Jump to content
SJG

FID and Domestic Violence

Recommended Posts

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so glad that there are no knives in the house...  :rolleyes:  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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...