Nappen Law Firm Wins Appeal, NJ Police Chiefs Can’t Shrug Off Firearms Permit Process

Editors Note: In New Jersey local police chiefs are the primary decision makers in “granting” individuals Firearms Owners ID Cards, Pistol Purchase Permits and Concealed Carry Licenses.

New Jersey Firearms ID Card
Nappen Law Firm Wins Appeal, NJ Police Chiefs Can't Shrug Off Firearms Permit Process
Evan Nappen
Evan Nappen

New Jersey –  -( On January 2, 2015, the New Jersey Appellate Division issued a decision finding that the Neptune Township Police and Monmouth County Superior Court erred because the chief failed to discuss the permit matter with the applicant before his denial and then failed to appear at the hearing to answer for his denial.

Instead, a lower-ranked police detective handled the matter on the Chief’s behalf, and the Trial Court found that satisfactory.

While the decision in IMO Application of Rohani (App. Div. Docket No. A-6249-12T4) is not binding on other courts, it sends a clear message that the practice of police chiefs failing to perform their duties when it comes to firearm permit applications  — and Courts failing to recognize that responsibility — will likely result in a reversal on appeal.

The Appellate Court found, “The [Trial] Court left some room for a chief not to testify, by stating that it was ‘ordinarily' required. However, the clear implication is that the chief's non-appearance should be the exception, which would need to be supported by good cause shown.”

This marks at least the second time within the last year that Neptune Township and the Monmouth County permit judge have been reversed and remanded by the Appellate Division for basing decisions with inadequate interaction by the police. See, IMO Application of Paul Robinson. (App. Div. Docket No. A-4526-12T4).

In reply to the decision, Louis P. Nappen, Esq., of Evan F. Nappen Attorney at Law, who represented Mr. Rohani on his appeal commented, “Basically, Due Process demands the right to confront those who would restrain your constitutional right and statutory privilege to purchase firearms. I’d also like to thank the NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund, on behalf of my client, for their support of this case.”

  • 6 thoughts on “Nappen Law Firm Wins Appeal, NJ Police Chiefs Can’t Shrug Off Firearms Permit Process

    1. At least the states that are allowing this tyranny to rage on and keep electing this socialist scum into office are in states that I personally could care less about. With the exception of Kali.,I’ve never been to NJ,NY,CT,etc,..and never plan to.

    2. “your constitutional right and statutory privilege to purchase firearms.”?

      This is Red Queen stuff. A right is not a privilege, statutory or otherwise. It is a right.

      The very concept that the people need a permit merely to purchase a firearm facially offends the Second Amendment. Requiring permits to carry concealed in public do not, though they do if they require a “special need” for issuance. As understood at the time of the 2A’s adoption, the people’s right to bear arms was open carry. Hence, no permit can be required to openly carry a firearm, since it is a right and not a privilege. Concealed carry was universally regarded as unsavory, suspicious behavior, engaged in only by robbers and highwaymen. As Justice Scalia explained in D.C. v. Heller (2008), “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have at the time the people adopted them.” Consequently, no permit can constitutionally be required for carrying openly, but it can be required for carrying concealed. Likewise, no permit can be constitutionally required to purchase a firearm, since at the time of its adoption the scope of the 2a forbade such a requirement (“shall not be infringed”).

      New Jersey (and all other states) requiring a permit or Firearms ID Card to purchase guns facially offends the Constitution. Forcing such states into constitutional compliance should be the focus of our efforts, not rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship.

    3. Have you ever heard of a government that banned it’s own Army from KEEPING and BEARING weapons?
      Find one government in the entire history of humanity that felt a need to document a “RIGHT” for it’s soldiers to carry weapons.
      The claim that the Government wrote the 2nd Amendment to give Our soldiers a “right” to carry weapons is S-T-U-P-I-D.
      The only reason for the Second Amendment is to clearly spell-out the GOD GIVEN RIGHT of INDIVIDUALS to keep & bear ARMS.
      The only reason for the BILL(list) of RIGHTS was to codify INDIVIDUALS’ GOD GIVEN RIGHTS.
      Has there ever been a government that was not chock full of it’s “rights” up to and including declaring itself to be the Lord God Almighty?!
      Does the 1st Amendment mean the GOVERNMENT is allowed to give speeches? Try shutting up any Government.
      Anyone who tells you the 2nd Amendment applies to the Army or State Militia, is telling you they think you are STUPID.
      There has NEVER been a government that felt it had to codify it’s army’s/soldier’s “RIGHT” to “Keep and BEAR ARMS” because there has NEVER been a government that refused to allow It’s own soldiers to KEEP and BEAR ARMS!

      1. Annie, excelent point! I’ve never heard that argument before. I’ll have to tuck that one away for future use. Thank you!
        Bob C.

    Comments are closed.