*1 Furthermore, this of the Common- contrary to conclusion Court, opening I it is foreseeable wealth believe “agricultural security area” could through road private agricultural production preservation and the interfere with private proceedings road Applying the AASL farmlands. parcel of a landlocked prohibit the owner would road,” submit obtaining “private simply but would road, “agricultural in an when located placement turn, area,” by the security approval ALCAB. placement would of the road ensure ALCAB review reasonable, which fair to both prudent that it is would be property. and the of the landlocked the farmer owner I Accordingly, the decision of the Common- would reverse Court. wealth joins Dissenting Opinion. NIGRO
Justice A.2d 110 POLICE, Appellant, PENNSYLVANIA STATE v. PAULSHOCK, Appellee. John Police, Appellant,
v. Reed, Rodney Appellee. Supreme Pennsylvania. Court
Argued May 2003. Nov. Decided *2 Christie, Barbara L. Reynolds, Joanna State Police. Joseph Tranguch, George Hludzik,
Jarrod R. for John Paul- shock. Handelman,
Jarad Wade for Rodney Reed. CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, Before SAYLOR, EAKIN, LAMB, JJ.
OPINION LAMB. Justice discretionary of the Commonwealth review granted
We for review petitions of consolidated disposition Court’s Police) (State from Police by Pennsylvania State were filed (OAG), Attorney General rendered the Office decisions respective courts of holding that orders of the (Paulshock) and Rod- Paulshock Appellees, John had relieved (Reed), owning or purchasing, ney Reed operation arose from using firearms. § 6101 et (Uniform Act), 18 Pa.C.S. Act Uniform Firearms Disability also arose 6105.1 seq., specifically (Federal Act of 1968 to the Federal Gun Control et § 922. The seq., specifically 18 U.S.C. Act), U.S.C. the order each underlying appeal issue in this whether firearm cases was sufficient relieve the two consolidated *3 Act. For the reasons set forth the Federal disability under could not relieve the federal below, find that such orders we therefore, of the disability, and we reverse the order Court. Commonwealth a prior as a result of person
A who is firearm disabled 6105(a)2 was § in with 18 Pa.C.S. able conviction accordance noted, seq. § et all references to 18 Pa.C.S. 1. Unless otherwise 1997, 13, in effect as of Act of June to the Uniform Act refer 1995, 17, applicable on and to that is the version of the Act relied No. as v. Paul underlying adjudications. See State Police shock, (Pa.Cmwlth.2001). 789 A.2d were in effect as of of the Uniform Act that 2. The relevant sections upon by read as follows: relied the Commonwealth Court and control, use, manufacture, sell or possess, § not to 6105. Persons transfer firearms (1) (a) person convicted of an A who has been Offense defined. — (b), within without this Com- enumerated in subsection or offense monwealth, regardless length of the of sentence or whose conduct use, control, sell, (c) possess, in shall not meets the criteria subsection use, control, possess, or obtain a license to transfer or manufacture sell, manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth. transfer or (d) person speci- a crime Exemption. who has been convicted of —A (b) (a) or a whose conduct meets fied in subsection (c)(1), (2), (5) application may make to in subsection criteria relief from a firearm seek to Section 6105(d) by for applying such common pleas relief court county applicant’s principal of the residence. In the cases, Paulshock, first of the two consolidated filed petition County with the Luzerne Court of Common Pleas 6105(a). to 18 Pa.C.S. Paulshock had a 1960 arson, for burglary, larceny, conviction and malicious mischief years for which he in prison. served three Paulshock volun- tarily limited his request long guns sport and recreation. Attorney District County not object Luzerne did petition. Paulshock’s Following hearing, the common pleas court granted petition, stating Paulshock’s in its order: purchase, shall
Petitioner be entitled to possess, and use guns long sporting, or rifles for hunting and recreational purposes, designed and which were manufactured events, purposes sporting hunting and recreational purposes only, upon and when called provide proof of disability possess long relief gun, may said Petitioner present this proof that disability order has been waived relieved.3 and/or county the court of common the principal where resi- applicant dence of the is situated for relief the disability im- posed upon possession, this section transfer or of a control firearm.
