SJG 253 Posted April 23, 2015 Court: Domestic Violence Claims Enough to Deny Gun Permit A New Jersey appeals court ruled April 22 that a person who has been accused of domestic violence but has never been found guilty can still be denied permission to purchase a gun and keep it in his or her home. A three-judge Appellate Division panel, in a reported decision, said a portion of the New Jersey Gun Control Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-39©(5), allows for firearms purchaser identification cards and purchase permits to be denied if there is a possible danger to "public health, safety and welfare." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PK90 3,570 Posted April 23, 2015 THAT IS RIDICULOUS AND ABSURD. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted April 23, 2015 So much for Due Process. Ok then. Someone start accusing every politician and cop they come in contact with in NJ of domestic violence. Oh.. and the security personnel for every politician. Disarm them all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Midwest 28 Posted April 23, 2015 What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted April 23, 2015 This should come as no surprise. This is NJ and then there is the rest of the Country. Section 5 quoted above is the catch all provision of our law that basically lets any judge do what they want. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Qel Hoth 33 Posted April 23, 2015 Is the Constitution not required reading in law school? Or at least the Bill of Rights in a basic civics class for undergrads and high school? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted April 23, 2015 Here is the link if you want to read why the court decided the way it did http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/a5848-12.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted April 23, 2015 File domestic violence allegations against every shitass judge that touched this thing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diamondd817 826 Posted April 23, 2015 What happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" ? Remember, this is NJ "we're different". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
springfieldxds 0 Posted April 23, 2015 yup this state is never changing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted April 23, 2015 If you ever wondered what is was like for those people living under Stalin.... Life in NJ is about as close as you can get right here in America. Our "elected" officials are not concerned at all with our rights. The laws they create simply don't apply to them. Just to the unwashed masses. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
springfieldxds 0 Posted April 23, 2015 this is just the beginning, soon one dui will be more than sufficient to decline you on being a drunk, then they will find a way to track how often you go to the liquor store, oh wait they already do, when they scan you license and if you got to often you're a drunk and you're denied then they'll go after major traffic offenses, like multiple speeding tickets or careless driving tickets and deny you on that, then they'll move up to minor traffic violations, hell maybe they'll even add school records into the check to deny you if you got into too many fights as a middle schooler this state is hopeless, the only hope we have to freedom is to move, the courts are just going to get more creative each time to disqualify as many people as possible, then carrying will be the least of our worries because only 1% of us will even be able to legally own a gun, and that gun will be a fingerprint reading .22 with a maximum capacity of 5 rounds Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PD2K 115 Posted April 23, 2015 So much for Due Process. Ok then. Someone start accusing every politician and cop they come in contact with in NJ of domestic violence. Oh.. and the security personnel for every politician. Disarm them all. +1 LOL Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted April 24, 2015 +1 LOL Yeah... maybe not the police. Not their fault. This crap just annoys the crap out of me. Problem with all this is without getting the right people out of office, there's no shot at fixing it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted April 24, 2015 this state is hopeless, the only hope we have to freedom is to move, the courts are just going to get more creative each time to disqualify as many people as possible, then carrying will be the least of our worries because only 1% of us will even be able to legally own a gun, and that gun will be a fingerprint reading .22 with a maximum capacity of 5 rounds They would very much like to limit us to simulated firearms that shoot nothing but a laser at a laser sensing target. That's on their agenda. Count on it. The unwashed masses have no need for real firearms according Ms. Loretta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted April 24, 2015 Back to the actually meat of the OPs post. This law is the perfect revenge tool for a pissed off spouse. Or neighbor that has it in for you. They report fighting, etc... you are screwed. There's no recourse. It's she said.. he said....... "he" always loses. Which gets back to Due Process and why it's part of our Constitution. The 14th Ammdt?? Whichever it is... this law blatently violates it. Unbelievable that this stands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CMJeepster 2,777 Posted April 24, 2015 Meanwhile, a Federal politician's son convicted of an armed robbery has a nice county job: http://www.trentonian.com/general-news/20141111/us-rep-elect-bonnie-watson-colemans-son-hired-by-mercer-county Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonecoldchavez 92 Posted April 24, 2015 "The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal," Kennedy wrote for the panel. To me, this is the more disturbing piece. He was never convicted of the DV charge. We now "convict" based on an accusation? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
