Man’s firearm rights upheld

Bernard previously said his temporary commitment does not bar gun ownership

A decision by a Blair County judge to restore a local man's "right to bear arms" has been upheld by a state appeals court despite objections from the county's Department of Social Services.

Superior Court Judge Deborah A. Kunselman in an opinion Monday ruled that a decision restoring the right of an area man to own a firearm even though he experienced a mental health episode nearly three years ago was within the law.

In her ruling, Kunselman upheld a decision by Blair County Judge Jackie A. Bernard, who indicated after a hearing last year that a temporary commitment under Pennsylvania's Mental Health Act did not bar the man from possessing a firearm.

The man was referred to only by his initials in the opinions of both Kunselman and Bernard.

The Superior Court opinion was joined by Judges Mary Jane Bowes and James G. Colins.

The case before the court did not involve the use of a firearm, but the Department of Social Services objected to the restoration of the man's right to bear arms after a friend called Greenfield Township police in 2021 to report the man, who faced a plethora of personal problems, remarked he was going to harm himself and "referenced taking pills."

Police responded to the call and transported him to UPMC Altoona where a doctor indicated he allegedly "drank alcohol and took pills to kill himself."

The man, referred to as the Petitioner, was admitted to the hospital under Section 302(b) of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Act, which permits authorities to place an individual in a mental health facility without a warrant, but based on indicators that the individual is mentally disabled.

The petitioner in his testimony noted that he was under pressure due to several issues in his life -- his daughter suffered from a disease, the child's mother had left him and he had lost his job.

However, he denied he intended to commit suicide, explaining he drank alcohol in an effort to relax and had taken pills for a headache.

He did not identify the friend who called the police.

Since that commitment he testified he has learned how to manage his child's illness; that he and the child's mother now have a good working relationship; and that he has a new job.

He asked the court to restore his right to own firearms "so he can enjoy hunting."

The hearing before Bernard also included testimony by a psychologist who reported testing of the individual did not reveal any mental health problems and that his prognosis was good "in the absence of significant life's stressors."

She concluded also that it was safe for him "to carry and use firearms at this time."

The county, however, questioned his truthfulness and stated his version of what occurred was "convoluted" and "disingenuous."

The Superior Court emphasized the case did not involve a "reweighting" of evidence as perceived by the judge, but instead was a pure question of law.

The Superior Court opinion cited a provision of the Mental Health Act that stated ... "the court may grant such relief as it deems appropriate if the court determines that the applicant may possess a firearm without risk to the applicant or any other person."

The Superior Court opinion explained that an appellate court, which did not have the opportunity to see or hear witnesses first hand, may not reweigh the credibility of witnesses.

"While (Department of Social Services) believes the petitioner lied in his testimony, the trial court found the testimony credible.

"In addition, the trial court found petitioner's expert psychologist to be credible, who clinically tested petitioner and determined he was free of mental illness such that he may safely possess firearms."

It then upheld Bernard's decision.

Blair County attorney Stephen D. Wicks represented Blair County.

The petitioner represented himself.