Commonwealth v. McKown
79 A.3d 678
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- McKown, a Pennsylvania resident, possessed a Pennsylvania concealed carry license that was revoked in April 2008 following a separate incident.
- He later obtained a New Hampshire concealed carry permit, which required presenting a valid license from his resident state under New Hampshire law.
- On September 2, 2008, McKown was found armed in a courthouse; he disclosed the New Hampshire permit but not a valid Pennsylvania license at the time.
- The trial court ruled that McKown did not have a valid Pennsylvania license and thus violated 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a)(1).
- The Commonwealth proceeded to trial, McKown was convicted of firearms not to be carried without a license, and the sentence was two years of probation; McKown timely appealed.
- The court granted relief on non-firearms seized during bail, remanding to return those items while affirming the conviction and most other rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a PA resident may carry under a foreign permit with reciprocity. | McKown contends §6106(b)(15) allows foreign permits if reciprocity exists. | Commonwealth contends there is no valid reliance on New Hampshire since AG similarity and §6109( ) requirements are not met. | Pennsylvania residents must have a PA license; foreign permits cannot substitute. |
| Constitutional challenges to §6106 and related provisions. | Appellant argues strict scrutiny applies and statutes violate US and PA constitutions. | Commonwealth argues intermediate scrutiny suffices and statutes are constitutional. | Section 6106 is constitutional under intermediate scrutiny; does not violate US or PA constitutions. |
| Whether revocation of McKown’s PA license was void ab initio and properly challengeable at trial. | McKown sought to attack revocation as void ab initio. | Revocation challenges must be pursued in the license-appeal process, not at criminal trial. | Revocation challenge waived; improper vehicle for collateral attack at sentencing. |
| Whether the seized non-firearm property should be returned. | Non-firearm items seized under bail conditions should be returned. | Only firearms were prohibited; other items were not prohibited by law. | Non-firearm items must be returned; order to return those items vacated and remanded. |
| Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in denying closure of the sentencing proceeding. | McKown sought to keep the sentencing open to the public for political reasons. | Open court presumption should be maintained; closure requires a compelling interest. | No abuse; courtroom remained open. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes limits on Second Amendment rights but allows restrictions on carrying)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (upholds longstanding concealed-carry regulation; discusses level of scrutiny)
- Caba v. Weaknecht, 64 A.3d 39 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (concludes concealed-carry regime pre-Heller is presumptively valid; varied analyses)
- Marzzarella v. United States, 614 F.3d 85 (3d Cir. 2010) (applies two-pronged Second Amendment analysis; discusses burden and scrutiny)
- Wright v. Commonwealth, 77 Pa. 470 (Pa. 1875) (historic precedent on regulation of concealed weapons)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (limited discussion of incorporation of Second Amendment; not controlling here)