IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF D.B. FOR A FIREARMS PURCHASER INDENTIFICATION CARD AND PERMIT TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN (17-042, PASSAIC COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-0053-17T3
    IN THE MATTER OF THE
    APPLICATION OF D.B. FOR
    A FIREARMS PURCHASER
    IDENTIFICATION CARD
    AND PERMIT TO PURCHASE
    A HANDGUN.
    ___________________________
    Submitted December 10, 2018 – Decided December 19, 2018
    Before Judges Haas and Sumners.
    On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Passaic County, Municipal Appeal No. 17-
    042.
    Evan F. Nappen, attorney for appellant D.B. (Louis P.
    Nappen, on the brief).
    Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor,
    attorney for respondent State of New Jersey
    (Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, on
    the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant D.B. appeals from an August 4, 2017 Law Division order
    upholding a municipal police department's denial of his application for a New
    Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (FPIC) and a handgun purchase
    permit. We affirm.
    Appellant filed his application on February 24, 2017. During the routine
    records check that followed, Lieutenant Ricciardi on behalf of the chief of
    police, learned that appellant had two disorderly persons convictions in 1987
    and 1989 in New York. In January 1998, appellant was convicted of driving
    while intoxicated (DWI). He was again convicted for DWI in November 2006.
    Just six months later, in May 2007, appellant was convicted of operating a motor
    vehicle while suspended. In January 2008, he was again convicted of driving
    while his license was suspended. 1
    Based upon his criminal history record, Lieutenant Ricciardi denied
    appellant's application by letter dated April 10, 2017. The lieutenant gave
    appellant his telephone number and advised him that he could call if he
    "need[ed] to discuss this matter further." Appellant did not contact Lieutenant
    Ricciardi, but did file an appeal to the Law Division. Following a de novo
    hearing at which appellant and a different lieutenant testified, the judge found
    that in light of appellant's criminal history, giving appellant a FPIC and a
    1
    In addition, appellant's then-wife obtained three temporary restraining orders
    against him during the period between May 2001 and July 2006, with each one
    being subsequently dismissed.
    A-0053-17T3
    2
    handgun permit "would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or
    welfare" under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). This appeal followed.
    On appeal, appellant raises the following contentions:
    POINT 1
    THE COURT BELOW ERRED BECAUSE
    ISSUANCE OF FIREARM PURCHASE PERMITS
    ARE BASED ON PRESENT CONDITION, AND
    APPELLANT HAS NO PRESENT DISQUALIFYING
    CONDITION.
    POINT 2
    THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY BASING ITS
    DENIAL SOLELY UPON HEARSAY AND
    SPECULATION  CONTRARY     TO DUBOV,
    WESTON AND ONE MARLIN RIFLE.
    POINT 3
    APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS IN
    OFFENSE TO N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(f) AND IN RE
    FIREARMS PURCHASER ID BY Z.K. (Not raised
    below).
    POINT 4
    THE WEST MILFORD POLICE CHIEF ERRED BY
    FAILING TO CONFERENCE WITH APPELLANT
    PRIOR TO DENYING HIM, BY NEVER
    (APPARENTLY)   MAKING    A     DECISION
    REGARDING THE APPLICATION, AND BY
    FAILING TO APPEAR AT COURT AT THE
    HEARING BELOW OR OTHERWISE PROFFERING
    GOOD CAUSE FOR DELEGATING ANOTHER'S
    A-0053-17T3
    3
    APPEARANCE IN HIS ABSENCE.                (Not raised
    below).
    POINT 5
    APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE DENIED HIS
    FUNDAMENTAL,                     INDIVIDUAL,
    CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO KEEP ARMS FOR A
    REASON THAT DOES NOT RISE ABOVE
    RATIONAL    BASIS,      IS   VAGUE   AND/OR
    OVERBROAD,            CONSTITUTES        AN
    UNCONSTITUTIONAL BALANCING-TEST, AND
    DOES NOT PROVIDE A DUE PROCESS FORM OF
    REDRESS. (Not raised below).
    a.    The Court below erred by not basing its finding
    upon a longstanding prohibition on the possession of
    firearms, and by applying mere rational basis review to
    deny appellant his individual, fundamental right. (Not
    raised below).
    b.    "In the interest of public health, safety or
    welfare" is unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. (Not
    raised below).
    c.    "In the interest of public health, safety or
    welfare" provides unconstitutional Due Process notice
    and provides no Due Process form of redress. (Not
    raised below).
    d.    "In the interest of public health, safety or
    welfare" does not pass heightened scrutiny generally
    and as applied below as it constitutes a mere
    unconstitutional interest-balancing test. (Not raised
    below).
    A-0053-17T3
    4
    We conclude that appellant's contentions are without sufficient merit to
    warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add
    the following comments.
    We are bound to accept the trial court's fact findings if they are supported
    by substantial credible evidence, In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 
    149 N.J. 108
    , 116-17 (1997), but we exercise de novo review over the trial court's legal
    determinations, Manalapan Realty, LP v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 
    140 N.J. 366
    , 378 (1995).    Here, the judge's findings were based upon appellant's
    undisputed criminal history as revealed by the standard background check.
    Based upon that history, which includes two DWI offenses, two driving while
    suspended offenses, and two disorderly persons offenses, we discern no basis
    for disturbing the judge's conclusion that the issuance of a FPIC and handgun
    permit would be contrary to the public interest.
    Contrary to appellant's contentions, the judge's findings were not based
    "solely upon hearsay and speculation" because everything the judge relied upon
    was based upon appellant's criminal history. We also find no merit in appellant's
    contention that he was denied due process because the police chief did not meet
    with him before denying his application. As the Supreme Court held in Weston
    v. State, 
    60 N.J. 36
    , 43-44 (1972), a denied applicant should have an opportunity
    A-0053-17T3
    5
    to discuss the reasons for denial with the chief of police "and to offer an y
    pertinent explanation or information for the purpose of meeting the objections
    being raised." Here, Lieutenant Ricciardi specifically advised appellant that he
    could call if he wanted to discuss the application further. Moreover, under
    Weston, the trial court's de novo hearing "compensates constitutionally for
    procedural deficiencies before the administrative official." 
    Id. at 45-46
    .
    Finally, appellant's constitutional arguments were not raised to the Law
    Division judge. We therefore decline to consider them. State v. Robinson, 
    200 N.J. 1
    , 20 (2009). Even considered, we find them meritless, noting our prior
    discussion in In re Winston, 
    438 N.J. Super. 1
    , 10 (App. Div. 2014). See also
    In re Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to
    F.M., 
    225 N.J. 487
    , 506-08 (2016) (explaining the limitations on the right to
    possess firearms).
    Affirmed.
    A-0053-17T3
    6
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-0053-17T3

Filed Date: 12/19/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/20/2019