S
S
SHOOTER13
Guest
Pennsylvania Knife Laws
Pennsylvania knife statutes are short and lacking in clear definitions. In order to determine what the law is, one must look at Court decisions, or case law. This article takes the statutes and the case law and puts it in a clear and organized manner that anyone can understand.
What is Legal to Own
What the Law States
§ 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….
“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…… or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose…..
Implements to Inflict Bodily Injury and Common Lawful Purpose Defined
In 1975, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, set forth a “circumstances-of-the-possession” test, in Commonwealth v. Gatto, in order to determine if a weapon had a common lawful purpose. Mr. Gatto was arrested for having a thirty-inch knife during the early morning hours in the downtown area of Scranton. The Court held that the knife was an implement for the infliction of bodily injury, which served no common lawful purpose. In its ruling, the Court stated: “Had appellant been on a journey through the tropical rain forests of South America, attempting to travel by foot from Bogota, Colombia to Caracas, Venezuela it could then be reasonably concluded that a thirty inch knife had a common lawful purpose; but appellant was in a high crime urban area of Scranton.”
Four years later, in Commonwealth v. Ashford, the Court state that Gatto should not be construed as setting forth a circumstances-of-the-possession test for determining whether an weapon served a common lawful purpose, saying the test had no place in determining whether there had been a violation of weapons possession code. Shortly after Ashford, in Commonwealth v. Fisher, the Supreme Court held that on a charge possessing or carrying a prohibited offensive weapon, the circumstances-of-the-possession test was inappropriate in determining whether the weapon served a common lawful purpose.
In 1980, in Commonwealth v. Artis, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed Mr Artis’ conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon was reversed because the trial court improperly applied the circumstances of the possession test when determining whether the knife served a common lawful purpose. The knife was a folding knife, which Mr. Artis testified he purchased at a sporting goods store, to use for hunting and fishing. Therefore, it did not matter under what circumstances he possessed it, as it had a common lawful purpose.
More recently, in 1996, in the case of Commonwealth v. Karlson, the Court concluded that Mr. Karlson did not violate the prohibited offensive weapon statute when he sold four “Cobra” knives to an undercover police officer. The Court held that in order to convict Mr. Karlson, the state was required to offer evidence that the knives served no common lawful purpose. It said that unless they were specifically outlawed, knives were not objects of a criminal nature that were prohibited under the prohibited weapons statute.
Conversely, in 2007, in Commonwealth v. Alvarez, Mr. Alvarez’s possession of a two and a half foot long medieval-type battle-axe with a blade that was almost 10-inches long was held to be within the definition of a weapon that did not have a common lawful purpose.
Conclusion on Pennsylvania Knife Law
It is illegal to own or carry a dagger, sword cane, any automatic knife, or any implement for the infliction of bodily injury, which serves no common lawful purpose.
It is legal to open or conceal carry any other type of knife in Pennsylvania.
Sources
Pennsylvania knife statutes are short and lacking in clear definitions. In order to determine what the law is, one must look at Court decisions, or case law. This article takes the statutes and the case law and puts it in a clear and organized manner that anyone can understand.
What is Legal to Own
- It is legal to own Bowie knife
- It is legal to own a Balisong, or butterfly knife
- It is legal to own a penknife
- It is legal to own a concealed knife, such as in a lipstick or belt buckle
- It is legal to own any kind of hunting knife
- It is illegal to own a dagger
- It is illegal to own any automatic knife
- It is illegal to own a sword cane
- It is illegal to own any implement for the infliction of bodily injury, which serves no “common lawful purpose”
- It is illegal to open or conceal carry a dagger
- It is illegal to open or conceal carry any automatic knife
- It is illegal to open or conceal carry a sword cane
- It is legal to open or conceal carry any hunting knife
- It is legal to open or conceal carry any knife that does not open automatically and has a lawful purpose
What the Law States
§ 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….
“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…… or other implement for the infliction of serious bodily injury which serves no common lawful purpose…..
Implements to Inflict Bodily Injury and Common Lawful Purpose Defined
In 1975, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, set forth a “circumstances-of-the-possession” test, in Commonwealth v. Gatto, in order to determine if a weapon had a common lawful purpose. Mr. Gatto was arrested for having a thirty-inch knife during the early morning hours in the downtown area of Scranton. The Court held that the knife was an implement for the infliction of bodily injury, which served no common lawful purpose. In its ruling, the Court stated: “Had appellant been on a journey through the tropical rain forests of South America, attempting to travel by foot from Bogota, Colombia to Caracas, Venezuela it could then be reasonably concluded that a thirty inch knife had a common lawful purpose; but appellant was in a high crime urban area of Scranton.”
Four years later, in Commonwealth v. Ashford, the Court state that Gatto should not be construed as setting forth a circumstances-of-the-possession test for determining whether an weapon served a common lawful purpose, saying the test had no place in determining whether there had been a violation of weapons possession code. Shortly after Ashford, in Commonwealth v. Fisher, the Supreme Court held that on a charge possessing or carrying a prohibited offensive weapon, the circumstances-of-the-possession test was inappropriate in determining whether the weapon served a common lawful purpose.
