Recourse against local PD for denial?

[DirtyDigz 1,103]

Okay, let me put this in the simplest form.

 

Can a person who has been formally denied an FID or duplicate FID legally possess a firearm?

 

Depends on the reason for denial for the FID.  Denied because they didn't adhere to the FID application process, but they are otherwise not a prohibited person?  Then they can legally possess any NJ legal firearm they want, they'll just be unable to purchase firearms and handgun ammunition in NJ.

[Pizza Bob 1,468]

While I predict that you will probably win on appeal, I don't think that the police department will be faulted for their reason for denial. It is a gray area as to whether the physical verification of your address is "added content". The issuing authority is tasked to do a background check on the applicant. AFAIK there are no guidelines as to how thorough that background check is to be or what procedures are to be followed.

 

You'll win because, as you and others have pointed out, there are other ways to verify your address - ways that are accepted by other governmental entities.

 

If my prediction proves correct, and no fault is found with the PD, you will be on the hook for any legal fees incurred. 

 

Just the way I see it. Of course, this is NJ, so anything can happen.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

[MattP725 0]

Bob I believe you're probably correct. Life will go on I'm sure. Just one of those things that seem unfair but aren't likely to change.

[PeteF 941]

Dupe

[PeteF 941]

Okay, let me put this in the simplest form.

 

Can a person who has been formally denied an FID or duplicate FID legally possess a firearm?

Simply. Yes. Being denied a FPID is not a legal disqualifier. It is a decision by 1 individual. Not by a judge after a hearing. Any firearms you have legally, are yours.

[jackandjill 682]

Bob I believe you're probably correct. Life will go on I'm sure. Just one of those things that seem unfair but aren't likely to change.

Unless, the said PD singled you out. Another reason to see if it's usual process that PD puts everyone through or they picked on you.

[Zeke 5,496]

Simply. Yes. Being denied a FPID is not a legal disqualifier. It is a decision by 1 individual. Not by a judge after a hearing. Any firearms you have legally, are yours.

This

 

And, he has an Fpid from his previous residence.

[Zeke 5,496]

Bob I believe you're probably correct. Life will go on I'm sure. Just one of those things that seem unfair but aren't likely to change.

This sucks bro!

It's amazing how municipalities don't follow law.

 

Please keep us informed. The only way to change this is to fight. If you haven't contacted ANJRPC I would reccomend it.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

Considering the FID has to match your DL, whats the problem showing them you actually live where you claim to live???????????

 

So what you're saying is he should've let the police come into his home to verify he lives there?

[MattP725 0]

Unless, the said PD singled you out. Another reason to see if it's usual process that PD puts everyone through or they picked on you.

They claim they do it to everyone and I'm the only one to ever refuse.

 

I understand it's a polarizing issue. Many people see no problem allowing them to come into your home. My only suggestion of caution is that you never know something is a problem until after it is already a problem. Always easier to avoid an issue from the start than to try to clean up a mess. Cost or not I don't regret my refusal to comply.

[Sig226GuyNJ 128]

They claim they do it to everyone and I'm the only one to ever refuse.

 

I understand it's a polarizing issue. Many people see no problem allowing them to come into your home. My only suggestion of caution is that you never know something is a problem until after it is already a problem. Always easier to avoid an issue from the start than to try to clean up a mess. Cost or not I don't regret my refusal to comply.

 

You did the right thing. Anyone who would actually allow them to come into their home like this, is a part of the problem we have in NJ.

[Zeke 5,496]

You did the right thing. Anyone who would actually allow them to come into their home like this, is a part of the problem we have in NJ.

I concur.

[Scorpio64 3,364]

They claim they do it to everyone and I'm the only one to ever refuse.

 

I understand it's a polarizing issue. Many people see no problem allowing them to come into your home. My only suggestion of caution is that you never know something is a problem until after it is already a problem. Always easier to avoid an issue from the start than to try to clean up a mess. Cost or not I don't regret my refusal to comply.

 

This is a trap, an unconstitutional one at that.  They want you to surrender your 4A right, and if you say no then you are suspect.  The fallacious argument is that if you have nothing to hide then why not let them in.  What can LE possibly gain by entering your home that they cannot see from the street?  It's not like the address is an imaginary structure, your DL, utility bills, mortgage or lease should be more than enough.  Most people are scared little sheep and they will allow LE to enter their home.  Instead they take the easy path, which means letting someone walk all over you.  Choice A, kowtow and let LE in your home for a dubious inspection or B, have it turn into a costly fiasco.  And that my friend(s) is why NJ is the second worst state for gun owners, because most sheep will just stand thee and take it up the rear end from their supposed shepherds.

 

People with nothing to hide should not have to prove that fact.

[xtrememachines 1]

Home Visits sound like Englishtown NJ.... I have heard this is the practice

Thats the first town that came to mind while reading this. 

[oldguysrule649 281]

There is one other issue that struck me from your original post that no picked up on. You stated that your psychaitrist signed off on your application in 2012. This implies you correctly answered yes to Q#26 at the time. You further state (on this public forum) that you did not disclose it this time around. IF you answered No to Q#26 this time, a case could be made that you were not truthful on the sts033 form. The Q#26 wording is "... have you EVER been treated.....". Recommend you also discuss this with your lawyer.

[njpilot 670]

Tell them they can come to your house and you will be sitting on your porch. you will show them that your key unlocks the front door and that is all that should be necessary to prove you live there. 

[Tunaman 288]

When I got my change of address in Rutherford,  the Detective called me at the house and personally hand delivered my card to the front door.  I believe this verified that I lived there.

