Tag Archives: “attorney general kane”

Did Attorney General Kane Mislead the General Assembly and Fail in Her Statutory Duty?

As many of you are aware, I previously blogged on Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s 2013-2014 Annual Firearms Reciprocity Report, which the Attorney General is required, by law, to complete annually and submit to the General Assembly. Based on information I recently obtained, it is now questionable whether AG Kane purposely left out information from her report and failed in her statutory duty to enter into a reciprocity agreement with Idaho.

Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(k)(2), the Attorney General is statutorily required to provide the General Assembly with an annual report regarding the reciprocal status with other states. Further, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(k)(1),

The Attorney General shall have the power and duty to enter into reciprocity agreements with other states providing for the mutual recognition of a license to carry a firearm issued by the Commonwealth and a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by the other state. (Emphasis Added)

On July 1, 2014, Stephanie Altig, Deputy Attorney General of Idaho, sent a letter to Attorney General Kane requesting the establishment of a reciprocity agreement. Attorney General Kane, without any explanation, declared that “upon review of Idaho’s relevant statutory provisions, we have determined that at this time, Pennsylvania is unable to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Idaho.” You can download a complete copy of the response here.

AG Response to IdahoAttorney General Kane’s refusal to explain why a reciprocal agreement is not possible is extremely disconcerting given that Idaho’s Enhanced Concealed Carry Licensing requirements far exceed the Commonwealth’s requirements for a license to carry firearms. As a result, Deputy Attorney General Altig sent a follow up letter of August 19, 2014 to Pennsylvania Chief Deputy Attorney General Robert Mulle, inquiring as to why a reciprocal agreement was not possible, based on the enhanced requirements. To this day, neither Attorney General Kane nor Chief Deputy Mulle has responded to the letter.

In reviewing the 2013-2014 Firearm Reciprocity Report, Attorney General Kane fails to inform the General Assembly of Idaho’s inquiry. In fact, Idaho is not listed or specified anywhere in the report. Was this an attempt to hide this information or otherwise mislead the General Assembly?

As it appears that Attorney General Kane shirked her duty to enter into a reciprocity agreement with Idaho, as required by Section 6109(k)(1), she may have committed the highest level misdemeanor crime that we have in the Commonwealth, as a violation of Section 6109(k)(1) is a misdemeanor of the 1st degree, pursuant to Section 6119, which can be punished up to 5 years in jail.

It will be interesting to see how the Attorney General responds to inquiries regarding her failure to disclose the communications with Idaho to the General Assembly, as well as, the breach of her duty to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Idaho.



Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Putting Attorney General Kane’s Legal Opinion to Good Use

Today, utilizing Attorney General Kane’s August 5, 2014, Legal Opinion Letter, I submitted letters to a number of Commonwealth agencies requesting that they rescind their regulations in relation to possession of firearms, which are inconsistent with Pennsylvania’s Crimes Code, referred to as Title 18. Those letters include:

  1. Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) – here.
  2. Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) – here.
  3. Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (L&I) – here.
  4. Pennsylvania Department of State – here.

As I hear back from these agencies as to what action they will be taking, I will let our readers know.


Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law

Attorney General Kane’s Opinion on Commonwealth Agencies Regulating Possession of Firearms

As I previously blogged about, I wrote a letter to the PA Gaming Control Board requesting that it invalidate 58 Pa.Code § 465a.13, as it had unlawfully regulated the possession of firearms in casinos, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(m.3)(2). On September 8, 2014, I heard back from the PA Gaming Control Board that it would be rescinding the regulation of firearms, pursuant to a Legal Opinion of Attorney General Kane. At that time, I was not provided a copy of the Legal Opinion but have since come into possession of it.

On August 5, 2014, Attorney General Kane issued a Legal Opinion letter stating:

“…the Board’s regulation at 58 Pa.Code § 465a.13(a) contravenes 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(m.3)…Section 6109(m.3), on the other hand, prohibits a Commonwealth agency from regulating the possession of a firearm in any manner inconsistent with Title 18. The Board is a Commonwealth agency….Accordingly, the Board’s regulation is inconsistent with the provisions of Title 18 inasmuch it regulates the possession of firearms in a location (licensed casino facility) not contemplated by Title 18.”

It looks like many other Commonwealth agencies (Dept of State, PASSHE, DCNR, Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, … etc) may be on the receiving end of demands to rescind their unlawful regulations…


Filed under Firearms Law, Pennsylvania Firearms Law