Com. v. Battle, W.
Com. v. Battle, W. No. 1483 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 9, 2017Background
- In July 2014 William Battle passed through a metal detector at the Pike County Administration Building and removed a switchblade (4-inch blade with a handle switch) from his pocket.
- A deputy inspected the knife; Battle was arrested and charged under 18 Pa.C.S. § 908 for possession of a prohibited offensive weapon.
- A jury convicted Battle in January 2016. At sentencing (March 31, 2016) Battle moved under Pa.R.Crim.P. 704(b) to declare § 908 unconstitutional; the court denied the motion and sentenced him to 1–3 years’ incarceration.
- Battle filed a timely motion for reconsideration (denied) and appealed to the Superior Court, raising a single issue challenging the constitutionality of § 908 under the Second Amendment.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding that switchblades/automatic knives are ‘‘offensive weapons’’ not protected by the Second Amendment because they are dangerous and not typically possessed by law‑abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PA § 908’s ban on automatic knives violates the Second Amendment | Battle: He has a right under Heller to possess a switchblade for lawful self‑defense | Commonwealth: § 908 targets offensive/dangerous/unusual weapons not protected by the Second Amendment | Court: § 908 is constitutional; automatic knives are not protected as they are dangerous and not typically possessed for lawful purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (recognizes an individual right to bear arms but limits it to weapons typically possessed by law‑abiding citizens and allows historical prohibitions on dangerous/unusual weapons)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) (Second Amendment protection extends only to certain types of weapons)
- Lehman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 839 A.2d 265 (Pa. 2003) (right to bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation under the police power)
- Commonwealth v. Hitchon, 549 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. 1988) (Section 908 targets implements that serve no common lawful purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Stewart, 495 A.2d 584 (Pa. Super. 1985) (discusses weapons lacking common lawful purpose)
- Commonwealth v. Ashford, 397 A.2d 420 (Pa. Super. 1979) (distinguishes weapons with conceivable lawful uses from those with common lawful purposes)