[MattP725 0]

There is one other issue that struck me from your original post that no picked up on. You stated that your psychaitrist signed off on your application in 2012. This implies you correctly answered yes to Q#26 at the time. You further state (on this public forum) that you did not disclose it this time around. IF you answered No to Q#26 this time, a case could be made that you were not truthful on the sts033 form. The Q#26 wording is "... have you EVER been treated.....". Recommend you also discuss this with your lawyer.

Nah I disclosed it BOTH times and will continue to always do so. I refuse to give them a reason lol.

[MattP725 0]

When I got my change of address in Rutherford, the Detective called me at the house and personally hand delivered my card to the front door. I believe this verified that I lived there.

Oh I'm sure that was the intent. I would honesty have been ok with that as long as he wasn't invited in.

[chris327 30]

I believe there was a case from paterson involving the detective following the applicant and not issuing bc the detective did not believe he lived at the address stated, since his dl was of that a dress he sued and won. I'm trying to find it but I think it's from a few years ago. Did find the Perez vs paterson case too that is about added forms.

[Newtonian 427]

Contact NJ2AS.

Yes they will immediately begin recall proceedings against his assemblymen and state senator, and in about 30 years the issue will be resolved. 

[Zeke 5,496]

Yes they will immediately begin recall proceedings against his assemblymen and state senator, and in about 30 years the issue will be resolved.

Cough,

typical

[maintenanceguy 394]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. 

 

Obviously, THE problem is that there's a permitting process at all.  But, if you can get past that, the permitting process requires that the police verify the information on your application.  Verifying your address is part of that - if they police want to bother to do so.  So let them come to your address, greet them at the door, thank them for their thoroughness, and send them on their way.

[MattP725 0]

I'm not sure I understand the problem. 

 

Obviously, THE problem is that there's a permitting process at all.  But, if you can get past that, the permitting process requires that the police verify the information on your application.  Verifying your address is part of that - if they police want to bother to do so.  So let them come to your address, greet them at the door, thank them for their thoroughness, and send them on their way.

 

That is not sufficient to them... they want to conduct an "in home interview"...

[Luso 6]

I'm third person to assume this is englishtown, because my friend just went through the same fascist bullshit.

 

You should have ZERO reservations in divulging the town. Why are you protecting their horrendous behavior? Until people call them out publicly, nothing can change.

 

You all know my proclivities here. I would be walking into that station and secretly taping video of that chief repeating that he is denying your application because you refuse to let some storm trooper march around your house. It's absolutely fascistic and cancerous on our part to submit to such requests. If you put that video on YouTube, you'd get that township in beacoup hot water and it would resonate beyond our state borders.

 

It's this type of stuff I'm always advocating- sunlight is the best disinfectant. The problem is people don't even know or comprehend how bad the problem is here already

[MattP725 0]

If it helps you guys it is NOT Englishtown... I'm not protecting them.  I'm protecting myself.  Not from backlash but from the slight possibility that my message to the State Police Firearms unit today or my call in to Evan Nappen somehow can spur a resolution outside of an appeal (say if they didn't actually file the decision with the state and are just waiting to see if I'm going to make it an issue).  I don't want any further reason YET for this local PD to have any macho recourse that could otherwise been resolved.  The moment I know that it is going to appeal or has been resolved, I have all intention of releasing the info as well as following up with state legislators to hopefully stop this from happening again.

 

The best part is that I don't need him to admit anything on tape (illegal in NJ if I am not mistaken... are we not a dual consent state?)... I have it in writing.

 

You're 100% right about shedding light on the situation... just want people to respect my right to POSSIBLY look for resolution prior to going full tilt with the appeal.  Maybe a followup call from the state will somehow change the outcome.

[Luso 6]

If it helps you guys it is NOT Englishtown... I'm not protecting them. I'm protecting myself. Not from backlash but from the slight possibility that my message to the State Police Firearms unit today or my call in to Evan Nappen somehow can spur a resolution outside of an appeal (say if they didn't actually file the decision with the state and are just waiting to see if I'm going to make it an issue). I don't want any further reason YET for this local PD to have any macho recourse that could otherwise been resolved. The moment I know that it is going to appeal or has been resolved, I have all intention of releasing the info as well as following up with state legislators to hopefully stop this from happening again.

 

The best part is that I don't need him to admit anything on tape (illegal in NJ if I am not mistaken... are we not a dual consent state?)... I have it in writing.

 

You're 100% right about shedding light on the situation... just want people to respect my right to POSSIBLY look for resolution prior to going full tilt with the appeal. Maybe a followup call from the state will somehow change the outcome.

Incorrect. One party consent state. As long as you're in the conversation it's perfectly legal.

[MattP725 0]

Incorrect. One party consent state. As long as you're in the conversation it's perfectly legal.

 

 

Ahh good to know... I do have one VM from the "investigator" saying they need to schedule a meet to go over a "10 question form" which constitutes paperwork in addition to state requirements.  Good to know that I can use it.  I wish I recorded our subsequent conversations.  Probably didn't add any real value as they admitted their reason for denial in writing as I mentioned.

[Luso 6]

If I were you, I would record every single interaction you have going forward with any agent of the State.

 

I feel for you and wish you the best of luck. I will say lawyers will happily take your money and you may wish to try to document the problem further and make it a public issue. The law is expensive and slow, embarrassment is swift.

 

Keep us updated. If you want to divulge the town, i would happily coordinate other people to confront them and record them without mentioning you by name

[Rob0115 1,080]

Okay, let me put this in the simplest form.

 

Can a person who has been formally denied an FID or duplicate FID legally possess a firearm?

Yes