Philadelphia Criminal Defense Blog

Zak Goldstein 8/5/25 Zak Goldstein 8/5/25

Pennsylvania Superior Court Rules Non-Violent Felon Gun Ban Constitutional in Commonwealth v. Randolph

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

On July 31, 2025, the Pennsylvania Superior Court issued a new decision in Commonwealth v. Randolph, upholding the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s felon-in-possession statute, 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1). The Court rejected Randolph’s Second Amendment challenge to the law, finding that individuals with felony drug convictions such as PWID (Possession With Intent to Deliver) can still be lawfully prohibited from owning or carrying firearms even though PWID is generally a non-violent offense.

This ruling adds to the growing body of appellate decisions in Pennsylvania that interpret how the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark gun rights cases (Bruen, Heller, and Rahimi) apply to state gun control laws. If you or a loved one are facing a charge under § 6105 or any other firearm offense in Pennsylvania, it is important to understand the implications of this ruling and how it might affect your defense. Additionally, the Superior Court may not have the last word on the constitutionality of these statutes as the PA Supreme Court has granted review in a number of these cases.

The Facts of Commonwealth v. Randolph?

The defendant was convicted in Allegheny County of two firearm charges:

Persons Not to Possess a Firearm under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6105(a)(1), and
Carrying a Firearm Without a License under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106(a).

The charges stemmed from an incident in which the defendant was seen with a handgun inside a bar. At the time, he was prohibited from possessing firearms due to prior felony drug convictions. specifically, he had two 2005 convictions for PWID.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the § 6105 charge, arguing that the statute violated his Second Amendment rights, both facially and as applied to him. The trial court denied the motion, and the jury convicted him on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to four to eight years in state prison and appealed.

The Constitutional Challenge: Can Nonviolent Felons Possess Guns?

On appeal, the defendant argued that § 6105 is unconstitutional in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, in which the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that gun laws must be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. He also cited Range v. Attorney General, where the Third Circuit struck down the federal felon-in-possession statute as applied to a nonviolent offender convicted of food stamp fraud.

The defendant claimed that his prior convictions for nonviolent drug offenses should not disqualify him from owning a firearm and that the Commonwealth failed to prove a historical tradition of disarming people like him.

The Superior Court’s Decision

The Pennsylvania Superior Court rejected Randolph’s arguments and upheld his conviction. Applying the Bruen two-step test, the Court first held that Randolph was part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment even as a convicted felon. However, the Court went on to conclude that Pennsylvania’s firearm ban for even non-violent felons is constitutional because:

There is a long-standing historical tradition of disarming individuals considered dangerous or a threat to public safety.
Drug trafficking is inherently dangerous and often associated with the use of firearms.
The statute does not impose a lifetime ban without recourse. Individuals convicted under § 6105 can, in some cases, petition the court for restoration of their firearm rights.

The Court emphasized that Bruen does not require a "historical twin" to justify modern firearm laws. Instead, it only requires a sufficiently analogous tradition. Citing colonial laws that disarmed vagrants, outlaws, and those deemed threats to public order, the Court found § 6105 to be consistent with that historical framework.

What This Means for People Facing Gun Charges in Pennsylvania

This case makes clear that Pennsylvania courts are continuing to uphold the constitutionality of § 6105 even after federal decisions such as Bruen, Rahimi, and Range. This is particularly true in cases involving felony convictions for drug offenses or violence. While there is ongoing litigation in both state and federal courts challenging the law (and defendants have done better in federal court than in state court), defendants with serious prior convictions may still be prohibited from possessing firearms under current Pennsylvania law. The Supreme Court has also granted review in at least two cases, and that litigation is still ongoing.

However, these constitutional issues are evolving, and every case is fact-specific. There are still strong constitutional arguments available in many cases, particularly where the prior conviction is nonviolent, less serious than PWID, and remote in time.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today

Zak Goldstein 8/4/25 Zak Goldstein 8/4/25

Superior Court Reverses Denial of PCRA Relief for Attorney Goldstein’s Client in Internet Contraband Case

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak Goldstein — Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia criminal defense attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire, recently won a significant victory for his client, M.D., in the Pennsylvania Superior Court. In a detailed, 18-page opinion issued in July 2025, the Superior Court reversed the PCRA court’s order dismissing M.D.’s Post Conviction Relief Act petition and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court found that the PCRA court erred in concluding that trial counsel was effective despite trial counsel’s decision to repeatedly tell the jury that the client had asked to speak with a lawyer and declined to give a statement to the police when the police executed a search warrant at his house.

