PA Prohibited Offensive Weapons Law and Bayonets

[Totez]

I am curious, would bayonets fall under the prohibited offensive weapons category in PA law (under the "without any common lawful purpose" clause)

What defines lawful purpose? The original intent of Federal and PA Constitutions I.E. militia use (as defined in numerous other laws such as SBS and SBR regulations) or is it a fluid term (I.E. the definition changes based on common use, for instance if hunters all the sudden decided en-mass to to use bayonets to quickly dispatch wounded animals thereby creating both common and lawful purpose for the bayonet in this hypothetical situation.)

If the latter would be the case, could not the law be challenged on the fact that once something became illegal by way of falling out of common use, the law leaves no way for it to come back into use (as things and fads do frequently) and thereby would become unconstitutional by way of allowing anything and everything to be banned based on how frequently it is used (so say, cap-and-ball revolvers becoming illegal simply because no one uses them and therefor they have no lawful purpose anymore.)

Am I overthinking things? I think I am but the topic came up in a discussion within a reenactor circle and I became curious because the Prohibited Offensive Weapon laws PA has seem so murky and fluid as to be nonsensical.

[Ranger P229]

IANAL

The wording regarding knives and razors in 18PA 908 specifically relates to cutting instruments that have a blade that is exposed in an automatic way, not all knives/razors etc.

Bayonettes are commonly owned as collector pieces, and in reenacting, both of which are lawful purposes.

Also, 908 (b) (1) specifically allows for the posession and use of prohibited offensive weapons for the purpose of "dramatic performances", which I would think includes reenacting.

Just my interpretation of the statute.

[Rosco the Iroc]

I say it would be dependent on the use as stated. Your in your 54th Mass outfit going to a gathering your fine.

If you yell FIX BAYONETS! and attempt to clear the line at WAWA to get at the coffee bar with it then I could see them bring the law to bear.

[Statkowski]

If you yell FIX BAYONETS! and attempt to clear the line at WAWA to get at the coffee bar with it then I could see them bring the law to bear.

Bringing the law to bear on such would indeed be justified at WAWA. Now, if it was SHEETZ, then using a bayonet to gain access to the coffee would indeed be justified, and thus a lawful purpose.

SHEETZ coffee rules!

[tl_3237]

I am curious, would bayonets fall under the prohibited offensive weapons category in PA law (under the "without any common lawful purpose" clause)

What defines lawful purpose? The original intent of Federal and PA Constitutions I.E. militia use (as defined in numerous other laws such as SBS and SBR regulations) or is it a fluid term (I.E. the definition changes based on common use, for instance if hunters all the sudden decided en-mass to to use bayonets to quickly dispatch wounded animals thereby creating both common and lawful purpose for the bayonet in this hypothetical situation.)

If the latter would be the case, could not the law be challenged on the fact that once something became illegal by way of falling out of common use, the law leaves no way for it to come back into use (as things and fads do frequently) and thereby would become unconstitutional by way of allowing anything and everything to be banned based on how frequently it is used (so say, cap-and-ball revolvers becoming illegal simply because no one uses them and therefor they have no lawful purpose anymore.)

Am I overthinking things? I think I am but the topic came up in a discussion within a reenactor circle and I became curious because the Prohibited Offensive Weapon laws PA has seem so murky and fluid as to be nonsensical.

This may help to answer some of your questions:

Com. v. Fisher, 400 A. 2d 1284 - Pa: Supreme Court 1979

Com. v. Karlson, 674 A. 2d 249 - Pa: Superior Court 1996

[Totez]

This may help to answer some of your questions:

Com. v. Fisher, 400 A. 2d 1284 - Pa: Supreme Court 1979

Com. v. Karlson, 674 A. 2d 249 - Pa: Superior Court 1996

Those are great, however I'm limited on time for now and can't read through them. Is there a condensed summary you could give me of them? Or even just a gist of what they are going on about?

[wa3ra]

It has always seemed to me that carving shit up is a common, lawful use for a knife.

[JenniferG]

Here's a condensed version the Knife guys put out. I collect knives too. If you search this PAFOA I've posted links a couple of times.

http://www.knifeup.com/pennsylvania-knife-laws/

A word of warning though, just as Philadelphia is the center of anti gun activity they are pretty bad with knife laws too. In fact they are an embarrassment to civilized society. If you carry a knife in Philly make sure you can prove it's part of your work to carry one.

[Bang]

part of your work to carry one.

From the way I read it, you can't use a knife at work Monday-thru Friday 9 to 5and be in possession of it on Saturday and/or Sunday. Something about actively engaged or enroute to or from.

[bluetrane2028]

In Philly you are only allowed to use a knife while in the actual performance of your job. You are not permitted to drive to the worksite with that knife, they want you to leave it at work. Real practical for those who work in multiple locations.

I know of several individuals who have decided that Philly's laws have reached the level of "unjust" and outright ignore them.