18 Pa.C.S. 6105. 7, 2001, March On after briefs were filed with the Commonwealth Court, prior argument, sought oral Paulshock obtained following County revised order from the Luzerne Court of Common Pleas: purchase, possess Petitioner handguns, shall be allowed to use *4 long guns, sporting, hunting, addition any recreation and other purposes. rights lawful respect ownership, Petitioner's with to the purchase fully and of firearms are restored and the Peti- may present proof any disability tioner this Order as that in that respect has been relieved. It is further and that rights ordered decreed all of Petitioner's civil restored, to, fully including, right are but not limited the to vote and right jury. a may present the serve on Petitioner also as this Order proof any that respect and all disabilities with to his civil have fully been relieved fully and his civil have been restored. Paulshock, (Luzerne Application County 2691 No. filed 10, 2001) (emphasis original). March Paulshock, Police v. 789 A.2d Pennsylvania State Paulshock, No. (citing Application (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) Docket added). 19,1997)(footnote August Trial Ct. Order summarized the events that ulti- Court The Commonwealth mately Paulshock lawsuit: to the led 21,1999, long a attempted purchase Paulshock August
On doing so. Follow- prevented from gun hunting check, a the determined ing [State Police] records Pennsylvania firearms relieving regardless the order Act, Paulshock’s 1960 convic- under the Uniform years’ impris- by more than two punishable tion for crimes purchase him the under completing onment disabled challenged Act. Paulshock the 922(g) of the Federal and, its denial, the confirmed Police] after purchase [State Attorney decision, [Office appealed Paulshock General].4 Order). (Amended sought to have the Paulshock then 789 A.2d at moot, believing Amend- appeal as that the of the State Police dismissed that the State Police had raised on rectified insufficiencies ed Order appeal. dismiss the appeal. The Commonwealth Court refused to Order, the State challenge propriety the of the Amended
Rather than original Court to address Paul- Police asked Commonwealth Order. The Commonwealth Court did shock order and the Amended so, arguments respect rejected State Police's with both and appeal. of the merits of the orders in its determination argue Police not have and Reed State do 4. Both Paulshock However, challenged never the common standing. the State Police decisions, simply it refused to remove firearms court brought challenge then under the federal act. Reed Paulshock OAG, claiming naming respondent, the State Police as with the refusing comply with the Police were court the State disability. relief from firearms See orders of and/or R.R.46a, (Attorney hearing Appellees General's notice letters to 359a Moreover, respondent). acknowledging Police the State Police are, law, required Pennsylvania and enforce a federal on to honor based disability: (b) Duty Pennsylvania State Police.— history, juvenile receipt request for a criminal delin- Upon histoiy potential quency mental health record check transferee, Pennsylvania State Police shall immedi- purchaser or ately during the call or return call forthwith: licensee’s (i) history finger- State Police criminal review potential purchaser print records to determine if transferee is
383 Paulshock, 313(foot- State Police v. 789 A.2d at added). note
The setting Reed’s case was by summarized the Com- monwealth Court as follows:
Rodney Reed’s firearms disability under Section 6105 of the Uniform Act and under Section 922 of the Federal Act occurred as result of his conviction in 1966 for malicious unlawfully mischief and carrying a firearm. He served six weeks on sentences of twenty-four three to months. 1996, sought when Reed acquire a handgun friend, from a the local sheriff him told that his 1966 conviction disqualified him gun from ownership. 1997, In May petitioned Reed common 6105(d) to Section of the Uniform Act for relief from firearms disability. No objection to the petition having been entered Dauphin County Dis- trict Attorney, granted request Reed’s in an order stating, pertinent part, as follows: is hereby
[l]t Ordered Defendant’s Petition for Relief From Disability Firearms is GRANTED pursuant to 18 6105(d). Pa.C.S. Petitioner RODNEY E. REED is there- permitted fore application to seek reinstatement privileges, firearm prior as his criminal history hereby expunged for that purpose. Reed,
Commonwealth v. (Dauphin County Nos. 190-3S-66 192-3S-66, 1997). August 29, dated receiving After common pleas’ order, applied Reed local sheriff for a weapon permit. concealed weapon’s permit initially denied but granted later after Reed supplied copy of common pleas’ order to the sheriff. Thereafter, purchased Reed handguns. However, two December of when attempted Reed a subsequent purchase friend, from a gun the local dealer refused to prohibited receipt of a firearm under Federal or law; Appellees' argument 6111.1. that the State Police lack standing T.J., in this matter generally is meritless. See In re 559 Pa. (1999)(‘‘when 739 A.2d legislature statutorily invests functions, agency with certain responsibilities, duties agency legislatively has a matters”). conferred interest in such ownership. the transfer of
complete paperwork 6111.1(b) on a records check Based *6 reported that Act, Police] State Reed Uniform [the 922(g) of a firearm Section disqualified possessing unlawfully Act, 1966 conviction Federal due his firearm, more than two punishable by a carrying crime challenged purchase denial years imprisonment. Reed Thereafter, its and confirmed decision. [the Police] (OAG), Attorney appealed to the Office of General Reed (ALJ) law for a assigned judge which an administrative hearing. omitted) (alteration (footnotes in original).
