Pennsylvania lawmakers have introduced a bill to change how state law treats firearms whose lawful possession depends on compliance with federal requirements. House Bill 2855, sponsored by Rep. Rob Kauffman, was introduced October 13 and referred to the House Judiciary Committee October 14. It remains a proposal, not a change in possession rules. The measure also includes a separate revision affecting electric and electronic self-defense devices.
The proposal addresses Pennsylvania's prohibited-offensive-weapons statute, rather than rewriting federal firearm law. Its sponsors described the problem in an August 20 co-sponsorship memo: Pennsylvania's NFA-compliance defense can leave residents uncertain when federal requirements are no longer enforceable against them. The memo identifies the Silencer Shop litigation as the reason for seeking clarification. That explanation of the bill's purpose is not itself a ruling on any resident's legal position.
Moving compliance into the definition
Under the existing language reproduced in printer's number 4037, section 908(b)(1) provides a defense when a defendant proves NFA compliance by a preponderance of the evidence, except for a bomb, grenade or incendiary device. HB 2855 would delete that specific defense. It would retain the subsection's other defenses, including possession solely as a curio or in a dramatic performance and brief possession after finding a weapon or taking it from an aggressor.
Invalid Date
More Articles
The bill would also change the definition of “offensive weapons.” Instead of leaving the affected firearms within that definition and relying on the NFA defense, the bill would exclude specified firearms when possessed in compliance with two sets of requirements: Pennsylvania's Chapter 61, covering firearms and other dangerous articles, and applicable federal law. The federal clause expressly includes the National Firearms Act “to the extent required by law.” Both compliance conditions would matter under the proposed wording.
The firearm category lists machine guns, sawed-off shotguns with barrels shorter than 18 inches, and firearms specially made or specially adapted for concealment or silent discharge. These are the bill's operative descriptions, not a blanket exemption for anything commonly called an NFA item. The inclusion of machine guns does not dispense with federal restrictions: the same paragraph conditions the exclusion on compliance with applicable federal law as well as Chapter 61.
For owners, the proposed distinction is between a defense to a prohibited-offensive-weapons charge and an exclusion from the statutory definition for compliant possession. The text does not say that all federal paperwork is unnecessary, or establish which federal provisions apply to every person and firearm. Its qualification, “to the extent required by law,” leaves that underlying question to applicable law rather than answering it through a new state exemption covering every circumstance.
Other parts of the definition would remain restrictive. Bombs, grenades, blackjacks, sandbags and metal knuckles would appear in their own listed category. The bill would also retain a category for other implements used to inflict serious bodily injury that serve no common lawful purpose. Those provisions distinguish the proposed firearm-compliance exclusion from a repeal of the prohibited-offensive-weapons statute as a whole.
A separate change for electronic devices
HB 2855 also links the offensive-weapons definition's treatment of stun guns, stun batons, tasers and other electric or electronic weapons to section 908.1. Such devices would fall outside that listed category when possessed in compliance with that section. This is a separate cross-reference from the firearm paragraph's Chapter 61 and federal-law requirements, so the bill does not use one compliance test for every item it addresses.
Within section 908.1(b), the proposal would remove the condition that an incapacitation device be labeled with, or accompanied by, clearly written instructions about its use and the damages involved. It would retain the language permitting possession and use in the exercise of reasonable force to defend a person or property pursuant to Chapter 5. Removing the instructions condition would therefore not remove the subsection's reasonable-force and justification requirements.
The bill specifies that the act would take effect in 60 days, but that clause is not a countdown from introduction or committee referral. The current legislative history records referral to Judiciary, not passage or enactment, and supplies no enacted effective date. Committee consideration is the next procedural milestone to watch; whether the proposed firearm definition and electronic-device changes advance together remains unresolved.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