The client had been convicted following a second jury trial of possession and dissemination of child pornography and sentenced to five to ten years in state prison. His first trial ended in a mistrial after the first jury could not reach a unanimous verdict. The Superior Court denied his direct appeal, and the client filed a PCRA petition. The PCRA court appointed a different lawyer, who amended the petition, and the PCRA court denied that petition. The client then hired Attorney Goldstein for the appeal from the denial of the first PCRA petition.

On appeal, Attorney Zak Goldstein raised layered claims of ineffective assistance of counsel—arguing both that the client’s trial counsel mishandled crucial aspects of the defense and that PCRA counsel failed to raise those issues in the first petition. For example, PCRA counsel failed to argue that the trial attorney was ineffective for introducing evidence of her own client’s post-Miranda silence.

The Superior Court agreed and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing before the trial judge, who also presided over the PCRA proceedings. The judge heard from the attorneys who represented the client at the second trial that ended in a conviction as well as the first PCRA lawyer and again denied the petition. Attorney Goldstein filed an appeal, and the Superior Court reversed yet again.

This time, the Superior Court held that trial counsel acted unreasonably and to her client’s detriment by repeatedly referencing the client’s post-Miranda silence during trial. Although trial counsel claimed that this was a strategic decision designed to convey innocence, the Superior Court found the strategy lacked a reasonable basis and was more likely to cause the jury to infer guilt. As the Court noted, “most laymen view an assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege as a badge of guilt,” especially when invoked during the execution of a search warrant for devices suspected of containing illicit content.

The Court further found that this improper strategy created a reasonable probability of a different outcome at trial, thereby undermining confidence in the verdict. As a result, the Court concluded that the client had satisfied all three prongs of the Strickland test for ineffective assistance and that the PCRA court erred in rejecting his claim. The Superior Court therefore vacated the order denying the PCRA petition and remanded for further proceedings.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Attorneys — Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense

If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the successful direct appeal of a first-degree murder conviction and the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client, and we frequently spot issues and defenses that other lawyers miss. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.

Zak Goldstein 7/25/25 Zak Goldstein 7/25/25

Philadelphia Gun Charges Dismissed – Motion to Quash Granted

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire

Philadelphia Criminal Defense Attorney Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire of Goldstein Mehta LLC recently won a major victory for one of his clients in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Attorney Zak T. Goldstein successfully argued a Motion to Quash (Habeas Corpus Petition) in a firearms case, resulting in the complete dismissal of all charges prior to trial. This case highlights why an aggressive and experienced Philadelphia criminal defense lawyer can make the difference when facing VUFA (Violation of Uniform Firearms Act) charges.

Background: Gun Charges After a Medical Emergency

The client, D.F., was charged with two serious offenses:

18 Pa.C.S. § 6106 – Firearms Not to be Carried Without a License (F3)
18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 – Carrying Firearms on Public Streets in Philadelphia (M1)

The case began when D.F., a security guard, experienced a medical emergency while at work. He was transported to Einstein Hospital by ambulance. Hospital security later discovered a backpack near him that contained a firearm. The Philadelphia Police learned that he did not have a license to carry a firearm and charged him with these offenses.

Importantly, there was no evidence that D.F. had carried the gun on a public street, in a vehicle, or that he intentionally brought the firearm to the hospital. Instead, the only evidence was that he had been transported to the hospital from work and that a gun was found in the bag. The Municipal Court nonetheless held the case for trial after a preliminary hearing.

