Commonwealth v. Anderson
169 A.3d 1092
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Jason Anderson, a private security guard certified under the Lethal Weapons Training Act (Act 235), carried a firearm in Philadelphia on Nov. 3, 2013; he shot and killed Mark Ellis during an altercation. Police found he lacked a PUFA firearms license but had an Act 235 certificate.
- The Commonwealth charged Anderson with impersonating an officer and two PUFA offenses: 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1) (carrying a firearm without a PUFA license) and § 6108 (carrying an unlicensed firearm on public streets in Philadelphia).
- Anderson moved to quash the PUFA charges, arguing his Act 235 certification substituted for a PUFA license when on duty or traveling to/from duty; the trial court granted the motion.
- The Commonwealth appealed; an en banc Pennsylvania Superior Court panel reviewed whether an Act 235 certificate functions as a PUFA license or otherwise excuses PUFA noncompliance.
- The Superior Court reversed: it held Act 235 certification is distinct from, and does not substitute for, the PUFA license requirement; the statutes are reconcilable and impose separate, complementary regulatory schemes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an Act 235 certificate substitutes for the PUFA license required to carry a firearm | Commonwealth: PUFA requires a §6109 license; Act 235 certification does not satisfy PUFA licensing | Anderson: Act 235 certificate allows security guards on duty or going to/from duty to carry without a PUFA license (i.e., it functions as a substitution) | Court held Act 235 certificate is not a PUFA license and cannot substitute for the §6109 license; PUFA licensing remains required |
| Whether Act 235 and the PUFA are irreconcilable such that Act 235 (as later/special law) would prevail over PUFA licensing | Commonwealth: The statutes are complementary; both can coexist and impose distinct requirements | Anderson/Trial Ct.: Act 235 is a later, special provision that should control and exempt certified agents from PUFA licensing when on duty/commuting | Court held the statutes are reconcilable and complementary; no conflict justifying exemption — both regimes apply separately |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Nieves, 876 A.2d 423 (Pa. Super. 2005) (prima facie burden at pretrial stage)
- Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia v. Lieberman, 336 A.2d 249 (Pa. 1975) (governmental license as permission)
- Commonwealth v. Stotelmyer, 110 A.3d 146 (Pa. 2015) (statutory-construction principles for reconciling statutes)
- Banfield v. Cortes, 110 A.3d 155 (Pa. 2015) (deference to administrative interpretation)
- Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 89 A.3d 679 (Pa. Super. 2014) (PUFA licensing serves law enforcement and verification purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Lopez, 565 A.2d 437 (Pa. 1989) (Section 6106(b) exceptions are affirmative defenses)
- In re Downingtown, 161 A.3d 844 (Pa. 2017) (obligation to construe related statutes in harmony)