Blog Archives

Man calls Chief to speed up permit process

I don’t suggest you do this, but I thought I’d share this story.

Hi Jef,

You asked me when we spoke last friday to keep you updated on my FID
process. Like I had explained I had called weeks ago and was met with
an irritated secretary that told me they were months and months behind
and offered no other insight other than you get it when you get it.
After speaking with you, I decided to roll the dice and call the chief
of police and explain my situation and inquire about the timeline.

I spoke with his secretary, who was very helpful and who passed me on
the Lt. who handle the firearm permits. I left the Lt. a voice mail
explaining my upcoming hunting trip and just wanted to know if I would
have the permit prior to my april departure date and if not it, it was
no problem. I just needed to know ASAP in order to cancel and get my
deposit back.

On wednesday of this week I received a VM from the Lt. saying all was
good and the permit just needed to be signed by the chief which should
be done within a few days. I received the call the permit was ready
today and picked it up.

It seems that the Lt. is actually a reasonable guy.

Various examples of garbage going on here in NJ

Client just hired me this week who applied for a purchase permit and, after several months, was denied because one of his references could not be reached.  Of course, a simple phone call to the client to ask if he can call the person or supply another name would have been the polite thing to do.  I have to think that if the client had an attorney, this would not happen.  In fact, I’ve yet to get a call from a police department for this issue.  Thus, one has to wonder if this is really legit in most cases.

What is sad about this is that a client like this should not have to get an attorney.  However, the alternative is paying an attorney several thousand dollar to appeal instead of a several hundred to do the application. 

Another client emailed me and told me that one police department is telling him that they are at least 6 months behind.  Funny thing is, I just processed an application with the same department about a month ago and was processed very quickly.   Again, just garbage.  I might seem like an odd attorney, but it bothers me when clients have to hire an attorney for matters that shouldn’t require one.  But, if I can save them thousands by avoiding an appeal, I feel that it is the best case scenario given the circumstances.

NJ tries to limit gun purchases even though no one can get a gun anyway

Talk about pointless.  No one I know can get a gun without any hassle anyway but NJ wants to limit your purchases to one every 30 days.  I see no evidence of “straw buyers” and as a criminal defense attorney, most guns I see in the hands of criminal defendants are stolen. 

Here’s the real issue here.  I don’t see a need for anyone to buy numerous guns over and over again.  Thus, it should be pretty easy to figure out who these straw buyers are.  Guess who grants the permits?  The police!  Can’t they question anyone who is buying a ton of guns?   Of course they can.  Why won’t they?   Cause this probably doesn’t happen that often.  My understanding is that guns are bought in other states and brought up to New Jersey. 

Hopefully this bill goes away but it won’t be easy.  Call you local State senator and tell him to vote no, especially if you are a democrat. 

Story is here.

My retainers vary depending on the case


My wife and I are both waiting for our NJ pistol purchase permits and Firearms IDs. It has been more than 30 days since we filed our applications with the State Police.

We have no criminal backgrounds, nor mental health issues.

How much does your assistance cost?

Answer:  While I prefer to get involved before the application is made, I can and do jump in afterwards.  I don’t have a set price list as it will vary depending on a variety of factors.  I would not charge you extra for your wife though.  My initial consultations are free, so just call me.  I only need about 5 minutes to get the info I need to set a retainer.

Recent calls show more reasons to get an attorney

I had two calls this week that illustrate the difference between getting an attorney for a permit application and not getting one. 

One new client called me because he was denied a purchase permit.  He did not have an attorney during the process.  He was denied because there was a warrant for his arrest out of California.  The problem is, there does not seem to really be any arrest warrant as every court he calls tells him that there is nothing in their system.  Nevertheless, he would have to pay me a lot more money to clear this up.

