A state appellate court panel has dismissed the argument of a Chester County man that his conviction for unlawfully having a handgun was unconstitutional due to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling reducing laws controlling gun ownership.
In a 41-page ruling, the state Superior Court decision by President Judge Anne Lazarus, President Judge Emeritus Jack Panella and Senior Judge James Gardner Collins stated they did not accept the assertion that the state’s law prohibiting a person from having a firearm if they had been convicted of a list of 38 offenses was annulled by the higher court’s ruling in the case of a New York law invalidated in 2022.
The Supreme Court case, known as Bruen, after the New York superintendent of police, determined that gun control laws must align with the United States’ historical tradition of firearm regulation. Therefore, if convicts in the 19th century were allowed to own or possess firearms, the court suggested, then they could not be banned from doing so today.
But the Chester County District Attorney’s Office, and the judge who presided over the man’s trial in 2022, now Senior Judge Jeffrey Sommer, stated that the court’s decision in Bruen made a difference between “law-abiding” individuals and those who had been found guilty of serious crimes.
In an email sent to prosecutors in the D.A.’s Office last month after the panel issued its ruling, written by Panella, Deputy District Attorney Gerald Morano, who argued the case on appeal, said that the panel “found that convicted violent offenders such as (defendant Jonathan) McIntyre are not considered as the law-abiding ‘people’ who have a right to possess arms under the Second Amendment.Defendant Jonathan) McIntyre are not considered as the law-abiding ‘people’ who have a right to possess arms under the Second Amendment.
“Furthermore, the court observed that the plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover McIntyre and his possession of a firearm as a convicted offender,” Morano informed his colleagues. “Therefore, the McIntyre Court found that it did not need to address the nation’s history of firearm regulation.”
Similar arguments have been presented by attorneys for other individuals found guilty of the same offense in county courts. The March 25 decision would appear to pause those appeals and could impact cases across the state. Panella concurred that it was a case of “first impression.”
“Following Bruen, DA’s Offices across the state have encountered numerous motions contesting whether it is constitutional to prevent dangerous felons from possessing firearms,” said county District Attorney Chris de Barrena-Sarobe in an email Tuesday. “In defendant McIntyre’s case, he had been previously convicted of burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault. Through the efforts of this office — particularly Chief of Appeals Jerry Morano — we were able to ensure that felons like Mr. McIntyre remain legally prohibited from possessing guns. This outcome helps keep communities across Pennsylvania safe.”
McIntyre’s defense attorney, Brian McCarthy of Exton, said he was exploring what options he and his client would have going forward.
McCarthy said it is a significant matter and they are exploring all options for appeal, such as asking the full Superior Court to review the case or seeking consideration from the state Supreme Court.
McIntyre, 42, from Malvern, was charged by Willistown police in May 2020 after his family reported that he had taken a gun from their home, where he was staying after being released from prison. McIntyre admitted knowing he was not allowed to have weapons, but claimed he did not take the gun to keep it. Instead, he carried it from his family’s house to an area in Malvern near the Malvern Fire Company on East King Street.
He buried the gun there and later showed the police where it was after his family reported it missing. He argued that he was afraid to have the gun in the house where he was living because it could violate his probation, but did not report its location until local police confronted him.
Sommer, who oversaw the trial, sentenced him to five to 20 years in state prison. He is currently being held in SCI Mahanoy for violating his parole.
Sommer rejected the appeal challenging the jury’s decision on constitutional grounds last year, stating that the nation has numerous laws regulating guns and who can own them, indicating that the notion of unrestricted gun ownership is not accurate.
In an 18-page opinion, Sommer mentioned that historical evidence supports restrictions on gun ownership and that the framers of the Second Amendment were generally in favor of regulated liberty.
As examples of such restrictions, Sommer referenced the fact that colonial governments enrolled male citizens in state militias and closely monitored all weapons owned by each man, as well as enacted over 600 laws governing weapons.
Sommer stated that between the early 17th century and just after the Civil War, states enacted over 36 carry restrictions and many laws addressed issues within the current appeal, such as preventing felons, foreigners, or other dangerous persons from owning firearms.
Sommer asserted that gun laws regulating who may own and carry firearms are as old, if not older, than the country itself, and that McIntyre's argument that Bruen represented a return to the past and the intent of the framers is unfounded and not supported by historical legal research.
In the Superior Court decision, Panella noted that the Bruen case did not directly address whether felons or other convicted offenders could possess firearms under the Second Amendment, as it focused solely on 'law-abiding' citizens.
The repeated emphasis on the rights of 'law-abiding' citizens does not support McIntyre's argument that Bruen proves the Second Amendment protects the possession of firearms by people like him who have been convicted of serious crimes, as claimed by him.
To get in touch with staff writer Michael P. Rellahan, you can call 610-696-1544.
