Shock gloves banned for sale

Summary#

A-11672 would amend New York’s General Business Law and Penal Law; it would not create a separate law or agency. It would ban commercial activity involving “shock gloves” and make possessing one a misdemeanor. The bill’s stated goal is to ban shock gloves.

  • The ban would cover importing, making, offering for sale, holding for sale, transferring or distributing shock gloves, including through online and other remote sales.
  • The bill defines a shock glove to include a glove or glove-like device, or a weapon designed primarily to deliver an electrical shock through physical contact that can stun, incapacitate, disorient, paralyze or cause pain.
  • The Attorney General could seek a court order to stop a violation and civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, or up to $4,000 for a knowing and willful violation. Proof of injury or of knowing or intentional conduct would not be required to establish a violation.
  • The Attorney General would have primary responsibility for enforcing the commercial ban and could make rules about identification, testing, labeling and distribution. The office would have to consult specified state agencies and periodically review the definitions.
  • Current possessors would have 60 days after the law takes effect to surrender or otherwise lawfully dispose of a shock glove. During that period, possession would be exempt from the crime only if it began before the law took effect and was solely for surrender or disposal.

What it means for you#

  • People who possess a shock glove: After the 60-day period, possession would be a misdemeanor under the bill. People who already possess one would have the limited surrender-or-disposal period described above.
  • People and businesses involved in commerce: The listed commercial activities would be prohibited, whether conducted in person or remotely. The bill also excludes shock gloves from certain existing Penal Law possession exemptions for people listed in subparagraphs (a) through (e).
  • The Attorney General and named state agencies: The Attorney General would have enforcement and rulemaking powers. The Department of State, Division of Criminal Justice Services, Municipal Police Training Council and State Police would be consulted as appropriate.
  • Others: The bill does not directly change rules for other weapons. It has been introduced and referred to committee; it is not law, and passage is uncertain.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

  • The bill authorizes enforcement, rulemaking and civil penalties, but gives no estimate of staffing or other public costs.
  • It does not state how civil-penalty revenue would be used.
  • No estimates are given for costs to businesses or people who must surrender or dispose of a glove.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the full current General Business Law or Penal Law, so the bill’s changes and exemptions cannot be fully checked against current law.
  • The definition’s reach may be uncertain, particularly for “substantially similar” wearable devices. The bill authorizes rules about them but says rules must stay consistent with the law’s definitions and prohibitions.
  • The bill does not set out a process for deciding whether a particular device meets the definition, or how that decision could be challenged.
  • No start date can be given unless the bill becomes law: it would take effect 90 days after becoming law.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that it addresses devices designed to deliver a painful or disabling electrical shock through physical contact.
  • The commercial ban covers several ways of supplying the devices, including remote sales, rather than only sales in person.
  • The Attorney General’s rulemaking and review powers could help address changes in device technology, while requiring consultation with specified agencies.

Case against#

  • The ban would reach possession as well as commercial activity, and the bill makes only a limited temporary exception for people who already possess a glove.
  • One concern is that the definition could be hard to apply to some glove-like or wearable devices, while the bill does not spell out a device-by-device decision or appeal process.
  • The bill authorizes enforcement and rulemaking without providing a cost estimate or funding details.
  • The bill removes certain Penal Law possession exemptions for shock gloves, but the supplied material does not include those exemptions’ full text or explain how the change would affect each group.