The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over which factors are required to disqualify someone from possessing a firearm.

In Navarro v. Pennsylvania State Police, the justices granted allocatur Dec. 18 to review a Commonwealth Court ruling that an administrative law judge of the state Attorney General's Office improperly denied plaintiff Richard Navarro's application for return of a firearm without showing that the weapon was involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

In November 2013, Navarro pleaded guilty to two first-degree misdemeanor counts of forgery and was sentenced to 24 months of probation, according to the lower court's May opinion. In October 2016, Navarro submitted an application for return of a firearm and was denied after a Pennsylvania Instant Check System report, which listed him as disqualified based on his 2013 convictions.

When Navarro challenged the decision, he was informed in a letter from the Pennsylvania State Police that his application had been denied pursuant to Section 922(g) of the federal Gun Control Act (GCA). Navarro appealed and, in 2017, an ALJ, agreeing with the PSP's decision, denied his application.

Judge Christine Fizzano Cannon, writing for a unanimous three-judge Commonwealth Court panel in May, said the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (PUFA) requires the PSP to determine whether a potential purchaser or transferee of a firearm has a criminal history that disqualifies them under state or federal law. Triggering of Section 922(g) of the GCA, meanwhile, requires proof of two things: (1) a disqualifying conviction, and (2) that the firearm at issue was involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

“Therefore, per the language of the statute, without proof that the firearm sought to be purchased, possessed, or received moved in interstate commerce, GCA Section 922(g) would not apply regardless of whether or not the individual in question had a disqualifying criminal offense,” Cannon said. “Such proof need not be extensive, but it must be present in some form to trigger the application of Section 922(g).”

Cannon, joined by Judge Robert Simpson and Senior Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter, said the ALJ improperly denied Navarro's application without making any findings that the weapon was involved in interstate or foreign commerce. The court vacated the ALJ's decision and remanded for further proceedings.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the state is asking the justices whether the Commonwealth Court was wrong to upend the ALJ's decision since PUFA itself does not require a showing that the firearm in question was involved in interstate or foreign commerce.

A spokesman for the State Police said the office does not comment on pending litigation.

Navarro, who is pro se, said he thought it was a good thing that the Supreme Court had agreed to hear the case.

“I hope my argument was convincing,” he said.