Katy Lyn Moyer, v. Robert Lee Boyer, Jr.

Katy Lyn Moyer, v. Robert Lee Boyer, Jr.

Civil Action-Constitutional Law-Protection From Abuse Act-Firearms License Relinquishment-Second Amendment-Right to Bear Arms-Self Defense-Credible Threat to Physical Safety-Instances of Spousal Abuse-Article I, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution-Due Process-Serial Continuances-Ex Parte Order

Robert Lee Boyer, Jr., (“Defendant”) filed a Petition to Return Firearms following entry of a final Order under the Protection from Abuse (“PFA”) Act, 23 Pa.C.S. § 6101 et seq., prohibiting him from possessing or acquiring firearms.   

1.  A final PFA order may include a directive that a defendant is subject to the firearms license relinquishment provisions.

2.  The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm for self defense.

3.  The right to keep and to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not an unlimited right to keep and to carry any weapon in any manner for any purpose.

4.  An individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another including in situations involving spousal abuse may be disarmed temporarily consistent with the Second Amendment.

5.  Article 1, Section 21 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides no broader protection than the Second Amendment. 

6.  Where Defendant has a history of harassing and threatening Katy Lyn Moyer (“Plaintiff”) at her home and place of work and violated both the temporary and final PFA Orders, Defendant poses a credible threat to Plaintiff justifying surrender of firearms for the duration of the final PFA Order.

7.  In light of the fact that a defendant has the right at the time of the full PFA hearing to present witnesses in his or her own defense and to cross examine witnesses, Defendant’s Due Process challenge to the PFA Act fails.

8.  While serial continuances of an ex parte temporary PFA Order may raise Due Process implications, the loss of possession of firearms for twenty-five (25) days between the entry of the temporary Order and the full hearing is a deprivation far less serious than eviction from one’s home or estrangement from one’s child and does not constitute a Due Process violation.

L.C.C.C.P. No. 2023-40326, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, October 17, 2024.