Jump to content
Downtownv

NJ man seeking gun permits loses appeal 11/14/19

Recommended Posts

NJ man seeking gun permits loses appeal 

Terrence T. McDonald

NorthJersey.com USA TODAY NETWORK – NEW JERSEY

A New Jersey man who has been seeking gun permits for three years lost again in court Wednesday when an appellate panel declined to reverse a lower court ruling that focused largely on the man’s 2001 arrest for eluding police.

The plaintiff, in his mid-40s, argued that his past conduct should not have played a factor in the government's decision to deny him the permits, but the appellate judges said the lower court’s decision must be given deference because it was based on “substantial credible evidence,” including the man’s testimony.

The ruling refers to the plaintiff by his initials only. A request for comment from his attorney was not returned.

New Jersey has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, per the National Rifle Association, which lists it along with seven others states that give the government 'complete discretion' over the issuance of carry permits.

This case in question illustrates 'the paranoia and hysteria' about firearms today, Alex P. Roubian, president of the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, told NorthJersey.com.

The plaintiff, who the ruling says was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces for four years, “carried a firearm around the world without incident, and now in New Jersey he's being denied his Second Amendment right,” Roubian said.

The facts of the case are spelled out in the 15-page ruling. The plaintiff, a paramedic with Hackensack University Medical Center for more than a decade, had his criminal record expunged in 2016 after he applied to become an Oakland police officer, the ruling says. He was not hired.

The ruling describes two prior criminal incidents. When he was 18, he pleadedguilty to a disorderly

person's offenses following an arrest for smoking marijuana, stealing a purse and writing a check to himself for $100, according to the ruling.

The second came in 2001, when he was 24. He pleaded guilty to eluding police following a high-speed policepursuit after which he repeatedly refused demands by police to drop a knife he held in his hands, the ruling says.

'I was drinking and I was stupid. I have a lot of pentup aggression,” he told police at the time, according to the ruling.

The plaintiff had his record expunged before he applied for a firearms purchaser identification card and two handgun purchase permits, but the Oakland police chief cited his prior arrests in denying him the permits. In New Jersey, you must get permission from your local police department to receive a firearm ID card.

The plaintiff appealed the chief’s decision to a trial court and lost there as well.

The lower court judge rejected the plaintiff’s argument that his expunged criminal record should not have been used to determine whether he should own a firearm, saying that while the incidents may not exist in the eyes of the law “the events which they concern and evidence do nonetheless have existence.”

Email: mcdonaldt@northjersey.comTwitter: @terrencemcd

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Downtownv said:

saying that while the incidents may not exist in the eyes of the law “the events which they concern and evidence do nonetheless have existence.”

They don’t exist in the eyes of the law, but the law will look at them and use it against you. 

I’m no lawyer but, how is that even a possibility. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 0Jeep4 said:

...I’m no lawyer but, how is that even a possible. 

Welcome to the Glorious Peoples Republik of New Jerseystan, where gun-owning subjects must soon have a big red "G" tattooed on their foreheads as a sign of their "transgression" :fie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, njJoniGuy said:

Welcome to the Glorious Peoples Republik of New Jerseystan, where gun-owning subjects must soon have a big red "G" tattooed on their foreheads as a sign of their "transgression" :fie:

Welcome to the Glorious Peoples Republik of New Jerseystan, where, on the eyes of our betters,  owning a gun is a privilege not a right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Downtownv said:

The plaintiff, who the ruling says was a member of the U.S. Armed Forces for four years, “carried a firearm around the world without incident, and now in New Jersey he's being denied his Second Amendment right,” Roubian said.

The military says he's safe to carry a gun, but the local ruling class says he's not..

You just can't make this crap up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not specifically sure of his character and don't know him personally,  but It seems he has in fact made choices in the past and they have consequences.  And, I believe that that is important.   I guess his parents or guardians were unable to teach him that early on.   For me, there is no clarity that this guy is a poster child for having his rights restored.  

On the flipside, the military chose to invest in this man, though.  He was honorably discharged I presume, and it would seem that he has turned his life around.  Aren't the hypcocritical ruling class all about rehabilitating people and NOT holding people accountable for their past actions. I guess they are afraid that he might not do something wrong and therefore not worth their time, financially, with future court appearances...  Why do they "let" dangerous repeat offenders back out on the street with their revolvering doors, known drug users and others with a list of criminal activities and by default let them arm themselves, and yet this paramedic that seemingly has turned his life around, well he is unfit?     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Underdog said:

Why do they "let" dangerous repeat offenders back out on the street with their revolvering doors, known drug users and others with a list of criminal activities and by default let them arm themselves, and yet this paramedic that seemingly has turned his life around, well he is unfit?     

That's called "Liberal Logic". Ask Greenday or AVB to explain it, because I can't.

The guy is a Vet and a paramedic for 10 years, which assumes he went through some significant background checks, that apparently weren't any issue.