raz-0 1,259 Posted April 24, 2015 "The presence of a firearm in such a household enhances the potential for such a reaction to become lethal," Kennedy wrote for the panel. To me, this is the more disturbing piece. He was never convicted of the DV charge. We now "convict" based on an accusation? Well it does say that he admitted the claims were factually correct. That's where he dug the hole. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
njJoniGuy 2,131 Posted April 24, 2015 It all comes back to NJ's original premise on firearms - that they are all illegal unless and until you can prove yourself worthy. Puts the Federal 2A on its head. Nappen hates to lose. I hope this stokes the fire in his belly to strike back at the powers-that-be in some meaningful (to us) way. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikelets456 78 Posted April 24, 2015 It all comes back to NJ's original premise on firearms - that they are all illegal unless and until you can prove yourself worthy. Puts the Federal 2A on its head. Nappen hates to lose. I hope this stokes the fire in his belly to strike back at the powers-that-be in some meaningful (to us) way. Exactly! It's like saying "you can own a car but you're only allowed to drive it from your home to the dealership and that's it". Yes, essentially guns are illegal in NJ unless you abide by the two allowances. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1LtCAP 4,262 Posted April 24, 2015 Exactly! It's like saying "you can own a car but you're only allowed to drive it from your home to the dealership and that's it". Yes, essentially guns are illegal in NJ unless you abide by the two allowances. some form of that will be coming sometime soon. probably in our lifetimes. it'll start with those states that charge tax per mile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kevin125 4,772 Posted April 24, 2015 What's happening now is these legislators are writing the laws so they are open ended and judges will have the power to legislate from the bench. It's not a accident that they are written this way, then used. It's a plan. The "public health, safety and welfare" phrase allows for infinite interpretation. What's happening is WAY beyond what the founders intended. Same as "may issue" and "justifiable need". So if a judge determines that such a person should not have a firearm, why not remove his power tools, hand tools, baseball bat, 3 wood and steak knives? Hell, why not commit him against his will to a mental institution? All that takes is two doctors and a judge. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobblackrifle 28 Posted April 24, 2015 The decision of the Appellate Court is typical for New Jersey. We have zero constitutional rights in this state. Unfortunately, due to the history of violence, and disputes within the household, I think this decision will be affirmed if appealed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SJG 253 Posted April 24, 2015 This vague catch all phrase as the opinion itself indicates has been used in the past to deny appeals of FID and handgun purchase permits. However, it appears that his own testimony did not help but rather hurt his cause and neither did his domestic relations interactions with his wife. This decision may have gone the other way had his counsel advised him to move out and get his own place as a judge might not have been so concerned if they were not living together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tunaman 548 Posted April 24, 2015 When you own firearms or want to own firearms, it is my belief that you should not put yourself in these types of positions or situations. Then you don't have this problem. One or 2 times having the cops come is one thing. But 5 times? Something is wrong there. Maybe he should learn not to fight with his wife so much. If it is that bad then get out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bigmoves11 0 Posted April 24, 2015 The Second Amendment doesn't live in New Jersey....... If we all abid by the same constitution...... How is it that they restrict some state for carry license....Bull S#/! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
djg0770 481 Posted April 29, 2015 I'm so glad that there are no knives in the house... They're prone to such violence we should make sure that they have no large sticks, hammers, axes, pick handles, baseball bats, or other appurtenances able to cause immediate and sustained bodily harm since the court and police are so concerned. SMFH. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stonecoldchavez 92 Posted May 1, 2015 Is there a possible danger that a person arrested for a crime will commit another one while out on bail? Of course, but they don't take his 5th amendment right infringed upon. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Imaginos 0 Posted May 1, 2015 this is just the beginning, soon one dui will be more than sufficient to decline you on being a drunk, then they will find a way to track how often you go to the liquor store, oh wait they already do, when they scan you license and if you got to often you're a drunk and you're denied Well the cited decision seems to cite 3 incidents in 13 years as the threshold, but the age of them now seems to count with a vague "years" being the cut off. This however is why the fact the send investigatory letters to your work, spouse , or anyone else mentioned on the "approved form" or the unapproved extra forms is such a big deal. It is a fishing attempt to find grounds like this for denial. Well it does say that he admitted the claims were factually correct. That's where he dug the hole. This is what really sunk him, the version of events in the police record could have been challenged, until he confirmed them in open court.. that pretty much kills any hearsay claim in the appeal (on the other hand one of the cited cases more or less said that asserting your 5ht amendment right show guilt (or at least it is ok for the judge to presume so) which flies in the face of every 5th amendment decision ever (how the hell did State v. Cordoma not end up in front of the supreme court?) That said it was better than perjury (never a good idea). So short version unless the record is completely wrong.. you are always better off just shutting up and letting the records speak for themselves Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites