18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 908 (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: The law reads "in compliance" Either 1 of 2 things is true. 1. You do not have to follow any of the rules and regulations the DOJ is enjoined from enforcing to be "in compliance" and No Form 1 or Form 4 is required and neither are markings. OR 2. You still need to follow the rules to be "in compliance" even though the DOJ is prohibited from enforcing them. In that case Form 1 and Marking are both required. There is no middle interpretation where Form 1s are required but not markings. Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Originally Posted By Basil: I believe that video specifically applies to Silencer Shop Foundation vs ATF - so yes, if you are ONLY covered under the Silencer Shop Foundation vs. ATF injunction, you are still required to comply with the federal marking requirements. If you are covered under the Jensen vs ATF injunction, however, that ruling specifically talks about marking requirements, and how plaintiffs are NOT required to add the "maker" markings. Here's the problem gray area for me - I'm still submitting Form 1's for my SBR's (just got one back in less than 48 hours) - I am covered under federal law with the Jensen injunction from the requirement to add my name and city to the SBR or SBS. BUT - am I covered under PA law from having to add that "maker" marking to the firearm? I've complied with all of the Federal laws I am required to in order to build that SBR/SBS, which is what it appears that PA requires - but since that rule is still on the books, and the Feds are not allowed to compel me to add that marking, does that still mean I'm complying with it, or do I still need to mark it? That's the problem. The law reads "in compliance" Either 1 of 2 things is true. 1. You do not have to follow any of the rules and regulations the DOJ is enjoined from enforcing to be "in compliance" and No Form 1 or Form 4 is required and neither are markings. OR 2. You still need to follow the rules to be "in compliance" even though the DOJ is prohibited from enforcing them. In that case Form 1 and Marking are both required. There is no middle interpretation where Form 1s are required but not markings. And that is not even bringing the confusion that paragraph three adds which basically relegates the entire offensive weapon law to only an add on offense when dealing with any firearm. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: The law reads "in compliance" Either 1 of 2 things is true. 1. You do not have to follow any of the rules and regulations the DOJ is enjoined from enforcing to be "in compliance" and No Form 1 or Form 4 is required and neither are markings. OR 2. You still need to follow the rules to be "in compliance" even though the DOJ is prohibited from enforcing them. In that case Form 1 and Marking are both required. There is no middle interpretation where Form 1s are required but not markings. Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Originally Posted By Basil: I believe that video specifically applies to Silencer Shop Foundation vs ATF - so yes, if you are ONLY covered under the Silencer Shop Foundation vs. ATF injunction, you are still required to comply with the federal marking requirements. If you are covered under the Jensen vs ATF injunction, however, that ruling specifically talks about marking requirements, and how plaintiffs are NOT required to add the "maker" markings. Here's the problem gray area for me - I'm still submitting Form 1's for my SBR's (just got one back in less than 48 hours) - I am covered under federal law with the Jensen injunction from the requirement to add my name and city to the SBR or SBS. BUT - am I covered under PA law from having to add that "maker" marking to the firearm? I've complied with all of the Federal laws I am required to in order to build that SBR/SBS, which is what it appears that PA requires - but since that rule is still on the books, and the Feds are not allowed to compel me to add that marking, does that still mean I'm complying with it, or do I still need to mark it? That's the problem. The law reads "in compliance" Either 1 of 2 things is true. 1. You do not have to follow any of the rules and regulations the DOJ is enjoined from enforcing to be "in compliance" and No Form 1 or Form 4 is required and neither are markings. OR 2. You still need to follow the rules to be "in compliance" even though the DOJ is prohibited from enforcing them. In that case Form 1 and Marking are both required. There is no middle interpretation where Form 1s are required but not markings. Unfortunately, I’m in total agreement here and that’s what I’ve been telling anyone who asks since the day the news broke. We’re in a grey zone so IMO erring on the side of caution is the logical choice, either do the ATF Forms or wait until a positive answer is provided. In an absolutely crazy twist of events the ATF stops processing the forms and since there is no way to follow the law and new SBR, SBS & AOW are back door banned. Bizarre and highly unlikely but that’s what politicians do best. So I just completed a Form 1 for my last AR15 pistol. |
|
For your reading entertainment. No clearly documented, publicly reported case appears to exist of a standalone Pennsylvania state prosecution solely for possession of a suppressor (under 18 Pa.C.S. § 908, prohibited offensive weapons) without other accompanying charges. Extensive searches of case law, news reports, district attorney announcements, and related sources turn up no published appellate opinion or detailed news account of a pure “possession only” state charge limited to an unregistered or illegal suppressor under § 908. What the available records show instead Suppressor-related state charges almost always appear as part of multi-count cases, especially gun-trafficking or manufacturing operations. Examples include: Montgomery County cases (2023–2025) involving 3D-printed ghost guns, “switches” (machine-gun conversion devices), and suppressors. Defendants faced “prohibited offensive weapons” / “make/repair/sell offensive weapons” counts alongside corrupt organizations, illegal firearms sales/transfers, conspiracy, persons-not-to-possess, and other offenses. Similar multi-charge trafficking and manufacturing arrests in which suppressors were recovered or manufactured, but never as the sole charge. Standalone or primary possession prosecutions for other § 908 items (brass knuckles, certain knives, sawed-off shotguns, etc.) do appear in Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions, but suppressors do not show up in the same isolated fashion in published opinions. In short: The publicly available record shows those charges occurring as add-ons (or in combination with manufacturing/sales) rather than as pure, standalone possession prosecutions under state law. