warns against ignoring principles of issue preservation, yet does just that by disregarding decisions such as Schriro and Roney in an effort to create an amorphous, yet equitable, decision based upon a "balancing of values” vis-a-vis retroactivity. Id. at 527, 17 A.3d at 347-48. Contrarily, our holding today follows solid and established principles of law, affirms at least a decade of Superior Court jurisprudence by way of a thorough analysis, which heretofore this Court had not undertaken, and provides a definitive rule in this area of the law for both bench and bar. Chief Justice CASTILLE, concurring. The Opinion Announcing the Judgment of the Court (“OAJC”) affords appellee the retroactive benefit of this Court’s decision in Commonwealth v. Dickson, 591 Pa. 364, 918 A.2d 95 (2007) (<HOLDING>), notwithstanding that appellee failed to
holding that the government was required to prove that the defendant lacked a license to possess a firearm but not that the defendant possessed the firearm for any duration of time holding unarmed codefendant guilty for use of a firearm during the commission of robbery and abduction holding that a statute imposing a mandatory minimum sentence on a person convicted of a crime of violence if the person visibly possessed a firearm or replica of a firearm cannot be applied to a coconspirator who did not visibly possess a firearm or replica holding that mandatory minimum sentence required by 42 pacs  9712a for persons who visibly possess firearm while committing certain crimes does not apply to unarmed coconspirators holding that even where evidence regarding the use of a firearm is unrebutted to impose mandatory minimum sentence a jury must make that finding