Commonwealth Court err disabling person a federal firearm who was convicted of applied for relief of firearms disabili- offense have his criminal ty, could expunged, thereby relieving any him of federal fire- record disability? Court found that: arms The Commonwealth 922(g) prohibits any person the Federal Act punishable convicted court of a crime for a term exceeding year However, one from possessing a firearm. Section 921 of disqualifying the Federal Act defines a conviction in a disqualifi- manner excludes from federal cation persons expunged whose convictions have been post-conviction who have received of civil rights. restoration It provides:
Any conviction which expunged, has been set aside which a pardoned has been or has had civil rights restored shall not be considered a conviction for purposes chapter, pardon, unless such expunge- ment or restoration expressly provides that the person may not ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms. *7 921(a)(20). §
18 U.S.C. simpler cases, the of these Reed obtained order expunging prior his criminal histo- ry. Therefore, plain under the 921(a)(20), terms of Section plea his 1966 guilty “shall not be considered a conviction.” at A.2d The State Police concede that if Reed had obtained a full expungement pursuant 9122, § 18 Pa.C.S. which deals specifically with expungement the of history criminal record information, the would have been effective the Federal Act firearms disability. Appellant’s See at Brief 29. However, the State argue Police that Reed had obtained an order of expungement in the context of a proceeding under 6105, Section rather than under 18 Pa.C.S. and that pleas the common court’s only order effectuated an expunge- ment of prior history criminal purposes of Section 6105. Dauphin County See August Order dated at 4- supra agree. 5. We plain 6105(d) The language of Section stated: A person who has been of specified convicted a crime in (a) (b) subsection or or ... may application make to the court of of the county where principal residence applicant is situated the disability for relief from imposed by upon section possession, or transfer 6105(d) control added). Pa.C.S. (emphasis firearm.
Therefore, only can be to a given relief that 6105(d) disabil- under is from the firearm petition filed Section 6105(a). imposed Appellees ity that is Section 6105(d)(3) sug- of 18 plain language that the argues disability under imposed that relief from state gests 6105(a) granted purposes relief of the federal means is also 6105(d)(3) stated: disability. disagree. We (d) Exemption. who has convicted person been —A (a) (b) or specified or a whose crime subsection (5) (2), (7) (c)(1), or subsection conduct meets the criteria application court of common may make applicant of the county principal where the residence by this section imposed situated for relief from the possession, of a firearm. upon the transfer control The if it grant shall determines that court such relief following apply: following conditions Each is met:
(i) Treasury Secretary of the of the United States of an im- applicant applicable has relieved the upon possession, ownership posed Federal law prior applicant’s control of a as a result of the firearm conviction, except may that the court waive this condition Congress if the court the United determines not appropriated has sufficient funds enable the States Treasury grant applicants Secretary relief for the eligible relief.
