Shock gloves ban takes effect

Summary#

S-10707 is an introduced bill that would amend New York’s General Business Law and Penal Law. It would ban specified commercial activity involving “shock gloves” and add them to the Penal Law’s list of weapons covered by a possession offense; the bill’s stated goal is to ban shock gloves. It has not become law.

  • People and businesses could not import, make, offer for sale, hold for sale, transfer or distribute shock gloves, including through online or other remote sales.
  • The bill defines a shock glove as a glove, glove-like device, or device designed primarily as a weapon that delivers an electrical shock through physical contact and can stun, incapacitate, disorient, paralyze or cause pain.
  • Possession would be covered by the Penal Law offense cited in the bill. The bill removes certain existing statutory exemptions for shock gloves, but the supplied text does not include the full list of exemptions.
  • People who already possess a shock glove would have 60 days after the law takes effect to surrender it to police or a sheriff’s office, or otherwise lawfully dispose of it. During that period, possession alone would not be an offense if it began before the law took effect and is solely for that purpose.
  • The Attorney General would have primary responsibility for enforcing the commercial ban. A court could order a violation to stop and impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation, or up to $4,000 for a knowing and willful violation. Proof of injury or knowing conduct would not be required for the basic penalty.
  • The Attorney General may make rules on identification, testing, labeling and commercial distribution, and must consult specified state agencies as appropriate. The bill takes effect 90 days after it becomes law.

What it means for you#

  • People who own shock gloves: You would have 60 days after the law takes effect to surrender or lawfully dispose of a glove you possessed before that date. After that period, possession could lead to the Penal Law offense, subject to any remaining statutory exceptions.
  • Businesses and other sellers or distributors: You could not import, manufacture, offer for sale, hold for sale, transfer or distribute shock gloves. The ban covers sales in person and by internet, phone, mail or other remote means.
  • The Attorney General and named state agencies: The Attorney General would enforce the commercial provisions and may issue rules. The bill calls for consultation with the Department of State, its Division of Consumer Protection, the Division of Criminal Justice Services, its Municipal Police Training Council, and the State Police, as appropriate.
  • Police departments and sheriff’s offices: The bill names them as places where existing owners may surrender gloves. It does not create a broader service or say how surrendered gloves must be handled.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • The bill allows civil penalties, but gives no estimate of how many might be imposed or how much they might raise.
  • The Attorney General may make rules and would have enforcement duties, but the bill provides no funding or staffing estimate.

What is unclear#

  • The supplied material does not include the current General Business Law or Penal Law provisions being amended. I could not verify how the bill’s changes interact with current possession rules or what the referenced exemptions cover.
  • The bill gives no technical test for deciding whether a device can cause the listed effects, or how its identification and testing rules would work.
  • “Substantially similar” wearable devices are mentioned in the rulemaking authority but are not separately defined. The bill says rules must remain consistent with its definitions and prohibitions.
  • The enforcement section refers to advertising and other commercial activity, but the main prohibition does not expressly list advertising.
  • The bill does not explain what counts as “otherwise lawfully” disposing of a glove, or give a date for when the 60-day period would begin beyond tying it to the law’s effective date.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to reduce the availability and possession of devices designed to deliver painful or incapacitating electric shocks.
  • A definition in both the business and criminal laws could give sellers, owners and enforcers a common description of the devices covered.
  • Rulemaking on testing, labeling and identification could help address changes in device technology.
  • The 60-day period gives existing owners time to surrender or dispose of their gloves before possession becomes an offense.

Case against#

  • The definition covers devices capable of causing pain as well as devices capable of more severe effects, without setting a technical threshold for those capabilities.
  • The bill creates a possession offense but does not provide details on how people should lawfully dispose of gloves other than surrendering them to police or a sheriff’s office.
  • The Attorney General could set rules on testing, labeling and distribution, while the bill leaves key practical details to those rules.
  • The bill provides no funding estimate for rulemaking or enforcement, and the supplied text does not show how the changes would fit with current statutory exceptions.