Bacon v. Pennsylvania State Police
164 A.3d 563
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- In 2002 Bacon pled guilty in California to possession of a “billy” under former Cal. Penal Code §12020(a)(1); he received jail, probation, and a fine.
- In 2004 Bacon obtained relief under Cal. Penal Code §1203.4: his plea was set aside, a not-guilty plea entered, and the case dismissed, but the order included statutory limitations on the relief.
- After moving to Pennsylvania, Bacon attempted to buy a firearm in 2015 and was denied following a PICS background check; PSP flagged his California weapon conviction and denied the sale under 18 Pa. C.S. §6105.
- Bacon appealed to the OAG ALJ arguing the §1203.4 dismissal meant no conviction remained for purposes of 18 Pa.C.S. §6102/§6105, and alternatively arguing non-equivalency of the offenses and a constitutional challenge to 18 Pa.C.S. §908.
- The ALJ found the California §1203.4 relief did not expunge the conviction under California law and that the California offense (possession of a billy) is equivalent to Pa. §908; the ALJ denied relief and the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bacon’s §1203.4 dismissal in CA removes a "conviction" under PA’s Uniform Firearms Act definition | Bacon: §1203.4 set-aside is an expungement/"conviction wiped clean," so no Pennsylvania firearms disability | PSP: §1203.4 does not expunge or erase the conviction for many purposes, so it remains a conviction for PA firearm-disability law | Held: §1203.4 relief is not an expungement for these purposes; the CA conviction counts as a conviction under 18 Pa.C.S. §6102/§6105 |
| Whether Cal. §12020(a)(1) (billy) is equivalent to PA §908 (prohibited offensive weapons) | Bacon: alternatively argued the statutes are not equivalent so his CA offense shouldn't trigger §6105 disability | PSP: the elements align; possession of a billy falls within §908’s proscribed offensive weapons | Held: The offenses are equivalent; possession of a billy is the type of weapon covered by §908, so §6105 applies |
| Whether PA §908 is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment or PA Constitution (facial or as-applied) | Bacon: a billy is protected by the right to keep and bear arms; §908 therefore unconstitutional | PSP: constitutional claim was not raised below, is underdeveloped, and lacks merit; a billy is not protected | Held: Constitutional challenge waived for failure to raise below and undeveloped; court did not reach merits; claim rejected |
| Whether Bacon may seek relief elsewhere (remedy) | Bacon: sought reversal of denial of firearm purchase | PSP: statutory remedy exists under 18 Pa.C.S. §6105(d) to seek relief in PA common pleas court | Held: Affirmed denial; court noted Bacon may pursue relief under §6105(d) in common pleas court |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. McCaffrey, 816 A.2d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (convicting jurisdiction’s certificate that removes firearms disability controls PSP treatment)
- Freeman v. Pennsylvania State Police, 2 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (analyzing equivalency of out-of-state weapon-possession offense to Pa. §908)
- Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 763 A.2d 359 (Pa. 2000) (discussing effects when conviction is set aside on appeal)
- United States v. Doe, 980 F.2d 876 (3d Cir. 1992) (use of term “set aside” in federal context addressed in expungement discussion)
- In re Grant, 317 P.3d 612 (Cal. 2014) (California Supreme Court reference to motions to expunge under §1203.4 discussed as dicta)