(ii) spent A period years, including any ten time *8 incarceration, elapsed has since most recent convic- applicant a crime tion of the of subsection enumerated (b) felony Substance, violation The Controlled Act. Drug, Device and Cosmetic 6105(d). Paulshock relies on Section principally 6105(d)(3)(i), case, pleas in his explaining Secretary Treasury had not courts determined that the disability Congress the federal because had relieved firearms Secretary funds to enable the of the Trea- appropriated therefore, relief, and that sury grant such the federal conclusion, disability firearms is waived. Paulshock’s and Court, part on the agreement therewith the Commonwealth statute, misapplication plain language is a of the of the 6105(d)(3)(l) such, merely is allowed reversible error. Section pleas disregard, purposes grant- the common courts for ing disability, relief from the state federal firearms disability had it not been relieved where found that such was a adjudicate result the lack of federal funds available to 6105(d)(3)(i) challenges disability. to a federal Section did not grant power the common court relieve Therefore, disability. only find firearms we that the relief 6105(d) that could granted pursuant be to Section is from the 6105(a), disability imposed state firearms under Section that a common court order could not effectuate removal of a disability imposed pursuant firearms Act. the Federal 6105(d)
Appellees argue meaning- that this renders Section less disability because relief the firearms is useless disability where the federal disagree. still exists. We relieved, Now that the state firearms has been Appellees step full, are one having closer to state federal, removal of firearms disability.
Furthermore, a criminal history conviction on a criminal may only record expunged purposes for of 18 Pa.C.S. “(1) § 9122 where An individual subject who is the information years age reaches 70 and has been free or prosecution years arrest following ten final release from supervision; confinement or An individual who is the subject of the information has years.” been dead for three 9122. See also Commonwealth v. Wolfe, 749 A.2d Therefore, 508 (Pa.Super.2000). the orders of the com- mon pleas courts in response Appellees’ entered petitions for relief from the firearms disability, relieved the firearms 6105(d)(3)®, accordance with Section and did not expungement result the total Appellees’ criminal history record information. Any finding contrary would re- 6105(d) quire a finding not only allows for relief from a disability, state firearms provides that it also history information, of a criminal record which
388 9122, § 18 and such governed Pa.C.S.
unquestionably only can achieved section. expungement holding relating of the Commonwealth Court’s appeal In its Paulshock, question: Did present Police also the State it as a matter of law when held Commonwealth Court err authority, pursuant court had to 18 that a common 6105(d), rights, civil so as fully person’s § restore a disability? subject of a federal firearms See to relieve find, explained as supra, at 13. Because we Appellant’s Brief court could not remove federal firearms that a common 6105, in a filed to 18 Pa.C.S. we proceeding latter issue. need not reach the Appel- of the Commonwealth Court is reversed. The order under the and Paulshock remain firearm disabled lees Reed Act. Federal concurring opinion. SAYLOR files
Justice
concurring
dissenting opinion.
files a
Justice NEWMAN
SAYLOR, Concurring.
Justice
opinion,
Appellees
I do not
join
majority
I
view
While
rights.
being any closer to
restoration of their firearms
Rather,
statutory procedure
removing
for
as the federal
law,
925(c),
§
disability imposed by federal
18 U.S.C.
v.
funding,
to a lack of
see United States
is unavailable due
586,
3,
Bean,
71, 74,
584,
n.
154
537
75 n.
123 S.Ct.
587
U.S.
(2002) (citing
Appropriations
483
Government
Acts
L.Ed.2d
2002),
statutory
through
procedure
from 1993
as no
exists
restoring
rights,
see Beecham v. United
368, 373,
States,
114
L.Ed.2d
S.Ct.
128
U.S.
(1994),
Appellees
and as
do not meet the limited criteria
obtaining
an
of their criminal records under
9122(b)
Code,
9122(b),
§
of the Crimes
18 Pa.C.S.
only
through gubernatorial pardon upon
their
recourse
Const,
art.
of the Board
Pardons. See
recommendation
Pa.
