IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL
OF THE APPLICATION FOR THREE
PERMITS TO PURCHASE A
HANDGUN BY P.A.P.
__________________________________________
Submitted October 26, 2016 รข€“ Decided March 1, 2018
Before Judges Fuentes and Simonelli.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Burlington County.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-4916-14T4
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FUENTES, P.J.A.D.
P.A.P. appeals from the order of the Law Division, Criminal
Part, that upheld the decision of the Pemberton Township Chief of
Police denying his application for three permits to purchase
handguns, as required under
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3. He argues that the
trial court's decision was not supported by sufficient legally
competent evidence. Appellant also challenges the part of the
court's ruling that orders the forfeiture of four specifically
identified firearms and directs him to surrender "any additional
firearms that he owns or that are within his custody or control[.]"
He argues that the forfeiture of these firearms "contradicts" an
earlier decision made by the Burlington County Prosecutor's Office
(BCPO) to return to him these same firearms.
We reject these arguments and affirm. We derive the following
facts from the testimony of the Chief of the Pemberton Township
Police Department in the evidentiary hearing conducted by the
trial court, as well as the documents admitted in the course of
the hearing.
I
Pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, on November 7, 2014, P.A.P.
applied to the Chief of the Pemberton Township Police Department
for the issuance of a firearms purchaser identification card to
purchase three handguns. Chief David Jantas assigned Kelsey
Knudson, a civilian "police aide," to investigate the application
and "generate a report based on the information that she learned
during her investigation." As described by Chief Jantas, the
investigation followed a "checklist" provided by the New Jersey
State Police (NJSP) of areas the investigator was "supposed to
screen and try to obtain information about the applicant." The
investigator reviewed criminal history data bases, the Family
2 A-4916-14T4
Automated Case Tracking System (FACTS) used and maintained by the
Chancery Division, Family Part, the applicant's motor vehicle
records maintained by the Motor Vehicle Commission, and the New
Jersey Domestic Violence Registry.1
In the course of her investigation, Knudson discovered that
several complaints had been filed against appellant alleging
grounds for relief under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act,
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. A review of these domestic violence
records revealed that appellant's former wife and a woman with
whom he previously had a romantic relationship, had filed
1
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-34:
The Administrative Office of the Courts shall
establish and maintain a central registry of
all persons who have had domestic violence
restraining orders entered against them, all
persons who have been charged with a crime or
offense involving domestic violence, and all
persons who have been charged with a violation
of a court order involving domestic violence.
All records made pursuant to this section
shall be kept confidential and shall be
released only to:
. . . .
b. A police or other law enforcement agency
investigating a report of domestic violence,
or conducting a background investigation
involving a person's application for a firearm
permit or employment as a police or law
enforcement officer or for any other purpose
authorized by law or the Supreme Court of the
State of New Jersey[.]
3 A-4916-14T4
complaints alleging domestic violence, resulting in a total of
eight domestic restraining orders between 1993 and 2011.
The trial judge found, and the record supports, that six of
the eight domestic violence complaints were filed by appellant's
former wife. The other two domestic violence complaints were
filed by his paramour. Four of the complaints resulted in the
issuance of final restraining orders, requiring the BCPO to seize
appellant's firearms on each of these four separate occasions.
All eight restraining orders were eventually dismissed by the
Family Part upon the plaintiffs' request.
The allegations of domestic violence made by the plaintiffs
in their complaints against appellant involved serious acts of
physical violence and sexual assault. Specifically, a Domestic
Violence Incident Report states:
Aug[ust] 2010, . . . [appellant] was sexually
aggressive and forced [plaintiff] to engage
in oral and anal sex. [Appellant] put
[plaintiff's] head in toilet and urinated on
her head. [Appellant] forced [plaintiff] to
stay in bed. [Appellant] has shown up
unexpectedly behind [plaintiff] at ATM machine
and driven by her home. [Appellant] suffers
from PTSD and refuses to get treatment.
Following these allegations, police officers contacted
appellant and informed him that he needed to surrender his
firearms. Appellant told the officers that his firearms were at
his brother's home in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Carlisle Police
4 A-4916-14T4
Officers who responded to appellant's brother's residence did not
find any firearms. Police eventually found and seized the firearms
at the residence of a friend of appellant in Browns Mills, an
unincorporated community located in Pemberton Township, Burlington
County.
Appellant has also been arrested for criminal activity
related to domestic violence. He was charged with criminal
trespass onto the property of an alleged domestic violence victim
who had an active restraining order against him at the time. He
was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon in North Carolina.
From 1989 to 1993, he was arrested and charged with assault and
criminal contempt.
Chief Jantas denied appellant's application on January 9,
2015. The Chief found issuance of a permit to appellant to
purchase a firearm "would not be in the interest of the public
health, safety, and welfare."
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). This was
the second time Chief Jantas had denied appellant's application
to purchase a handgun for these same reasons. The trial judge
reviewed the evidence made available to Chief Jantas de novo, and
reached the same conclusion.
We are bound to uphold the Law Division's factual findings,
provided they are supported by sufficient competent evidence in
the record. Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65
5 A-4916-14T
4 N.J. 474, 484 (1974). However, the trial court's conclusions of
law, by contrast, are "not entitled to . . . special deference"
and are thus subject to de novo review. In re Custodian of
Records, Criminal Div. Manager,
214 N.J. 147, 163 (2013) (emphasis
added) (quoting Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Twp. of
Manalapan,
140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)).
We discern no legal or factual basis to disagree with the
trial court's decision. The record amply supports the court's
conclusion finding appellant disqualified from obtaining a permit
to purchase three handguns pursuant to the "public health, safety
or welfare" disqualifier under
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). In re
State for Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons & Firearms Identification
Card belonging to F.M.,
225 N.J. 487, 507-08 (2016). As our
colleague Judge Kennedy noted in In re Z.L.,
440 N.J. Super. 351,
357 (App. Div. 2015), "in deciding the defendant [in State v.
Cordoma,
372 N.J. Super. 524, 536 (App. Div. 2004)] was
disqualified under subsection (c)(5), we considered the
defendant's mental condition, even though it did not rise to the
level of the disabling conditions set forth in
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3(c)(2) and (3)."
Appellant's arguments based on the consideration of hearsay
evidence lacks sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). It is well-established that the
6 A-4916-14T4
usual rules barring hearsay testimony are not controlling in
handgun permit proceedings. Weston v. State,
60 N.J. 36, 50
(1972). Finally, the trial court's decision to order the
forfeiture of appellant's firearms was entirely proper and in
keeping with the court's responsibility to protect victims of
domestic violence. In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D.,
149 N.J.
108, 114-16 (1997); see also
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-18.
Affirmed.
