Stun Gun Laws in Philadelphia Explained
There are no ordinances authorizing or prohibiting the possession of fates of stunning devices, also known as stun guns as far as I am aware of in Philadelphia. The only ordinance is Section 10-825(4) § 10-825(4). this section of the code is an exception to section 9-601 which prohibits the carrying of certain items and deadly weapons in the city of Philadelphia. Basically to paraphrase Section 10-825(4) § 10-825(4) it allows for the carrying of a stun gun if you are a licensed/authorized to use/stun gun.
Section 9-601 of the Philadelphia code states:
"(1) No person shall sell, barter, exchange, give or dispose of, any switchblade knife, dagger, dirk knife, stiletto knife, automatic knife, gravity knife, gun, air rifle, sniper’s rifle, shot gun, sawed off shotgun, silencer, machine gun, submachine gun, hand gun, spring gun, brass knuckles, blow gun, cane sword, or any knife, fork or other implement the blade of which is capable of being concealed in the hand or in clothing worn on the person . This prohibition does not apply to any government employee in the performance of lawful duties, nor to the regular or special police force of the City or any other municipality while actually employed in the performance of duties of their employment. However, public employees may carry any weapon for defensive, but not offensive purposes. The exception for government employees does not include employees of the Philadelphia County Prison System."
The difference between stun guns and other weapons discussed in Section 9-601 above is that Section 10-825(4) this section of the code allows you to possess a stun gun under certain conditions whereas Section 9-601 removes any doubt regarding certain items that they are illegal to own or carry in Philadelphia. As stated above the exception to Section 9-601 is that government employees may carry weapons for defensive but not offensive purposes. Therefore, from my understanding of these Sections, stun guns are prohibited for anything other than defensive purposes.
Legal and Illegal Use of Stun Guns
There are a few scenarios in which possessing and even using a stun gun on another person would be legal for residents of Philadelphia. Those include the following:
If a person is out in the public, even on their own property and in a hypothetical scenario, a person decides to attack or harm you or your family member, you do have the right to defend yourself. And if you were to try to walk away from the situation, but they pursued you and continued to physically attack you, in that case it would be appropriate to use a stun gun in self-defense.
We should note here: Self-defense laws do vary slightly throughout Pennsylvania. So while this may apply in some municipalities, it may not in others. That said, there’s also an example in which court precedent has allowed – and even encouraged – individuals to carry an electric weapon. That was best shown by the case of simply having the stun gun in your possession in public. In Bass v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the PA Supreme Court ruled that it was not illegal to have an electric weapon. You cannot use it or discharge it, however, in public.
The reason for this comes down to the legislative intent of Pennsylvania lawmakers – for them, there is no doubt that the purpose of carrying a stun gun is to harm another person. Now, the law in Pennsylvania says that you may not use the stun gun. That’s what puts you in unlawful territory. But simply having it in your possession is legal.
On the other hand, you are not permitted to use the stun gun on someone. This is called Aggravated Assault in Pennsylvania, and you face severe penalties if you choose to use a stun gun or other electric weapon on another person.
Anytime a stun gun is used on another person and it causes physical contact, that creates a significant risk of bodily injury. Even if it does not, the use of a stun gun is considered an Aggravated Assault. In addition, because a stun gun causes substantial pain for even a small amount of time, it can also result in a charge of Simple Assault.
If you use the stun gun on a person and the threatened or actual physical harm to that person is intended to terrorize or "coerce" them, you are immediately guilty of Terroristic Threats in Pennsylvania.
Even if these charges don’t apply in a specific situation because, for example, you are claiming self-defense, you could also face charges of Recklessly Endangering Another Person by using the stun gun on someone. This is the case when you display the weapon in a manner so reckless as to cause the person fear of imminent serious physical injury. This can be a Felony 3 charge or a Misdemeanor 1 offense.
Any stun gun offense carries hefty fines and a minimum of two years probation. You will be wise to avoid this risk by carrying pepper spray or a knife instead, both of which are legal to carry in Philadelphia.
Purchasing a Stun Gun in Philadelphia
In order to possess a stun gun in Philadelphia, you must first purchase one. This requires an individual to be at least 18 years old. You must also pass a background check which will be conducted through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Many people who have previous arrests for crimes of violence or certain other misdemeanor offenses may face issues in passing the background check. In those situations, it is advised that you hire an experienced Philadelphia Gun Lawyer to help you protect your Second Amendment Rights.
Additionally, there is no current application or permit needed in order to own a stun gun. Basically, if you can pass the background check and are over the age of 18, you can purchase and own a stun gun in Philadelphia. It is important to note that City Ordinance regarding the use of stun guns may call for a permit to be obtained. Nonetheless, it is clear under Pennsylvania laws that any regulation of a stun gun, taser or electronic incapacitation weapon is ultimately preempted by state law.
Self-Defense and Stun Gun Use
Stun guns have a dubious status in Philadelphia’s legal system, where the notion of "self-defense" is scrutinized with a critical eye. Philadelphia, like Pennsylvania as a whole, permits private citizens to carry and use stun guns for self-defense, but doing so is not as free and open as it is with other types of defensive weapons, such as pepper spray or knives.
To understand this, we have to distinguish between a "defensive" use, which may involve a temporary application, and an "aggressive" attack, which may include repeated jolting or brawling. Because there are so many different types of stun guns, they are classified in multiple ways, including by size, mode of operation, intended use, and design.
