The Commonwealth Court has ruled that a man pardoned by the governor of Delaware for a 20-year-old drug conviction in that state has the right to carry firearms in Pennsylvania.

A three-judge panel consisting of Commonwealth Court Judges Michael Wojcik and Christine Fizzano Cannon and President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt denied the Pennsylvania State Police's request to overturn the state Attorney General's Office's order that the police amend their database so that it no longer disqualified Michael Sama from carrying a gun.

Sama was convicted in 1998 of delivering narcotics in Delaware. According to Wojcik's opinion, Sama received a pardon in 2014. An administrative law judge held that the unconditional pardon restores the right to possess firearms and hold a license to carry.

The State Police argued that the pardon was not enough, and that an order from the court of common pleas was also necessary to remove Sama's disqualification. Sama argued that his pardon meant he was no longer convicted and no court order was necessary.

Still, the State Police further argued that the Uniform Firearms Act says that a pardon, in and of itself, does not lift a firearm disability, according to Wojcik. The administrative law judge's ruling alone was insufficient, the police maintained.

However, the Commonwealth Court disagreed.

“Here, although Sama was convicted of a disabling offense in the state of Delaware, Sama received a full gubernatorial pardon without any restrictions on his ability to possess or carry firearms,” Wojcik said. “As a result of that pardon, Sama's conviction was no longer considered a 'conviction' for purposes of firearms disability under Delaware law or Pennsylvania law. In other words, his full pardon excluded his offense from UFA's definition of 'conviction.'”

Wojcik continued, “As for PSP's argument that this interpretation renders Section 6105(d)(2) meaningless or mere surplusage, we disagree. Section 6105(d)(2) directs a person who has been convicted of a crime or a person whose conduct meets certain criteria, such as a fugitive from justice, an illegal alien, or person adjudicated delinquent, may seek relief from disability by filing an application with the court of common pleas. Section 6105(d)(2) would continue to apply to persons whose conduct meets the specified criteria, but whose conviction has been the subject of a full pardon.”

Sama also requested attorney fees, but the court denied him without prejudice.

The State Police are represented by John Herman of the department's Office of General Counsel. A State Police spokesman declined to comment.

Sama is represented by Joshua Prince.

“We're extremely pleased with the Commonwealth Court's decision dismissing the Pennsylvania State Police's absurd argument that the General Assembly's enacted definition of 'conviction'—which explicitly excludes a full pardon from the definition—should be ignored and resultantly, a pardoned individual should remain prohibited for purposes of purchasing and possessing firearms and for obtaining a license to carry firearms,” Prince said in an email.

(Copies of the 13-page opinion in Pennsylvania State Police v. Sama, PICS No. 19-0640, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)