Why is the NJ State Police Allowing Prohibited Persons to Get Guns?

Prohibited Persons
Prohibited Persons

Eatontown, NJ –-(Ammoland.com)- On January 14, 2004, New Jersey’s gun laws changed and a brand new category of persons was banned from purchasing and possessing guns.

Anyone who has had firearms seized and not returned because of a domestic violence allegation lost their gun rights.

Although this law has been in effect for over eight years, the NJ State Police has failed to ask about it on New Jersey’s gun permit application forms and Certificates of Eligibility.

Is the NJ State Police incompetent or is this a conspiracy to criminally entrap unsuspecting gun owners?

Once the question is on all the forms it will educate the public about this law. The NJ State Police need to do their job and fix the forms now!

The law was changed in two places:

NJS 2C: 58-3. c. (8) “No handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card shall be issued: … To any person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991,” P.L.1991, c.261 (C.2C:25-17 et seq.) and whose firearm has not been returned.”

NJS 2C:39-7. b. (3) “A person whose firearm is seized pursuant to the “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991,” P.L.1991,c.261 (C.2C:25-17 et seq.) and whose firearm has not been returned… pursuant to the “Prevention of Domestic Violence Act of 1991,” P.L.1991,c.261 (C.2C:25-17 et seq.)who purchases, owns, possesses or controls a firearm is guilty of a crime of the third degree

In other words, if the State is holding your guns or your guns were not returned to you (e.g. sold to a dealer, transferred to a third party, destroyed by the State, etc.) you lose your gun rights in NJ. Anyone with guns “seized and not returned” who purchases or possesses a firearm faces five years in the NJ State Prison.

Have the NJ State Police failed to fix the forms to keep folks in the dark so that they don’t fight to get their guns returned? If people knew about this law many would NOT simply agree to have their seized guns sold to a dealer, transferred to a third party, or forfeited to the State. The prosecutors and the courts would have to do lot more hearings for gun returns. (Note: prosecutors and the judges are under no legal obligation tell the unsuspecting former gun owners that their gun rights will be lost by making such a deal with the State.)

No other state has such a law. However, it is the law in NJ. I do not support this law and I believe it should be repealed. Until it is repealed, many gun owners are failing to insist upon the return of their seized guns and prohibited persons are unknowingly acquiring guns.

Maybe that is the plan all along.

About Evan Nappen

Evan Nappen is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for over 23 years. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at www.EvanNappen.com

Evan Nappen

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Mu question is, where in the Constitution does it grant the any branch of government any power to stipulate persons prohibited from exercising their fundamental, unalienable, human rights?

TSgt B

Several years ago, while working in Philadelphia, I missed a turn on the interstate and wound up in Camden, New Jersey. By crossing an invisible line in the middle of the same Delaware River that George Washington crossed during the Revolutionary War, I committed at least 52 FELONIES under Nazi Jersey law. I had an unlicensed, unregistered (as I am ot, was not, and never will be a NJ resident) Glock 19 in the trunk (unloaded, but irrelevant under NJ law) and a 50 round box of 9mm hollowpoint ammo, each round of which constitutes a felony in NJ. Got… Read more »


I would view that as 52 opportunities to sue the oath breaking as swipes in NJ for Knowing, or should have known, Violation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law. Re: 42 USC Sections 1983, 1985, 1986. Felony Criminal Complaints may be filed against them too! Re: 18 USC Sec. 241, 242. Use 14th Amendment to “pierce” their customary “qualified immunity” which they do NOT have when fundamental, unalienable, esp. “incorporated”, rights are involved.