Contrast that to a client that did hire me.  A Sgt from the State Police called me and advised me that my client failed to disclose an arrest and that he was not happy.  The Sgt said that he could file criminal charges against my client for lying on the application but that he wouldn’t.  In fact, he is going to put the application on hold while we gather the missing information.  My client can then amend the application to include this new information. 

If avoiding thousands of dollars of legal fees and possible criminal charges doesn’t provide you with incentive to hire an attorney for the permit application, I don’t know what will.

Man denied permit based upon false complaints

Guy called me today to handle an appeal for a gun permit.  He was denied because he had a conditional discharge and his ex-girlfriend filed false complaints against him several years ago, all of which were dismissed.  In fact, she actually pled  guilty to making false complaints! 

Luckily for this guy, I think he has a great shot on appeal.  However, it will just cost him more money than if he hired me to do the permit application in the first place.

NJ Appeals Court rules that people can change for the better

This case is a major win against the war against 2nd Amendment rights in New Jersey!



DOCKET NO. A-2265-07T4






January 23, 2009



Submitted December 16, 2008 – Decided


Before Judges Graves and Grall.


On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,

Law Division, Hudson County.


R.M. appeals from an order dated December 20, 2007, denying his application for a permit to purchase a handgun and a firearms purchaser identification card. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(a) and (b). After reviewing the record, the briefs, and the applicable law in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c) directs the issuance of a permit to purchase a handgun and a firearms purchaser identification card to any person of “good character and good repute” who is not subject to any of the enumerated exceptions. The statute provides, in part, as follows:

No person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives, and who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter, shall be denied a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card, except as hereinafter set forth. No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued:

(1) To any person who has been convicted of any crime, or a disorderly persons offense involving an act of domestic violence as defined in section 3 of P.L.1991,c.261(C.2C:25-19), whether or not armed with or possessing a weapon at the time of such offense;

(2) To any drug dependent person as defined in section 2 of P.L.1970,c.226 (C.24:21-2), to any person who is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium, or to any person who is presently an habitual drunkard;

(3) To any person who suffers from a physical defect or disease which would make it unsafe for him to handle firearms, to any person who has ever been confined for a mental disorder, or to any alcoholic unless any of the foregoing persons produces a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in New Jersey, or other satisfactory proof, that he is no longer suffering from that particular disability in such a manner that would interfere with or handicap him in the handling of firearms; . . .

. . . .

(5) To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare;


[N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c).]


“[T]he statutory design is to prevent firearms from coming into the hands of persons likely to pose a danger to the public.” State v. Cunningham, 186 N.J. Super. 502, 511 (App. Div. 1982). See Application of Marvin, Jr., 53 N.J. 147, 156 (1969) (“[T]he sole issue is [the applicant’s] current qualification to purchase . . . weapons.”). The broad catch-all provision of section (5) relates “to cases of individual unfitness, where, though not dealt with in the specific statutory enumerations, the issuance of the permit or identification card would nonetheless be contrary to the public interest.” In re Osworth, 365 N.J. Super. 72, 79 (App. Div. 2003), certif. denied, 179 N.J. 310 (2004).

In this case, R.M. was a forty-one-year-old carpenter, residing in Hoboken, when he applied to the Hoboken Police Department for a permit to purchase a handgun and a firearms purchaser ID card in January 2007. On his application form, R.M. certified he had not been convicted of a crime or a disorderly persons offense, and he was not subject to any of the other statutory disqualifications. The investigation conducted by the Hoboken Police Department, however, disclosed he had two drug-related arrests and “a problem with drugs and alcohol in the past.” In a letter dated April 30, 2007, R.M. was notified by the chief of police that his application was denied pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), because “disapproval is in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare.”