The best description of a stun gun would probably be a small, pocket-sized, non-lethal weapon that delivers a temporary shock to create a painful sensation, incapacitating a would-be attacker. While you can buy a stun gun in different voltages, the device most commonly used is an 80,000-volt single-shot unit. While this is quite effective against an attacker, PA law regards any application of force as offensive, with an offensive intent to cause harm or injury.
However, if this defensive use of a stun gun appears to be in "reasonable" self-defense, the defense may go to trial where it would be evaluated within the context of self-defense law. Pennsylvania holds that the only lawful purpose for intentionally causing or threatening to cause physical harm to another is self-defense (18 Pa.C.S. § 507). Moreover , as defined under definitional statutory law, "physical harm" means bodily injury or death. This, however, is not the only requirement for a legal application of "self-defense".
In Jones v. State, the Alabama Supreme Court reversed a trial court’s conviction on legal grounds that the use of a stun gun to prevent theft did not qualify as "self-defense", in that the original intended target was an inanimate object, with no evidence that any force or coercion was intended against its owner. The court explained that the stun gun’s application was undoubtedly "offensive" and demonstrated an "intent to inflict injury". This convinced the Barry County Circuit Court that using a stun gun in self-defense is only lawful when the attacker has imminent plans to commit a forcible or violent act against the user, or "to create substantial risk of such", either by physical contact or the threat of having one’s "life, body or health" inadequately defended. As such, the use of a stun gun to prevent theft or vandalism (rather than assault) has not been recognized in Pennsylvania as a lawful application of "self-defense"; even though that theft or vandalism could transform into a physical attack, the harm is not necessarily imminent.
Moreover, the "integration" between the "reasonable belief" and the actions to be taken in response is deemed too uncertain where the initial assault or threat was not imminent.
Penalties for Using a Stun Gun ILlegally
Local Philadelphia court advice may not end the criminal charges
Below is a quote from the recent case of Commonwealth v. Hayes
1. The Second Degree Misdemeanor of Carrying a Prohibited Offensive Weapon is defined as follows:
§ 908. Prohibited offensive weapons
(a) Offense defined.-A person commits a misdemeanor of the second degree if, with intent to employ it offensively, he carries a weapon, taser or stun gun not for lawful purposes under this chapter.
2. In order to convict a defendant of the crime of Carrying a Prohibited Offensive Weapon in violation of Section 908(a), the Commonwealth must prove,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that:
(1) Defendant possessed an electric weapon or device;
(2) Defendant intended to employ the electric weapon or device
offensively; and
(3) Defendant possessed the electric weapon or device outside of a
lawful purpose under the Crimes code.
Sometimes a client will believe that he should simply plead guilty to an offense because he does not have a defense. But if a client is found guilty of a second degree misdemeanor he is looking at possible fines and prison time. A plea bargain which reduces the charge to a summary offense is better than taking it all the way to trial and being convicted of a second degree misdemeanor. A plea bargain may result in probation and no permanent criminal conviction. A guilty plea is often better than losing at trial and going to jail. And the plea bargain may come with help from the Philadelphia Municipal Court form of Calming Court. This program gives some first-time offenders relief in a specialized section of the court which addresses issues such as substance abuse, mental health, and anger management. If an defendant with a business or profession can avoid a criminal conviction they should.
Sometimes cases in the Municipal Court have rule violations. A defendant can find relief from Rule 586 which applies to persons charged with violating Rule 234 (martial arts, kickboxing, etc). A plea bargain to a summary offense may be a better outcome than facing trial on the charged offense.
History and Recent Changes
In order to better understand the current legality of stun guns in Philadelphia, it is important to know how the law has changed over the years and how these changes will affect individuals carrying stun guns in Philadelphia. Until 1976, electroshock weapons such as stun guns and tasers were legal in Pennsylvania. However, in the 1976 case of Commonwealth v. Ortiz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a statute that prohibited the possession or use of stun guns in all 67 Pennsylvania counties. In the coming decades, many states decriminalized various forms of electric weapons by permitting civilians to purchase, possess, and even carry stun guns without any restrictions; Pennsylvania was not one of them.
After 2008, the legislature decriminalized the use of stun guns in Pennsylvania for non-violent, public-safety workers, exempting these workers from the requirements of the statute. In 2017, the legislature implemented another exception to the statute to allow stun gun possession and use by licensed and un-licensed citizens. The legislature then failed to enact the proper amendments to implement this change. Thus, even to this day, citizens unconditionally cannot possess, use , or carry stun guns in Pennsylvania. The legislature attempted to correct this mistake in May of 2019; however, the enactment process itself failed due to an oversight with the drafting.
In December of 2020, a significant change came about with the opinion in the case of Lethierre Newbold v. Attorney General of Pennsylvania, 945 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2019). Here, the Third Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals found that the prohibition against civilian stun gun possession and use violated the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit stemmed from a challenge by a man who was arrested and charged in 2018 after he attempted to enter Philadelphia’s International Airport with a stun gun. In September of 2021, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court settled the legality of stun gun carry in Pennsylvania by voting 5-2 to require the state to submit its latest efforts to legalize civilian possession of stun guns to the state Legislature. In the majority opinion, Judge Sam J. Roberts wrote that "The best course is for the Pennsylvania legislature to consider all the competing interests and decide whether or not to legalize civilian possession of stun guns, and if so, what restrictions—if any—to impose."