Declaratory Judgment Sought in NJ’s Carry Permit Scheme, Violates Full Faith & Credit

Concealed Carry Handgun Firearm Reciprocity
Nappen and Giaramita Law Firms Seek Declaratory Judgment That NJ’s Carry Permit Scheme Violates Full Faith & Credit Clause

EATONTOWN, NJ – -( The U.S. Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV, Section 1) requires that states respect the “public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state.” Yet, New Jersey refuses to recognize any other state’s licenses to carry a handgun.

Charles McDowell of Georgia and Thomas Muller of Delaware possess judicial court Orders granting them licenses to carry weapons. Their Orders were issued by judges in judicial proceedings by state courts, just as New Jersey’s licenses to carry are also issued by judges.

Based on the above, the law firms of Evan F. Nappen Attorney at Law, P.C. and Giaramita Law Offices, P.C. have brought a Civil Rights Action in the United State District Court, New Jersey, on behalf of McDowell and Muller against NJ Attorney General Gurbir Grewal and every NJ County Prosecutor.

Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that McDowell’s and Muller’s judicial Orders granting license to carry weapons be honored in New Jersey pursuant to Full Faith and Credit.

“This case is the first step in gaining reciprocity by making New Jersey’s handgun permit system more reasonable and in step with the overwhelming majority of States in the US,” said Evan F. Nappen, Esq. “This case potentially breaks New Jersey’s stranglehold on permits to carry a handgun by opening the door for good people to carry again in New Jersey.”

A GoFundMe for this case has been set up at:

Evan Nappen
Evan Nappen

About Evan Nappen:

Evan Nappen ( is a criminal defense attorney who has focused on New Jersey firearms and weapons law for several decades. He is the author of the New Jersey Gun Law Guide. Visit his website at

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I don’t recall where it says in the Second Amendment that States can infringe upon carry rights of freedmen? I do recall Article VI specifying that States may not create laws, regulations, and treatise that infringe upon the Bill of Rights. Rinse, Wash, and Repeat NJ you sorry bunch of tyrants!


Should be a class action case so every ccp holder can sign on.


New Jersey is as blatant as they come, it’s not surprising that other state laws don’t apply to them since a communist state run government can violate the law of the land and not a single federal agency will hold them accountable.
Look no further than its govenor and his attorney general to restrict a would be free people. This is a very common combination throughout states with anti-constitution management.


Next up should be Oregon (only grants Mother May I Cards to SOME residents o CONTIGUOUS states. Then, of course, California who recognise NO OTHER STATE’s Mother May I Card. But taking after the Grubby Grewal is a great first step. This tower needs to come down. New Jersey will not even allow me to POSSESS my handgun within their state without there speshull Mother May I HAVE a Gun card, which they do not issue to any non-resident. Seems like an FOPA violatioin to me. I just don’t bother to go into or even near New Jersey. At least… Read more »


I long for universal reciprocity – as it should be according to the “full faith and credit” clause – so we can travel ANYWHERE in the U.S.A., by ANY mode of transportation available, without fear of becoming “accidental” felons.

As it is now, we have to “hide” our weapons in the auto trunk while traversing “The Peoples Republic of Illinois” traveling from our home in Kentucky to visit relatives in Wisconsin…


Oh, and I kicked in $5.00 to the go-fund-me site. Put your money where your mouth is, gun owners (if you can afford it)! Money, votes and political activism is the only way – short of armed revolt – that we will defeat the ‘gun-grabbers’.


It matters not what we do, dems will continue this slow steady stream of anti-2A laws, forcing us to go to court spending lots of money to defend our rights. The only thing that will change this forced march is a ruling from the SCOTUS saying that the 2A means what it says and says what it means, and that ALL these anti-gun laws are unconstitutional and that any politicians who continue to do this AFTER the SCOTUS ruling will be held in contempt and punished by SCOTUS.

Wild Bill

@So, The Constitution, at Amendment Two, already guarantees the bearing of arms in all fifty states, and US possessions.


If you would bother to read the law you might find out you don’t have to hide your hand guns in the trunk.
Long guns are a different story.

Nancy Hart

Not the strongest argument. The state will give them carry permits and the case will be closed.


You’re looking at it from the wrong angle. If that occurs it sets precedent for everyone else or, if it is denied, it can be used as one case to add to others in making it ripe to be presented to SCOTUS.


The state judges never issue permits. Out of millions of residents NJ is reported to have only 250 or so active issued permits. Mostly to Judges and politicians. Anything to force their hand is welcomed. FNJ


@YWE – Similarly, winning the lawsuit would help few. Apparently Georgia and Delaware permits are issued by a judge, but I suspect that most states (like Texas) permits are issued administratively. Lawsuit specifies that permits issued by a judge need to be recognized – but not all permits. Would do me no good.
OTOH – a small step in the right direction is still a step in the right direction. Possible, though unlikely, that NJ would recognize that limited reciprocity causes no harm and is beneficial.


if I read the piece correctly the lawsuit is to force NJ to recognise the RIGHT to possess and carry within that state. WHO issued the Mother May I Cards is not at the root of the case. the Full Faith and Credit clause is concerned with the action denied, not by who authorises the action in the home state. The injunction sought is against very sheriff in the State of New Jersey, demanding they somehw make a way to recognise the exercise of the right to arms within the State of New Jersey. This case should reference that woman… Read more »


Pa are issued through the sheriff’s department.
Pa is a must issue.
But it’s still issued by a sworn officer of the courts.
That should account for something