After his application was rejected by the chief of police, R.M. requested a hearing in the Superior Court. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(d). Hoboken Police Lt. James Roofe, the person who had investigated R.M.’s application, testified at the hearing. According to Roofe, R.M. had been arrested in New York in 1997 and charged with possession of crack cocaine, and he was also arrested in Hoboken in 1999 and charged with possession of marijuana. Roofe testified that the New York case was “dismissed and sealed,” and “the charge of possession of marijuana was amended to disturbing the peace, a city ordinance violation,” which resulted in a $175 fine. Because of R.M.’s past problems with both alcohol and drugs, Roofe recommended to the chief of police that R.M.’s application be denied:

Q. [A]s part of this application process, did you speak to any references of [R.M.’s]?


A. Yes I spoke to [R.M.’s] sister.


Q. Okay. And did you ask her about these arrests?


A. I asked her if her brother, who indicated to me that he had a problem with drugs and alcohol in the past, if she was aware of this? And she said that she was, that he had a problem with both drug[s] and alcohol in the past, but has been sober for the past five years.


Q. Okay. Now based on all of your investigation, did you make a recommendation as to . . . his permit application?


A. Yes, I recommended a denial of the application.


Q. What was that based on?


A. That was based on his past arrest history, and the fact that he had admitted to and confirmed by his sister a problem with both alcohol and drugs. The type of drugs involved in this case marijuana and crack/cocaine, we felt that it would be a safety issue somewhere down the line if there were any other problems with these areas.


Q. The results of your investigation and this recommendation [were] passed on to the police chief?


A. That’s correct.


In an effort to demonstrate that he was no longer suffering from drug or alcohol addiction, R.M. presented testimony from Dr. Anthony Todaro, a psychologist. Dr. Todaro’s testimony was consistent with his written evaluation, in which he stated:

Background and General Alcohol Involvement. This is a 42-year-old white male who is currently being seen in an outpatient setting. He does not show clear preference for any particular type of alcohol, beer, wine or liquor. The largest amount of alcohol consumed on any particular day is reported to be 16 or more cans of beer and that was over five years ago.


This person acknowledges some involvement with the use of alcohol, but that is no longer an issue since he is now a committed member of Alcoholics Anonymous. There is no preoccupation with alcohol at this time or any other drugs. [R.M.’s] close friend [J.H.] and coworker . . . confirms the fact that [R.M.] is a completely sober, honest, and dependable person. There is no concern for any type of deviant behavior. [T.J.], a 60 year old who he sponsors, also confirms this.


. . . .


The client does report historically, in an open and honest fashion, that he had an addictive disposition and that he did use illicit and street agents at the time. . . . At this time, however, he has withdrawn completely from the use of street drugs and alcohol and thereby the past diagnoses of psychoactive substance abuse and alcohol abuse are both in remission. . . .


. . . .


In summary, it can be stated with reasonable psychological certainty that [R.M.] has demonstrated himself to be completely safe and drug free for seven years and alcohol free for a minimum of a five-year period. He attends AA meetings with great regularity and has been endorsed by his friends as being a reliable, conscientious, and committed person who they can trust implicitly and explicitly. . . .


There is absolutely no evidence that he has any propensity whatsoever to indulge in alcohol or any psychoactive substances. At this point, he appears to be perfectly safe in handling firearms. There was no evidence to the contrary and there has never been any report of his misuse of any type of weapon nor any type of altercation or domestic violence.


When R.M. testified, he admitted that he had abused alcohol and drugs in the past, but he also testified that he had been “drug and alcohol free for over five years.” During cross-examination, he testified as follows:

Q. [R.M.], when you were arrested in I believe it was March of 1997 that was in Brooklyn, New York; correct?


A. Yes.


Q. And you were arrested for possession of crack/cocaine?


A. Yes.


Q. Were you using crack/cocaine at that time?


A. Yes.


Q. Okay. And that charge was later dismissed in 1997; correct?


A. Yes.


. . . .