He also applied to the Oakland PD for a job, but wasn't hired. Wonder if any of that was a factor to his denial?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Underdog said:

Aren't the hypcocritical ruling class all about rehabilitating people and NOT holding people accountable for their past actions.

Bingo.  This is purely punishment because it's 2A related.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to look this up because I'm no lawyer.  " Expungement (also called 'expunction') is a court-ordered process in which the legal record of an arrest or a criminal conviction is 'sealed,' or erased in the eyes of the law. When a conviction is expunged, the process may also be referred to as "setting aside a criminal conviction."

So given the above, how were they able to "unseal" the conviction?  And under what circumstances can they do it?  I know it's expensive process, I'm not sure what was the point to it all.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/expungement/expungement-basics.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, dilbert1967 said:

I had to look this up because I'm no lawyer.  " Expungement (also called 'expunction') is a court-ordered process in which the legal record of an arrest or a criminal conviction is 'sealed,' or erased in the eyes of the law. When a conviction is expunged, the process may also be referred to as "setting aside a criminal conviction."

So given the above, how were they able to "unseal" the conviction?  And under what circumstances can they do it?  I know it's expensive process, I'm not sure what was the point to it all.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/expungement/expungement-basics.html

On the application there is a question that asks directly if you have any expungements. The expungement is sealed by a judge and can only be opened by one. NJSP or local LEOs can’t. 
 

Did I miss it or is this guy’s age mentioned anywhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ruling describes two prior criminal incidents. When he was 18, he pleadedguilty to a disorderly person's offenses following an arrest for smoking marijuana, stealing a purse and writing a check to himself for $100, according to the ruling.

The second came in 2001, when he was 24. He pleaded guilty to eluding police following a high-speed policepursuit after which he repeatedly refused demands by police to drop a knife he held in his hands, the ruling says.

'I was drinking and I was stupid. I have a lot of pentup aggression,” he told police at the time, according to the ruling.

_________

Drugs & drunkenness, with a lot of pent-up aggression.

All reasons to deny.

The article also seems to imply these incidents occured in Oakland; which means that the Police Chief would likely have personal knowledge of his previous transgressions.  I'm no lawyer, but I believe* the Police Chief CAN rely on personal knowledge of the applicant; he does not have to rely upon court records that are now sealed.

We all don't know enough about this issue....and I have little trust in reporters. 

But.....All this means that your past can come back to haunt you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is NOT Mark Chessman's case.

I never knew about this did anyone else?

Hell based on this anyone of us would have been granted the permit?

 Bullsh!t

I applied and was denied and no criminal anything (Squeaky Clean) so no surprise on this guy.

I also have 4 ccw's from other states was Background checked in all 4 of them plus FBI, but denied in NJ.

 

 

Shocked-I-say-meme-53182.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Downtownv said:

had his criminal record expunged in 2016 after he applied to become an Oakland police officer, the ruling says.

 

10 hours ago, Downtownv said:

The plaintiff had his record expunged before he applied for a firearms purchaser identification card and two handgun purchase permits, but the Oakland police chief cited his prior arrests in denying him the permits.

Sounds like they went back to his file, before his record was expunged...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those of you who have played lawyer, you are wrong on the law, wrong on the effect of an expungement and wrong on what led the court to reach the decision it did. You may be interested to know that this case was handled by Nappen. Additonally,  the evidence that Nappen and his client put forth left a lot to be desired.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SJG said:

For those of you who have played lawyer, you are wrong on the law, wrong on the effect of an expungement and wrong on what led the court to reach the decision it did. You may be interested to know that this case was handled by Nappen, who may have made a concession he should not have made. Additonally,  the evidence that Nappen and his client put forth left a lot to be desired.

OK - so are you going to tell us "the rest of the story", or just keep us in suspense?

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SJG said:

For those of you who have played lawyer, you are wrong on the law, wrong on the effect of an expungement and wrong on what led the court to reach the decision it did. You may be interested to know that this case was handled by Nappen, who may have made a concession he should not have made. Additonally,  the evidence that Nappen and his client put forth left a lot to be desired.

You can't just drop that meatball and serve no sauce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dilbert1967 said:

I had to look this up because I'm no lawyer.  " Expungement (also called 'expunction') is a court-ordered process in which the legal record of an arrest or a criminal conviction is 'sealed,' or erased in the eyes of the law. When a conviction is expunged, the process may also be referred to as "setting aside a criminal conviction."

So given the above, how were they able to "unseal" the conviction?  And under what circumstances can they do it?  I know it's expensive process, I'm not sure what was the point to it all.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/expungement/expungement-basics.html

Unsealing is part of the statute where the underlying offense is relevant to litigation in connection with the permit process or where you seek employment in law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BobA said:

Well at 45, if he’s been clean since 24yrs old, then this is shit. 

When it comes to firearms, your past can haunt you. It is still a good idea if you qualify to get a record of conviction expunged for other reasons.

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...