Defense Strategy: Challenging Weak Gun Cases at the Preliminary Hearing Stage

Attorney Goldstein filed a Motion to Quash (Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus) arguing that the case should be dismissed because:

Lawful possession at work – The Commonwealth’s own evidence established that D.F. was employed as a security guard and had been picked up at work during a medical emergency. Pennsylvania law allows a security guard to have a firearm at a fixed place of employment without a license to carry. It is recommended, however, that the guard obtain an Act 235 license or license to carry before doing so, but that is not a requirement of the statute.
No voluntary act or criminal intent – D.F. did not choose to transport the firearm; instead, he was taken to the hospital involuntarily by ambulance. There was no evidence of a voluntary act or intent required to sustain a prosecution under §§ 6106 or 6108.
Reliance on hearsay – The Commonwealth relied heavily on hearsay statements from a hospital security guard and D.F.’s own statement without offering non-hearsay evidence of possession. Under Commonwealth v. McClelland and Commonwealth v. Harris, a prima facie case cannot be made out solely with hearsay.

The Court’s Ruling: Charges Dismissed

The judge agreed with Attorney Goldstein’s arguments and granted the motion to quash, dismissing all charges. This ruling means that D.F. will not face trial for these unfounded gun charges.

Why Early Defense Matters in Philadelphia Gun Cases

This case underscores the importance of having an experienced Philadelphia gun charge attorney as early as possible. Motions to Quash and preliminary hearings are critical opportunities to challenge weak evidence and avoid the risks of a jury trial.

At Goldstein Mehta LLC, we have a proven track record of winning motions to suppress, motions to quash, and trials in Philadelphia gun and firearms cases. Our lawyers know the law and fight aggressively to protect our clients’ rights.

Charged With a Gun Offense in Philadelphia?

If you are facing VUFA charges, 6106/6108 charges, or any other gun-related offense in Philadelphia, call the experienced Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys at Goldstein Mehta LLC at (267) 225-2545. We offer a free criminal defense strategy session and will fight to protect your freedom.

Zak Goldstein 7/24/25 Zak Goldstein 7/24/25

PA Supreme Court: Vehicle Registration Alone Does Not Defeat Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Anderson, holding that a driver may have a reasonable expectation of privacy even where they are pulled over driving a car belonging to someone else. The mere fact that the car is registered to or belongs to another person does not mean that the Commonwealth automatically wins a motion to suppress for lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy. Instead, the Commonwealth would have to introduce additional evidence to show that the driver did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle in under to win on this basis.

The Facts of the Case

The case arose after the defendant was stopped by Chester police in Delaware County, PA for several Vehicle Code violations. During the stop, officers discovered a firearm in the vehicle’s center console and marijuana in the passenger area. The defendant was ultimately charged with various offenses including carrying a firearm without a license (VUFA § 6106). He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the police violated his constitutional rights when they stopped him and searched the car.

The Commonwealth argued that because the car was registered to the defendant’s aunt rather than the defendant, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in it and thus could not challenge the search. The trial court agreed, as did the Superior Court, holding that registration to another person alone was enough to shift the burden to the defendant to prove he had lawful possession or permission to drive the car. The defendant appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court granted review.

The Supreme Court Appeal

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagreed. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Dougherty clarified that under Commonwealth v. Enimpah, the Commonwealth bears the initial burden to produce evidence that negates a reasonable expectation of privacy before a defendant must respond. The Court found that the mere fact a vehicle is registered to someone else does not, without more, establish that the driver lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy. Lawful possession and control—regardless of registration—can give rise to protected privacy interests under both the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The Court emphasized that there are many plausible and lawful scenarios under which a person may be driving a vehicle registered to someone else. Therefore, registration alone is insufficient to meet the Commonwealth’s burden of production in terms of disproving reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court declined to address whether other facts in the case might satisfy the burden under a totality of the circumstances analysis and remanded the case for further proceedings.

This ruling strengthens protections for drivers in Pennsylvania, reinforcing that the Commonwealth must do more than cite vehicle registration records to justify a warrantless search. Defendants charged with possessory offenses retain automatic standing to challenge searches and seizures, and they are not required to affirmatively prove privacy interests unless and until the Commonwealth meets its initial evidentiary burden of disproving the reasonable expectation of privacy.

Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case in Pennsylvania?

Goldstein Mehta LLC Criminal Defense Lawyers