Q. All right. Now in 1999 you were again arrested for possession of marijuana in Hoboken?


A. Yes.


Q. [Y]ou later pled guilty to an amended charge of disturbing the peace?


A. Yes.


Q. [W]ere you using marijuana at that time in 1999?


A. Yes.


Q. All right. Now between ’96 and ’99 were you using marijuana and crack/cocaine?


A. Between ’96 and ’99.


Q. You had told Dr. Todaro that you had a substance abuse problem?


A. Yes.


Q. When did that start approximately?


A. It was, you know, probably as a — you know, . . . as a teenager.


Q. Teenage years. So approximately 20, 30 years you were using, 20 years.


A. After I was arrested in Hoboken in 1999 . . . I stopped.


Q. You were still drinking at that point though?


A. Yes.


Q. [Y]ou never sought any type of outpatient program or alcohol programs[?]


A. No.


Q. You did join AA however?


A. Yes.


. . . .


Q. And . . . you said [it is] about five years, eight months [since] you’ve stopped drinking?


A. Yes.


During his closing remarks, R.M.’s attorney argued that his client had presented “satisfactory proof” that he no longer suffers from a “disability in such a manner that would interfere with or handicap him in the handling of firearms.” He also argued that R.M.’s application should have been approved because R.M. “is a person of good repute in his community,” who is not subject to any of the statutory disabilities. On the other hand, the prosecutor argued that the police chief was justified in denying R.M.’s application due to concerns regarding his prior abuse of alcohol and drugs and because: (1) R.M. had failed to produce a certificate from a medical doctor or psychiatrist under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(3); and (2) Dr. Totaro acknowledged he never administered any test to determine whether R.M. was using alcohol or drugs.

In its oral decision on December 20, 2007, the trial court found that: (1) R.M. pled guilty to a disorderly persons offense following his arrest for possession of marijuana in 1999; and (2) R.M.’s prior substance abuse problems demonstrated “his general willingness to break the law and his ill repute in the community.” We recognize, of course, that findings by a trial judge are “binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence.” Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co. of Am., 65 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). Nevertheless, there is no evidence in the record before us that R.M. ever pled guilty to a disorderly persons offense, and we cannot agree that two arrests, which occurred approximately ten years ago, demonstrate a present willingness to break the law.

With respect to R.M.’s character and reputation, we note that “a reputation witness restates the community’s assessment of the subject’s character.” Fitzgerald v. Stanley Roberts, Inc., 186 N.J. 309 (2006). Reputation has been defined as a “resultant picture of forgotten incidents, passing events, habitual and daily conduct . . . a multitude of trivial details.” Id. at 313 (quoting Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 477, 69 S. Ct. 213, 219, 93 L. Ed. 168, 174-75 (1948)). In this case, R.M. provided the Hoboken Police Department with the names and addresses of “two reputable persons,” who were contacted by Lt. Roofe, and there was no testimony by Lt. Roofe that he received any negative information regarding R.M.’s character or reputation during his investigation. Thus, the record does not support the court’s finding that R.M.’s application should be denied because he is not a “person of good character and good repute in the community in which he lives.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c).

In light of these errors, R.M.’s attorney urges us to approve R.M.’s application. Alternatively, R.M. argues the order denying his application should be vacated, and he “should be granted a fair procedural application process, utilizing proper forms and applying proper standards of law.” However, because it has been more than a year since the court denied the application, and there is a need to focus on current circumstances, we will remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

Finally, although N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(e) provides for the use of standardized application forms, we are satisfied R.M. was not prejudiced by the firearms application form he was required to submit to the Hoboken Police Department. Dr. Totaro reported that R.M. “was open about his arrests” in 1997 and 1999, and “[t]he dismissal of criminal charges does not prevent a court from considering the underlying facts in deciding whether a person is entitled to purchase a firearm.” In re Osworth, supra, 365 N.J. Super. at 78.

The order appealed from is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court. Both parties shall be afforded an opportunity to supplement the record, if they elect to do so.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.




1 We are using initials for appellant pursuant to Motion Order No. M-5881-07 filed on July 8, 2008.