Unlawful Possession of Weapons and Plurality of Conducts: Cassation No. 13303/2025 on Single Offence and Sentencing Criteria

With ruling No. 13303, filed on April 7, 2025, the Fifth Criminal Section of the Court of Cassation once again addresses the issue, far from theoretical, of unlawful possession of weapons in the presence of multiple firearms found simultaneously. The Panel, presided over by P. R. and drafted by C. F., confirms the most recent jurisprudential line: when weapons are kept in the same place and at the same time, a single offence is constituted, pursuant to Article 2 of Law No. 895/1967, while the number of weapons is relevant in determining the sanctioning treatment.

The Core of the Decision

The judges of legitimacy rejected the appeal of the defendant S. P. – convicted on appeal in Milan – deeming the qualification of a single offence to be correct. The focus is on the spatio-temporal criterion: it is necessary to verify whether the possession occurs "in a single temporal and local context." In such a case, even ten pistols constitute only one legal case, because the offense to the legal interest – public order and collective security – manifests itself in a unitary manner.

Territoriality and Formal Concurrence of Offences

However, the Court points out that the scenario changes if the weapons are found in different territories. In such a hypothesis, control falls on distinct public security branches, and therefore each conduct constitutes a new, autonomous offence, generating a formal concurrence. This principle aligns with Joint Sections No. 41588/2017, which had already drawn a clear line between the concept of permanence and that of plurality of criminal actions.

• Single place + single moment = single offence (Art. 2 Law 895/1967).
• Different places = plurality of offences, with possible material aggregation of penalties.
• Number and type of weapons affect the severity of the penalty pursuant to Art. 133 of the Italian Criminal Code.

The illegal possession of multiple weapons, in a single temporal and local context, constitutes a single offence, and the number of weapons can be relevant for determining the penalty. (In the reasoning, the Court stated that, conversely, the possession of weapons in different territories constitutes multiple criminal conducts, as control over their availability rests with the different branches of public security authorities, in relation to their respective territories of competence).

Comment: the maxim expresses two coordinates. On the one hand, it protects the defendant from the risk of an unreasonable multiplication of criminal charges when the conduct is substantially unitary; on the other hand, it values the number of weapons as a concrete aggravating circumstance, allowing the judge to calibrate the penalty based on actual dangerousness. This balances the need for certainty with that for proportionality, cornerstones of Art. 27 of the Italian Constitution and Art. 49 of the Charter of Nice.

Operational Implications for Defence and Public Security

For the defence counsel, the ruling offers a useful reference for trial strategy: demonstrating spatio-temporal unity can drastically reduce the sanctioning exposure. On the prosecution side, it will be crucial to identify any different domiciles of the suspect to argue for a plurality of offences. Law enforcement agencies will need to accurately document the place of discovery, while the judge will assess, pursuant to Art. 133 of the Italian Criminal Code, the quantity, quality, and offensive potential of the weapons.

Conclusions

Cassation No. 13303/2025 consolidates an orientation aimed at avoiding punitive duplications, without however diminishing the intrinsic gravity of unlawful possession of weapons. Legal professionals must therefore play on two fronts: on the one hand, ascertain the unity of conduct to contain the scope of the indictment; on the other, prepare arguments on the proportionality of the penalty, highlighting real mitigating circumstances. A difficult but essential balance in light of the constitutional principles of legality and culpability.