defense of dealing with it as "curio or in a dramatic performance" appears right within 908. Why would the "authorized by law" part of 908 as applied to stun guns include anything other than the 908 exceptions and defenses?
"§ 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.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) It is a defense under this section for the defendant
to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed or
dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic
performance, or that, with the exception of a bomb, grenade
or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms
Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.), or that he possessed it
briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an
aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any
intent or likelihood that the weapon would be used
unlawfully.
(2) This section does not apply to police forensic
firearms experts or police forensic firearms laboratories.
Also exempt from this section are forensic firearms experts
or forensic firearms laboratories operating in the ordinary
course of business and engaged in lawful operation who notify
in writing, on an annual basis, the chief or head of any
police force or police department of a city, and, elsewhere,
the sheriff of a county in which they are located, of the
possession, type and use of offensive weapons.
(3) This section shall not apply to any person who
makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or
possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws
of this Commonwealth.
(c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be
converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive
or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.
"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-
off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially
made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge,
any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or
cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an
automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or
otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic
or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of
serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.
(d) Exemptions.--The use and possession of blackjacks by the
following persons in the course of their duties are exempt from
this section:
(1) Police officers, as defined by and who meet the
requirements of the act of June 18, 1974 (P.L.359, No.120),
referred to as the Municipal Police Education and Training
Law.
(2) Police officers of first class cities who have
successfully completed training which is substantially
equivalent to the program under the Municipal Police
Education and Training Law.
(3) Pennsylvania State Police officers.
(4) Sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of the various counties
who have satisfactorily met the requirements of the Municipal
Police Education and Training Law.
(5) Police officers employed by the Commonwealth who
have satisfactorily met the requirements of the Municipal
Police Education and Training Law.
(6) Deputy sheriffs with adequate training as determined
by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.
(7) Liquor Control Board agents who have satisfactorily
met the requirements of the Municipal Police Education and
Training Law."


I agree that the laws "should" be interpreted in a common-sense manner, that peaceful, non-criminal possession "should" be legal. (Even there, your peaceful possession of an "unlabeled" stun gun can get you 5 years in jail and a lifetime firearms prohibition.) That's not the only reasonable interpretation of this badly-written pair of statutes, though, and it has some gaping holes in it.

[Deleted]

If there is concern that the self defense item will end up at the bottom of her purse then take a look at the ASP brand pepper spray kubaton that is like a key ring that you attach your keys too. She will be far more likely to carry her keys than keep a baton or taser at the ready in her purse.

[OldSchoolPC]

If there is concern that the self defense item will end up at the bottom of her purse then take a look at the ASP brand pepper spray kubaton that is like a key ring that you attach your keys too. She will be far more likely to carry her keys than keep a baton or taser at the ready in her purse.

Agreed. They make electronic incapacitation devices that fit on a key chain too.

[mpan72]

Under §908, ALL such devices are banned, including "the kind that are like cattle prods, which you press against the skin".

Under §908.1, possession under some circumstances of BOTH "tasers" and "the kind that are like cattle prods, which you press against the skin" is legal.

It's not a matter of "one is legal and one isn't". It's a matter of "which section of law are you referring to?", because either they all are, or they all aren't (under certain conditions).

I know I think they are all illegal.

[red_oktober78765]

(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.

...

(c) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Offensive weapons." Any bomb, grenade, machine gun, sawed-off shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches, firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge, any blackjack, sandbag, metal knuckles, dagger, knife, razor or cutting instrument, the blade of which is exposed in an automatic way by switch, push-button, spring mechanism, or otherwise, any stun gun, stun baton, taser or other electronic or electric weapon or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose.

.

Far be it for me to interject, but, on the very last sentence in the quote, I submit that self defense is a lawful purpose...She isn't going to go around swatting people indiscriminatly, is she? She is going to deploy it (a blackjack, baton, etc.) in the event she is accosted.