In 1980, in Commonwealth v. Artis, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed Mr Artis’ conviction for possession of a prohibited weapon was reversed because the trial court improperly applied the circumstances of the possession test when determining whether the knife served a common lawful purpose. The knife was a folding knife, which Mr. Artis testified he purchased at a sporting goods store, to use for hunting and fishing. Therefore, it did not matter under what circumstances he possessed it, as it had a common lawful purpose.
More recently, in 1996, in the case of Commonwealth v. Karlson, the Court concluded that Mr. Karlson did not violate the prohibited offensive weapon statute when he sold four “Cobra” knives to an undercover police officer. The Court held that in order to convict Mr. Karlson, the state was required to offer evidence that the knives served no common lawful purpose. It said that unless they were specifically outlawed, knives were not objects of a criminal nature that were prohibited under the prohibited weapons statute.
Conversely, in 2007, in Commonwealth v. Alvarez, Mr. Alvarez’s possession of a two and a half foot long medieval-type battle-axe with a blade that was almost 10-inches long was held to be within the definition of a weapon that did not have a common lawful purpose.
Conclusion on Pennsylvania Knife Law
It is illegal to own or carry a dagger, sword cane, any automatic knife, or any implement for the infliction of bodily injury, which serves no common lawful purpose.
It is legal to open or conceal carry any other type of knife in Pennsylvania.
Sources
- 18 P.S. § 4416 (2013)
- Commonwealth v. Gatto, 344 A.2d 566 (1975)
- Commonwealth v. Ashford, 397 A.2d 420 (1979)
- Commonwealth v. Fisher, 400 A.2d 1284 (1979)
- Commonwealth v. Karlson, 674 A.2d 249 (1996)
- Commonwealth v. Artis, 418 A.2d 644, (1980)
- Commonwealth v. Alvarez, 935 A.2d 3, (2007)
A little out of date for MS. Knives of any description may be carried openly without a permit (same as firearms), but totally concealed requires a permit for certain knives. Our definition of concealed changed a couple years ago.
This is why I don't rely on unofficial websites for this kind of info, and instead read the official published law at the official site. I'd advise others to do the same.
This is why I don't rely on unofficial websites for this kind of info, and instead read the official published law at the official site. I'd advise others to do the same.
TN laws are out of date as well.
Any and all state knife ownership and carry restrictions were removed in July of last year...
Any and all state knife ownership and carry restrictions were removed in July of last year...
i didnt cross check, but i remember automatic knives being legalized in Indiana a couple years ago. so basically i can carry anything in any condition, so long as its not on school property, or school bus, and its not a ballistic knife or throwing star.
We used to play with throwing stars growing up. Took a big sheet of plywood and leaned up against the side of Dad's workshop and we'd throw until it felt like our arms were going to fall off.
Throwing knives.
Axes/hatchets.
machetes
You name it.
truth.
My state knife laws are pretty simple.
"There are no banned knife types in Kentucky."
Throwing knives.
Axes/hatchets.
machetes
You name it.
truth.
My state knife laws are pretty simple.
"There are no banned knife types in Kentucky."
TomcatPC
.270 WIN
I found a working 1950's Hammer Brand Switchblade knife a couple weeks back. I wonder how illegal that would be if it were found on me by a Policeman? LOL!!!
Going to be a good boy and just keep it at home. I think it might be legal to own?, but not carry it around in public? Or something like that. I tried to look up laws on Switchblades and got even more confused...LOL.
Mark
Going to be a good boy and just keep it at home. I think it might be legal to own?, but not carry it around in public? Or something like that. I tried to look up laws on Switchblades and got even more confused...LOL.
Mark
TomcatPC
.270 WIN
I've got a couple switchblades from the 50's that need to be repaired, and one that works good. Got a couple modern ones too, but they are cheap ones.
I really don't see the big deal about switchblades?? The Colonial "Shur-Snap" that I have that is worn out LOL...really...is just not very "intimidating" LOL. It has about a two inch blade...really can't see a criminal using it LOL. I could see it in an old ladies sewing kit though LOL. But in the 1950's...I guess switchblades really scared the public?
Mark
I really don't see the big deal about switchblades?? The Colonial "Shur-Snap" that I have that is worn out LOL...really...is just not very "intimidating" LOL. It has about a two inch blade...really can't see a criminal using it LOL. I could see it in an old ladies sewing kit though LOL. But in the 1950's...I guess switchblades really scared the public?
Mark
S
SHOOTER13
Guest
DISCLAIMER:
The knife laws in any state can change at a moments notice...so it IS up to the individual to know his/her knife laws by researching the current laws in your state via trusted sources.
( Just so happens the Pennsylvania laws printed above are current...YMMV )
The knife laws in any state can change at a moments notice...so it IS up to the individual to know his/her knife laws by researching the current laws in your state via trusted sources.
( Just so happens the Pennsylvania laws printed above are current...YMMV )