Background
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re: Appeal of TJ Cahill : : : No. 240 C.D. 2025 : : Submitted: June 16, 2026 Appeal of: TJ Cahill : BEFORE: HONORABLE LORI A. TSAI, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: July 21, 2026 TJ Cahill (Appellant) appeals from the order entered by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County (trial court) on January 27, 2025, which affirmed the decision of the City of Philadelphia, Board of License and Inspection Review (Board), revoking Appellant’s license to carry a firearm in accordance with Section 6109 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act (Act).1 After careful review, we affirm. BACKGROUND2 On October 17, 2022, the Philadelphia Police Department (City) notified Appellant that his license to carry a firearm was revoked pursuant to Section 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. 2 Unless otherwise stated, we derive the background from the Board’s decision, which is supported by the record. Op., 3/19/24, at 1-23. 6109 of the Act as the result of an incident that had occurred on October 13, 2022. Appellant appealed the revocation to the Board, which voted to affirm. The Board made the following findings. On October 13, 2022, Appellant went to St.
BACKGROUND2 On October 17, 2022, the Philadelphia Police Department (City) notified Appellant that his license to carry a firearm was revoked pursuant to Section 1 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109. 2 Unless otherwise stated, we derive the background from the Board’s decision, which is supported by the record. Op., 3/19/24, at 1-23. 6109 of the Act as the result of an incident that had occurred on October 13, 2022. Appellant appealed the revocation to the Board, which voted to affirm. The Board made the following findings. On October 13, 2022, Appellant went to St. Two separate meetings were being held at the Church that evening, one of which was a meeting with members of the community and Philadelphia police officers.3 Posted on the church’s premises, around three entrances,4 were signs stating “Notice. All weapons including concealed firearms are prohibited on these premises.” Appellant entered through one of those entrances. Nevertheless, Appellant brought firearms5 onto the church’s premises. While greeting attendees in the church courtyard, Christina Mancini, Senior Warden6 for the church, observed Appellant carrying a firearm on his hip, and also heard meeting attendees discussing that someone had entered the courtyard with a firearm. See Tr. of Test. (T.T.), 3/19/24, at 25. Mancini recognized Appellant from prior encounters at other community meetings. She approached Appellant and informed him that firearms were prohibited on the property.
The Court’s Holding
CONCLUSION The Board properly considered the totality of the evidence, made reasoned credibility determinations, and issued findings supported by substantial evidence. CamTran, 201 A.3d at 947 ; Mulberry Mkt., Inc., 735 A.2d at 767 . Additionally, the Board did not rely solely upon hearsay evidence to make its determination, in compliance with Goodman, 511 A.2d at 277 and Walker, 367 A.2d at 370 . DUMAS, Judge 14 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA In re: Appeal of TJ Cahill : : : No. 240 C.D. 2025 : : Appeal of: TJ Cahill : ORDER AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2026, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, entered January 27, 2025, is AFFIRMED.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- CONCLUSION The Board properly considered the totality of the evidence, made reasoned credibility determinations, and issued findings supported by substantial evidence.
- CamTran, 201 A.3d at 947 ; Mulberry Mkt., Inc., 735 A.2d at 767 .
- Additionally, the Board did not rely solely upon hearsay evidence to make its determination, in compliance with Goodman, 511 A.2d at 277 and Walker, 367 A.2d at 370 .
Why It Matters
Court issues a substantive appellate ruling Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.