i live on the border of new jersey and Pennsylvania so i’m willing to drive maximum 2 hours to any good outdoor ranges, preferably ones that don’t involve me to volunteer at to keep my membership
Controversially, I’m a straight up FUDD and want a club with lots of firing restrictions in place ( don’t care what you do but I don’t personally want to be in an environment where people are rapid firing mag dumping etc. I only shoot to hunt.)
Don’t hate me - again, think it’s fine for others just not my preference
Gettysburg Pennsylvania USA
DISCLAIMER: This post is not asking for legal advice or whether anyone should act in reliance on this interpretation. I am solely asking for individual interpretations of the statutory language and discussion of how the provision should be read.
Another disclaimer: To be clear, I’m not looking for anyone to affirm my interpretation. I’m specifically looking for someone to disprove it. If I’m overlooking a statute, case, or alternative reading of (b)(3) that defeats my interpretation, that’s exactly what I want someone to show me. Please stop saying “ask a lawyer”. If someone proves me wrong it skips the necessity for a lawyer
I’m trying to get some outside opinions on the interpretation of Pennsylvania’s prohibited offensive weapons statute, 18 Pa.C.S. §908, specifically subsection (b)(3). I’m not asking whether relying on this interpretation in real life would be a good idea. I’m interested in how the statute should actually be construed and how a Pennsylvania court would likely read it.
§908(a) generally prohibits making, repairing, selling, dealing in, using, or possessing an “offensive weapon.” The definition includes things such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and firearms specially made or adapted for silent discharge.
§908(b)(1) contains specific defenses, including a defense based on compliance with the National Firearms Act.
But §908(b)(3) separately states in its entirety:
“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.”
The part I’m trying to understand is what independent legal effect (b)(3) has.
It does not say “firearms permitted by this section” or “firearms not prohibited by §908.” It says the entire section “shall not apply” when a firearm is involved for “purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.”
If “the laws of this Commonwealth” includes §908 itself in the way that determines the answer, there seems to be a circularity problem: the firearm is prohibited because §908 applies, and (b)(3) cannot make §908 inapplicable because §908 prohibits it. That seems dangerously close to saying, “This section shall not apply when this section already does not prohibit the conduct.”
There is also a surplusage issue. §908 already has the specific NFA-compliance defense in (b)(1). That defense predates the current (b)(3). The legislature later added (b)(3), using substantially broader language and saying the entire section “shall not apply.” If NFA compliance or some other existing exception was supposed to be the only route, what independent work was the later-added (b)(3) intended to perform?
There’s another interesting piece of context. Pennsylvania’s firearm-preemption statute, §6120, uses the same distinctive phrase, “purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.” §6120 is obviously a different type of statute—it limits municipal firearm regulation rather than creating an exception to §908—so I’m not claiming the two provisions have the same legal effect. But it raises the question whether the same phrase should carry a similar meaning: firearm activity that Pennsylvania law otherwise does not prohibit.
Another point that seems important is the difference in wording. §908(b)(1) expressly establishes defenses. §908(b)(3) instead says “This section shall not apply.” That sounds more like a limitation on the scope of §908 itself than merely another affirmative defense.
I’ve looked for Pennsylvania appellate decisions actually interpreting (b)(3). So far I have not found a reported case where a court squarely applied (b)(3) to a firearm and decided whether an otherwise §908-covered firearm was exempt because it was possessed or used for a purpose not otherwise prohibited by Pennsylvania law. I also haven’t found a reported appellate decision squarely rejecting that interpretation. Most §908 cases either involve non-firearms, criminal use of the weapon, prohibited possessors, unlawful carrying, or simply never address (b)(3).
So my questions for anyone familiar with Pennsylvania statutory interpretation are:
I’m especially interested in how a Pennsylvania attorney would expect a judge to interpret the provision from the text and statutory structure, rather than whether anyone thinks testing the argument personally would be wise. I don’t want any input on federal law. I keep up with federal law regularly and do not need clarification on that part.
Hello!
I’m going to be away from home for about 9 months. I’d like to store a couple long guns and a couple pistols in my friends safe. I trust him, and he’s legally allowed to have guns. Am I able to do this without doing an FFL transfer for each gun, then doing another when I’m back? If I can’t, what are the alternatives? I’d rather not leave my guns unattended in a house where I have Roomates (for that BAH lol)
Thanks!
Years ago I gifted my handgun to my dad. There was no paperwork or anything signed because as I understood the law, none of that was needed if you live in PA if it is immediate family. Now, I am not so sure...
Fast forward to today. I learned my dad sold all his guns before moving a few years ago. He now has dementia and he does not remember me even giving him a gun.
I have no idea who he sold the gun to, and I don't know if he did any sort of transfer to whomever he sold it to.
How screwed am I if down the road this gun is used in a crime and traced back to me?
Gun Owners of America is searching for an 18-20 year old plaintiff to challenge the enhanced background check requirement of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.
We are looking for an 18-20 year-old indvidual in the following counties:
First venue choice: Johnstown federal court:
Second venue choice: Pittsburgh federal court
If you know anyone who lives in one of these counties, please email me directly with the information at val.finnell@gunowners.org
Thank you!
Val
Hey yall, train CQB with a few different agency, typically out in Ohio. Our spot got double booked and they asked if I knew of anywhere around Pittsburgh. Shoothouse or we will train in churches that have security teams and have them work in with us for different types of scenarios.
If anybody knows of any spots, please let me know or has a church with a security team that might be interested in getting some free training. Please let me know. We are looking to train on 24th of October so I would like to get this set up as soon as possible.
looking for a range that allows for an FRT to be used at it. I’m from Florida but will be spending some time up here for the next year, I went out to the state game range but heard FRT is restricted and the 6 max magazine capacity kind of sucks.