IV,
recognize
government
I
the federal
has
9.1
permitting
in Section
provision
1. The
restoration of firearms
6105.1,
context,
6105.1,
apply
present
as it
does not
States,
overarching
in this
v.
interest
area. See Caron United
*10
2007, 2012,
524 U.S.
118 S.Ct.
Justice Concurring I by concur Majority, result reached must respectfully dissent from failure of majority to address whether the rights restoration the civil of Paulshock by the Court of Common Pleas exception satisfied the to the federal firearm statute. prohibits
Federal law firearm possession following any state conviction, or felony federal if even the was suspend- sentence 922(g)(1) (providing § ed. 18 any U.S.C. that it unlawful for is person “who has in any been convicted court of a crime punishable by a imprisonment exceeding year for term one ammunition.”). ... possess any However, ... firearm or explicit statutory federal statutes contain an exception that provides that the criminal offense of firearms posses- inapplicable sion persons rights who have had their civil on predicate felony restored state conviction. 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20). specifically That statute states: (20) The punishable by term “crime imprisonment for exceeding year” term one does not include— (A) any or pertaining Federal State offenses to antitrust violations, trade, practices, unfair trade restraints of or is limited to under convictions earlier versions of the Vehicle or Code graded currently the 1939 Penal Code would not aas crime punishable by years imprisonment longer or more than two that no 6105.1(a), (e). constitute violations of the law. See 18 Pa.C.S. of business relating regulation
other similar offenses or practices,
(B) by the laws the State offense classified imprison- term punishable aas misdemeanor years two or less. ment of such a shall be a conviction of crime
What constitutes
jurisdiction
law of
with the
determined
accordance
Any
which
proceedings were held.
conviction
which the
person
which a
has
has
set aside or
expunged,
been
shall not be
or has had
restored
pardoned
been
chapter,
unless
purposes
considered
conviction
of civil
expungement,
restoration
pardon,
such
may
ship, transport,
expressly provides
*11
or
firearms.
possess,
receive
added). State,
federal,
921(a)(20) (emphasis
§
18 U.S.C.
civil
an individual has had
or her
whether
law determines
a
conviction. United States v. Cassi-
for
state
restored
Cir.1990).
(6th
391 rights.... restoration of civil It is rather a definition of status, a process erasing legal event conviction or adjudication and thereby restoring to regenerative offend- er his status quo Grough, ante.” Expungement Adjudica- tion Records 1966 U.L.Q. 147, Wash. 149. Federal case law supports further States, this. See Caron v. United 524 U.S. (1998) S.Ct. L.Ed.2d (stating although Massachusetts state law allows a convicted felon to have rifles disabilities, after relief from firearm Massachusetts permit petitioner does not and, handguns therefore, have there has disabilities). been no relief from federal firearms Reed, the matter of there is no expungement, pardon, or restoration of civil rights, only state relief from firearms disability pursuant 61-5(d). to 18
To
obtain
of one’s
history,
criminal
an individ-
ual must
expungement pursuant
seek
to 18 Pa.C.S.
which
(1)
is available when the individual:
“who
subject
is the
of the information
years
reaches 70
age
and has been free
prosecution
arrest or
years
ten
following final release
supervision;”
confinement or
“who is
subject
the information has been dead for
years.”
three
Reed did not
attain
expungement,
full
and,
indicated
Majority
while Reed would not violate state law if he were to
secure
firearm, he would still violate
law.2 Because the State
Police has
job
of administering both federal and state
firearms law in
Commonwealth,
I
Majori-
believe that the
ty is correct that
the State
properly
Police
denied Reed’s
*12
application to purchase a firearm and the Commonwealth
Court
in
erred
determining that Reed’s federal firearms dis-
ability had been
6111.1(b)(1)®
relieved. See 18 Pa.C.S.
(stating that it is
duty
the
of the State Police to review the
history
“criminal
and fingerprint records to
if
determine
potential purchaser
prohibited
...
is
from receipt or posses-
sion of a
law).
firearm under
Federal
State
If
procedure
there is no
rights
restoration of civil
contained in
law,
statutory
state
then an
by
individual violates federal
possessing
law
firearm,
even if that individual has
disability
had his or her firearm
States,
removed
to state law. Beecham v. United
511 U.S.
368, 373,
(1994).
