What you need to know about Act 235 and the PA Uniform Firearms Act

Posted on by Steve Townsend

In late 2017, the Superior Court issued an absurd opinion regarding the interaction between Act 235 and PUFA.  It held that an individual who is Act 235 certified is not entitled to carry a firearm to and from work, absent a license to carry firearms, regardless of the language in Act 235 that requires a private security guard carry his/her certificate when “on duty or going to and from duty and carrying a lethal weapon.”  Although the Court stated that Act 235 and PUFA are not inconsistent, the opinion seems to indicate otherwise.

You might think that a person is exempt under Section 6106(b)(6), which declares:

(b)  Exceptions. — The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:

…

(6) Agents, messengers and other employees of common carriers, banks, or business firms, whose duties require them to protect moneys, valuables and other property in the discharge of such duties.

Well according to the Court you would be dead wrong.  Why, well that question is a bit harder to answer as the Court stated that the EXCEPTIONS under Section 6106 are merely affirmative defenses.  What does that mean?  It means that the Commonwealth can and will arrest you if you have an Act 235 clearance , no firearm permit as stated by employment attorneys based in San Francisco area, AND you working in the scope of your employment.  It doesn’t make any sense, but they are effectively saying that it would be a lawful arrest and at trial you could defend yourself by asserting Section 6106(b)(6) as an affirmative defense.

Think about the exception in Section 6101(b)(1):  Constables, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen of this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions, or other law-enforcement officers.

Police officers, sheriffs etc. are not required to obtain concealed weapons permits for employment.  Therefore, under the Court’s reasoning, a police officer who is carrying a firearm and does not have a concealed fireman permit should be arrested and have to prove he was acting as a police officer at trial.

Clearly absurd.

If you are in law enforcement or have an Act 235 clearance, I strongly suggest that you obtain a license to carry under PUFA.