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 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

Zak Goldstein 6/24/25 Zak Goldstein 6/24/25

Pennsylvania Superior Court Vacates Philadelphia Gun Conviction for VUFA § 6108 on Second Amendment Grounds

In a major Second Amendment decision for citizens of Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has declared 18 Pa.C.S. § 6108 unconstitutional as applied to the open carry of firearms in Philadelphia. § 6108 makes it illegal to even open carry a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia without a license, whereas open carry is generally legal in the rest of the state. In Commonwealth v. Sumpter, the Superior Court vacated the defendant’s conviction for carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia, holding that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in that it prevented him from open carrying.

The Facts of Sumpter

The defendant was arrested after police observed the handle of a firearm visibly protruding from his waistband while he was walking in Philadelphia. He admitted to the police that he carried the weapon for self-defense due to gun violence in the area. A charge under § 6106 (concealed carry without a license) was dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the police could see the gun, but he was convicted under § 6108, which makes it illegal to carry a firearm openly on public streets in Philadelphia without a license.

Philadelphia is the only “city of the first class” in Pennsylvania, and § 6108 applies only in a city of the first class (meaning Philadelphia). In the rest of the Commonwealth, unlicensed open carry is generally legal for adults 18 and over. Because Pennsylvania law requires individuals to be at least 21 to apply for a carry license, § 6108 effectively bans open carry for 18-to-20-year-olds in Philadelphia, but it does not have the same effect in the rest of the state.

The Superior Court’s Holding: § 6108 Fails Strict Scrutiny

Writing for the majority, Judge Stabile held that § 6108 violates the Equal Protection Clause as applied to individuals exercising their Second Amendment rights in Philadelphia. The Court explained that under District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense is a fundamental constitutional right. Because the law burdens a fundamental right, it must satisfy strict scrutiny.

The Commonwealth argued that the law was justified by Philadelphia’s high crime rate and the need for prosecutors to have additional enforcement tools. The Superior Court rejected that rationale, holding that such generalized concerns do not justify discriminatory geographic restrictions on constitutional rights. The government failed to show that § 6108 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest.

The End of Scarborough

The Court’s opinion expressly abrogates its earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Scarborough, 89 A.3d 679 (Pa. Super. 2014), which upheld § 6108 under rational basis review. At the time, Scarborough treated the right to carry firearms outside the home as a non-fundamental right. After Bruen and Rahimi, that position is no longer tenable. The Court clarified that because Sumpter involves a fundamental right, strict scrutiny must apply.

No Ruling on Broader Licensing Requirements

The Court limited its holding to the as-applied challenge brought by the defendant in this case. The Court did not decide whether a statewide licensing requirement for open carry would be constitutional. The Court also did not address broader challenges to Pennsylvania’s licensing regime under § 6109. Additionally, the Court declined to address arguments brought based on the potentially broader protections of the Pennsylvania Constitution, relying solely on federal equal protection principles. Accordingly, the Court vacated this defendant’s conviction, but it is hard to predict what effect the case may have for other individuals.

Key Takeaways for Gun Charges in Philadelphia

§ 6108 is unconstitutional as applied to individuals who are prohibited from openly carrying firearms in Philadelphia but who could legally do so elsewhere in Pennsylvania.
The right to bear arms in public is a fundamental constitutional right, and laws that burden it are subject to strict scrutiny.
The decision overrules prior precedent that upheld Philadelphia-specific restrictions under a lower standard of review.
Prosecutors may not be able to rely on VUFA § 6108 to prosecute open carry cases where that conduct would be lawful in other parts of the state.

This case will likely be cited by the defense in numerous challenges to gun prosecutions (VUFA cases), but the exact effect remains unclear. The Philadelphia Police Department will likely continue to arrest people both for carrying concealed firearms without licenses as well as for open carry as the Superior Court did not specifically find the statute facially unconstitutional. Instead, the Court only vacated this one specific conviction. Therefore, it is still risky to carry a firearm (openly or concealed) without a license in Pennsylvania, but if you are arrested for a firearms offense, there may be constitutional challenges which could defeat the prosecution.