Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2021In Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa.Super. 2009), this Court held that [t]he statutory language [of section 6105] is clear, and it does not require proof that the weapon was capable of expelling a projectile when it was seized; on the contrary, the fact that a person can be prosecuted simply for possessing a semiautomatic pistol frame refutes this notion because the frame requires additional parts, e.g., a slide and barrel, in order to fire a bullet.3 Thus, the use of the terms “frame” and “receiver” in section 6105(i) demonstrates that the legislature sought to eliminate the operabili 2018In Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2009), this Court held that, [t]he statutory language [of section 6105] is clear, and it does not require proof that the weapon was capable of expelling a projectile when it was seized; on the contrary, the fact that a person can be prosecuted simply for possessing a semiautomatic pistol frame refutes this notion because the frame requires additional parts, e.g., a slide and barrel, in order to fire a bullet.3 Thus, the use of the terms “frame” and “receiver” in section 6105(i) demonstrates that the legislature sought to eliminate the operabi | 4 | 7 |
Commonwealth v. Pondsgreen2 sentences2017See Commonwealth v. Ponds, 345 A.2d 253, 256 (Pa. Super. 1975) (“There is no such [operability] requirement spelled out in Section 908, and we therefore conclude that the legislature did not intend to impose the operability requirement to Section 908….”; “The mere possession of an item identifiable as a sawed-off shotgun, even though inoperable is still an ominous presence, and has no place nor possible use in the community and should be prohibited.”) “To establish a violation of the statute prohibiting the carrying of a sawed-off shotgun, it is sufficient to show that the weapon -7- J-A23001- 2017See Commonwealth v. Ponds, 345 A.2d 253, 256 (Pa. Super. 1975) (“There is no such [operability] requirement spelled out in Section 908, and we therefore conclude that the legislature did not intend to impose the operability requirement to Section 908….”; “The mere possession of an item identifiable as a sawed-off shotgun, even though inoperable is still an ominous presence, and has no place nor possible use in the community and should be prohibited.”) “To establish a violation of the statute prohibiting the carrying of a sawed-off shotgun, it is sufficient to show that the weapon -7- J-A23001- | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence2024See id. | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Gainergreen1 sentence2016Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669, 672 (Pa. Super. 2009) (footnote omitted); see also Commonwealth v. Gainer, 7 A.3d 291 , 298 n.4 (Pa. Super. 2010) (stating that “[s]ection 6105 includes a revised definition of ‘firearm’ under which operability is not an element”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Layton
green
2 sentences2021In Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa.Super. 2009), this Court held that [t]he statutory language [of section 6105] is clear, and it does not require proof that the weapon was capable of expelling a projectile when it was seized; on the contrary, the fact that a person can be prosecuted simply for possessing a semiautomatic pistol frame refutes this notion because the frame requires additional parts, e.g., a slide and barrel, in order to fire a bullet.3 Thus, the use of the terms “frame” and “receiver” in section 6105(i) demonstrates that the legislature sought to eliminate the operabili 2018In Commonwealth v. Thomas, 988 A.2d 669 (Pa. Super. 2009), this Court held that, [t]he statutory language [of section 6105] is clear, and it does not require proof that the weapon was capable of expelling a projectile when it was seized; on the contrary, the fact that a person can be prosecuted simply for possessing a semiautomatic pistol frame refutes this notion because the frame requires additional parts, e.g., a slide and barrel, in order to fire a bullet.3 Thus, the use of the terms “frame” and “receiver” in section 6105(i) demonstrates that the legislature sought to eliminate the operabi | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.