Com. v. McIntyre, J., 314 A.3d 828

Jonathan McIntyre, previously convicted of violent felonies (including burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault), was prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 6105.
After his release on parole, McIntyre took a firearm from his uncle’s home, buried it in a nearby park, and later directed family to its location.
He was charged and convicted by a jury of being a person prohibited from possessing a firearm.
On appeal, McIntyre argued the statute prohibiting his possession of a firearm was unconstitutional in light of recent federal case law (notably NYSRPA v. Bruen and Range v. Attorney General), and also raised several procedural and evidentiary issues.
The Superior Court analyzed the claims, especially in light of constitutional arguments under both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution, and procedural waivers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constitutionality of § 6105 (Second Amendment/Bruen)	Section 6105 is unconstitutional after Bruen and Range, as it improperly denies some individuals gun rights.	Bruen only protects law-abiding citizens; prohibiting felons is longstanding and constitutional.	Section 6105 is constitutional. Bruen and Heller do not extend Second Amendment protection to felons.
Constitutionality under Pennsylvania Constitution/As Applied	Section 6105 is unconstitutional under state constitution and as applied to McIntyre.	McIntyre waived these claims by not raising them at trial or in Rule 1925(b) statement.	Claims waived and unreviewable on appeal.
Sufficiency of the evidence (Possession)	He did not intend to possess/control the firearm, intending only to avoid harm; Heidler applies.	He admitted physical possession and intentionally hid the firearm; facts distinguishable from Heidler.	Sufficient evidence supported conviction; trial court did not err.
Entitlement to justification/self-defense jury instruction	Sought instruction since he acted out of necessity or self-defense regarding the firearm.	No plausible evidence supporting justification defense; facts do not warrant such instruction.	No error in refusal to instruct; facts did not support justification/self-defense.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (held restrictive public carry licensing laws violate Second and Fourteenth Amendments but addressed only law-abiding citizens)
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (individual right to bear arms but upholds felon-in-possession prohibitions as presumptively lawful)
Commonwealth v. Miklos, 159 A.3d 962 (Pa. Super. 2017) (justification defense may apply to firearm possession, but only in limited circumstances)
Commonwealth v. Heidler, 741 A.2d 213 (Pa. Super. 1999) (constructive possession turned on power and intent to control, but factually distinguishable here)