The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently ruled in a case involving Nathaniel Fick, who challenged the Pennsylvania State Police's (PSP) classification of simple assault as a disqualifying offense for firearm certification. This decision, filed on May 28, 2026, could affect many individuals seeking to obtain or renew their Act 235 certification, which allows them to carry firearms in their security roles.
Fick, who has worked as a security guard since 2012, applied for Act 235 certification in June 2021 after being offered a position that required him to carry a firearm. However, his application was denied due to a 2014 conviction for simple assault, classified as a second-degree misdemeanor under Pennsylvania law. Fick argued that simple assault should not be considered a crime of violence or a disqualifying offense under PSP regulations.
The dispute began when Fick submitted his application for Act 235 certification, which required him to disclose any criminal history. The PSP denied his application based on his previous conviction, asserting that simple assault fell under its definition of a crime of violence. This led Fick to seek an administrative hearing, which eventually escalated to the Commonwealth Court.
In its ruling, the court, led by Judge Anne E. Covey, addressed Fick's application for summary and special relief. The court found that PSP's interpretation of simple assault as a crime of violence was not consistent with its own regulations. The ruling stated, "PSP's interpretation that simple assault is a crime of violence is contrary to PSP's Regulations and violates Section 202 of the Commonwealth Documents Law." The court emphasized that the classification of simple assault as a disqualifying offense was not supported by the law.
Furthermore, the court determined that Fick's concerns about potential future enforcement of PSP's interpretation were valid, as PSP had not retracted its stance on simple assault for other applicants. The court noted, "Although PSP has indicated that Fick will not be denied renewal based on his simple assault conviction, it has not retracted its interpretation as to all Act 235 certification applicants." This suggests that the issue remains relevant for others who may face similar circumstances.
The court's decision has significant implications for individuals seeking Act 235 certification in Pennsylvania. By clarifying that simple assault should not be classified as a crime of violence, the ruling opens the door for applicants with similar convictions to pursue certification without the fear of automatic disqualification. This could potentially lead to a larger pool of qualified individuals eligible to carry firearms in security roles.
Moving forward, the ruling sets a precedent for how the PSP interprets criminal offenses in relation to firearm certification. It may prompt the PSP to reevaluate its policies and regulations regarding disqualifying offenses, especially as it pertains to simple assault. This decision could also encourage other individuals with past convictions to challenge similar denials in court.
As for what’s next, PSP has the option to appeal the ruling. However, the court's strong language and clear reasoning may make it challenging for PSP to successfully overturn the decision. Additionally, there are no related cases pending that would directly impact this ruling, but it may inspire similar challenges from other applicants in the future.