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, 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.
If you are in law enforcement or have an Act 235 clearance, I strongly suggest that you obtain a license to carry under PUFA.
BEAVER — Criminal charges filed against the owner of a defunct personal-care home were dismissed prior to a preliminary hearing.
The 78-bed facility on Norwood Drive was closed in October after an employee reported not having been paid by Katekovich for two months of work. In all, three employees were named in a criminal complaint filed against her.
One former employee reported she was not paid $560 by Katekovich for hours she worked between Sept. 24 and Oct. 14, police said. Another told police she had not been paid for two months of work, though the report did not specify the amount she was owed.
Police said a third employee reported her insurance through the company Aflac was canceled in March when Katekovich stopped paying into the account, even though the employee said she had money taken out of her pay to cover the insurance, police said.
Katekovich’s defense attorney, Steven Townsend, said all three cases were dismissed. Only one of the cases, he said, was “valid.” Katekovich resolved that case by paying the employee the $560 she was owed.
In the case of the Aflac account, Townsend said documents showed that the employee was actually covered by the company and that the money had not been taken out.
The third employee did not cooperate with the investigation and failed to appear in court, Townsend said.
Three charges of theft were dismissed against Katekovich. Townsend said Katera’s Kove remains closed.
At the time she was charged, 19 residents were relocated from the home, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services.