114 S.Ct.
The issue Paulshock, who did not complex. more disability firearms is upon the accuracy history, of his criminal relied challenge the him of the Pleas Order relieved firearms Common Court that his right Firearms Act on disability imposed by the Uniform Reed, Like purchase firearm the Commonwealth. his state firearm Paulshock relieved disability. 6105(d), not federal firearm Section Thus, I would find the Commonwealth Court erred deter- disability had federal firearm been mining Paulshock’s relieved. matter, Paulshock returned to the does not
This end an that stated that of Common Pleas secured Order Court all fully rights his civil were restored challenges The Police this Or- disability was relieved. not it courts do der because believes at this authority rights. point to restore civil It is have the diverge Opinion Majority. Majori- that I from the by mounted the State Police ty only challenge addressed one on matter. It that the courts of common believes a federal firearms authority are without to remove respectfully this ends the matter. I must and concludes that disagree. noted, contains an previously I have the federal statute
As statutory providing that criminal explicit exception the federal inapplicable persons who of firearms offense on rights predicate had their civil state have restored 921(a)(20). Thus, if Paulshock felony conviction. 18 U.S.C. of his civil via obtaining succeeded the restoration Pleas, 922(g)(1) does of the Court of Common Order and Paulshock not law apply would violate owning possessing a firearm. court for federal law decisions have concluded
Federal rights, state restoration recognize state restoration (2) (1) vote; right right to seek and must include: See, office; jury. on a public right hold serve (6th Cir.1999). States, F.3d e.g., Hampton v. United If includes three the state restoration aforemen- *13 rights, law tioned federal contains an additional clause to imposes any looks state law to determine the state whether further restriction right on the convicted felon to possess weapon.3 provides If state law some added restric- tion, this is triggered possession federal clause to make law, firearms to notwithstanding unlawful rights by restoration of civil the state. matter,
In the instant
Paulshock
to
returned
the Court of
Pleas
Common
and secured
that stated that his
Order
civil
rights
fully
were
restored and that all
challenges
relieved. The State Police
this Order because it
believes that
courts of
pleas
common
do not have the
authority
rights.
Again,
restore civil
I believe
if the
authority
courts
common
have the
restore civil
rights,
then
no
there is
federal firearms
to be
and
is
relieved
Paulshock
entitled to purchase firearms. The
issue, then,
vote,
civil
at
right
are the
the right to
office,
public
seek
hold
to sit
right
jury.
on a
right
in Pennsylvania
vote
automatically
is
restored
completion
upon
imprisonment.
of the term of
See Mixon v.
Commonwealth,
(Pa.Cmwlth.2000),
Regarding
right
Paulshock to
public
seek
hold
office and his right to serve on jury,
those
have not
II,
been restored. Article
Section 7 of the Pennsylvania
states,
Carolina,
Some
prohibit
such North
subsequent
posses-
handgun
of a
upon
sion
rights,
restoration of
Thus,
possess
shotgun.
would allow an
individual
a rifle or
in North
Carolina, an individual
could
convicted
to federal law for
shotgun
of a
though
rifle or
even
it would be lawful under
See,
States,
e.g.,
North Carolina law.
Caron v. United
524 U.S.
(1998).
S.Ct.
141 L.Ed.2d 303
*14
of em-
convicted
provides: “No
hereafter
Constitution
infa-
moneys, bribery, perjury
other
public
bezzlement
Assembly, or
crime,
eligible
to
General
mous
shall
in
profit
of trust or
this Common-
holding
office
capable
crimes”
term “infamous
wealth.” This Court has held
felonies,
was
or more
and Paulshock
convicted
one
includes
Richard, 561 Pa.
ex rel Baldwin v.
felonies. Commonwealth
(2000).
Baldwin,
this Court determined
Thus, regard his civil have with law, ineligible, pursuant to and he is been restored of civil any type. Without restoration purchase firearms judgment evidencing no state’s rights, is official there justify putting firearms back renewed trust the individual felony. into the hands of who have convicted of a those been Hence, agree I that the of the Commonwealth while Order reversed, civil I must also conclude that the Court should be Pleas, Common Paulshock have not been restored authority right public hold which without restore right jury. sit on a office and the Assembly I note the General enacted December permitting complete provision Act restoration of the Uniform Firearms (effective 2002). This rights. 6105.1 December unassailable, provision, enacted late to be addressed or if too applied present matter.