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: For your reading entertainment. No clearly documented, publicly reported case appears to exist of a standalone Pennsylvania state prosecution solely for possession of a suppressor (under 18 Pa.C.S. § 908, prohibited offensive weapons) without other accompanying charges. Extensive searches of case law, news reports, district attorney announcements, and related sources turn up no published appellate opinion or detailed news account of a pure “possession only” state charge limited to an unregistered or illegal suppressor under § 908. What the available records show instead Suppressor-related state charges almost always appear as part of multi-count cases, especially gun-trafficking or manufacturing operations. Examples include: Montgomery County cases (2023–2025) involving 3D-printed ghost guns, “switches” (machine-gun conversion devices), and suppressors. Defendants faced “prohibited offensive weapons” / “make/repair/sell offensive weapons” counts alongside corrupt organizations, illegal firearms sales/transfers, conspiracy, persons-not-to-possess, and other offenses. Similar multi-charge trafficking and manufacturing arrests in which suppressors were recovered or manufactured, but never as the sole charge. Standalone or primary possession prosecutions for other § 908 items (brass knuckles, certain knives, sawed-off shotguns, etc.) do appear in Pennsylvania Superior Court decisions, but suppressors do not show up in the same isolated fashion in published opinions. In short: The publicly available record shows those charges occurring as add-ons (or in combination with manufacturing/sales) rather than as pure, standalone possession prosecutions under state law. What happens when the charges for the original indictment are thrown out/dismissed for whatever reason and the only charge left is the suppressor or 922r violation or whatever other charge was tacked on and you’re found guilty? Maybe it’s never happened or maybe it has but really, who wants to be the test case? |
|
Originally Posted By Princeton: What happens when the charges for the original indictment are thrown out/dismissed for whatever reason and the only charge left is the suppressor or 922r violation or whatever other charge was tacked on and you’re found guilty? Maybe it’s never happened or maybe it has but really, who wants to be the test case? Nobody wants to be a test case, yet at the same time look at something like 922(r) that is just about universally ignored. Also with regard to state law. A suppressor by itself is clearly not "a firearm made or adapted for silent discharge" If they want to charge you with the assembled firearm there are two gaping holes in the law. 1. PA doesnt define silent which means the law defaults to the common dictionary definition. A suppressed firearm is absolutely not silent according to that definition, there is a clear report. 2. Next we move to the definition of a firearm according to the Offensive weapon law. "Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. The assembled firearm adapted for "silent discharge" is clearly a "firearm". This then invokes paragraph 3. (3) 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. This makes it an add on offense only. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Nobody wants to be a test case, yet at the same time look at something like 922(r) that is just about universally ignored. Also with regard to state law. A suppressor by itself is clearly not "a firearm made or adapted for silent discharge" If they want to charge you with the assembled firearm there are two gaping holes in the law. 1. PA doesnt define silent which means the law defaults to the common dictionary definition. A suppressed firearm is absolutely not silent according to that definition, there is a clear report. 2. Next we move to the definition of a firearm according to the Offensive weapon law. "Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. The assembled firearm adapted for "silent discharge" is clearly a "firearm". This then invokes paragraph 3. (3) 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. This makes it an add on offense only. So you’re suggesting it’s not a charge that could stand on it own if all other charges were dismissed, it too would be dismissed? |
|
Originally Posted By Princeton: So you’re suggesting it’s not a charge that could stand on it own if all other charges were dismissed, it too would be dismissed? Yes that is my interpretation, if the charge could even be brought. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
|
Originally Posted By pug826: Honestly if anyone did get busted for any of this, it would definitely go to court and there is just no way any of this would hold up Absolutely, but it remains a barrier for dealer transfers. The statute should not exist and we need to press our representatives to get removed. It is reduculously ambiguous and only serves to inconvenience law-abiding citizens who wish to exercise their 2A rights. |
Joined:
Feb 2026
Posts:
51
EE: 0% (0)
PA, USA
|
Originally Posted By pug826: Honestly if anyone did get busted for any of this, it would definitely go to court and there is just no way any of this would hold up Entirely possible, but the small problem is you have to hire a lawyer, and pay them. I'm doing that now unrelated to 2A, and it's expensive to prove you are right. |
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: The law reads "in compliance" Either 1 of 2 things is true. 1. You do not have to follow any of the rules and regulations the DOJ is enjoined from enforcing to be "in compliance" and No Form 1 or Form 4 is required and neither are markings. OR 2. You still need to follow the rules to be "in compliance" even though the DOJ is prohibited from enforcing them. In that case Form 1 and Marking are both required. There is no middle interpretation where Form 1s are required but not markings. Well then, it would appear that the safest path is the best path - continue as usual until things are resolved - thank you! |
