Unlawful possession of weapons and plurality of conduct: Cassation n. 13303/2025 on a single crime 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 far from theoretical issue of unlawful possession of weapons in the presence of multiple firearms found simultaneously. The Panel, chaired 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 crime is constituted, pursuant to art. 2 of law no. 895/1967, while the number of weapons is relevant in determining the sanction.

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 crime 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 cases, even ten pistols constitute a single offense, because the violation of the legal interest – public order and collective security – manifests itself in a unitary way.

Territoriality and formal concurrence of crimes

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 crime, generating a formal concurrence. The 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 crime (art. 2 Law 895/1967).
• Different places = plurality of crimes, with possible material accumulation of penalties.
• Number and type of weapons affect the severity of the penalty pursuant to art. 133 c.p.

The illegal possession of multiple weapons, in a single temporal and local context, constitutes a single crime, and the number of weapons may be relevant for sentencing purposes. (In its reasoning, the Court stated that, conversely, the possession of weapons in different territories constitutes multiple criminal acts, as control over their availability rests with the different branches of public security authorities, in relation to their territorial jurisdiction).

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 Constitution and art. 49 of the Charter of Nice.

Operational implications for defense and public security

For the defense counsel, the ruling offers a useful reference for trial strategy: demonstrating spatio-temporal unity can drastically reduce the sanctionable exposure. On the prosecution side, however, it will be crucial to identify any different residences of the suspect to argue for a plurality of crimes. Law enforcement agencies will need to accurately document the place of discovery, while the judge will assess, pursuant to art. 133 c.p., the quantity, quality, and offensive potential of the weapons.

Conclusions

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