|
Saw this memo on Facebook today: Law-abiding residents should not face potential criminal liability under Pennsylvania law because of uncertainty surrounding federal requirements that may no longer be enforceable against them. Memo In the near future, Representatives Kerwin, Hamm, Kephart, Bernstine, and I intend to introduce legislation to clarify firearm rights for residents of this Commonwealth. Recently, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an opinion in Silencer Shop Found. v. BATFE (2026), finding several provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) governing silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns unconstitutional as applied to the parties covered by the court’s order. Historically, the NFA’s registration and approval requirements were justified as measures supporting the collection of a federal tax. Following enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, however, the tax imposed on the making and transfer of these items was reduced to $0. The court concluded that, without a tax to assess or collect, the challenged requirements could no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power. Although the court’s injunction is not nationwide, its decision has created significant uncertainty for Pennsylvania residents seeking to lawfully acquire or possess these items. Pennsylvania, like several other states, independently regulates certain firearms and related items as “prohibited offensive weapons” under Title 18. At the same time, current Pennsylvania law provides an affirmative defense when an individual can establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they complied with applicable NFA requirements. Consequently, the availability of a defense under Pennsylvania law may depend upon compliance with federal requirements that a court has now declared unconstitutional and enjoined from enforcement against certain individuals. Pennsylvania’s laws governing the exercise of a fundamental right should be clear, consistent, and readily understood. Law-abiding residents should not face potential criminal liability under Pennsylvania law because of uncertainty surrounding federal requirements that may no longer be enforceable against them. This legislation will clarify the interaction between Pennsylvania law and the NFA and ensure that Commonwealth residents are not required, as a condition of lawful possession under State law, to comply with federal requirements that have been declared unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable. Please join us in co-sponsoring this important piece of legislation. |
|
Originally Posted By Princeton: Saw this memo on Facebook today: Law-abiding residents should not face potential criminal liability under Pennsylvania law because of uncertainty surrounding federal requirements that may no longer be enforceable against them. This is fantastic news! I'd prefer that the entire statute gets shitcanned, but I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth. |
|
Originally Posted By Bravo_Six: This is fantastic news! I'd prefer that the entire statute gets shitcanned, but I'm not looking a gift horse in the mouth. I don't mean to piss in the punchbowl, but the dems control the house and we have a dem gov. Republicans hold the senate by 4 votes for now, but we're one bad election from becoming Virginia. |
"Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan
"Everything I want to do is illegal." - Joel Salatin
"Everything I want to do is illegal." - Joel Salatin
|
I don’t know how to properly post twitter links… https://x.com/goapennsylvania/status/2092616041247445337?s=46&t=hrmbRFj96P8lFsmpNJjzNQ “Rep. Rob Kauffman is introducing a bill to remove suppressors & SBRs/SBSs from the prohibited weapons list and end this legal trap. 🔇⚖️ @PAHouseGOP @PaHouseDems Demand your State Rep co-sponsor this critical fix today! Follow the link to send a message.” |
|
While I'd love to see the law adjusted I dont see it happening with our governor. I think the more likely route is through the courts that the law doesnt restrict Suppressors, SBRs or SBSs. At all. The law has three exceptions: 1. "In Compliance" with 26 USC 5801 et seq (which is the one everyone is fixated on) 2. Police forensics labs. 3. (3) 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. For the this section of law a firearm is defined as: "Firearm." Any weapon which is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon So any "firearm made or adapted to silent discharge" or a "sawed off shotgun" falls under the exception and is only chargeable as an add on to another violation. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
|
GOA contact link. Let's hammer them. https://pennsylvania.gunowners.org/08262026/ ETA: I understand that we have challenges given the statists holding office, but we should still try. Gun rights are slowly becoming a bipartisan cause among voters. I see liberals at most of my local matches. |
|
Originally Posted By Bravo_Six: GOA contact link. Let's hammer them. https://pennsylvania.gunowners.org/08262026/ ETA: I understand that we have challenges given the statists holding office, but we should still try. Gun rights are slowly becoming a bipartisan cause among voters. I see liberals at most of my local matches. Emailed my Rep through the link. The Mrs. also on occasion has contact with our Rep. I'll make sure the next time she see's her she brings up the topic. Although I'm sure she's is fully on board already. |
Even though it may seem that the OP is mentally disabled, calling him a "retard" is a personal attack. -DKProf
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
This is bud light marketing, meets Ocean Gate engineering with Sig public relations level of quality. -RC03
 State lawmakers proposes changes to Pa. gun laws regarding suppressors, short-barrelled rifles |
|
That reporter sounds like a make version of Trisha Takanowa. The way he drags out the last symbol of a senteeeeeeeeennnnncccce.   Family Guy | Best of Tricia Takanawa |
