Gun Lawyer Episode 102
deny, gun, gun rights, carry permit, firearm, carry, judge, permit, law, folks, prohibited, problem, license, rights, disabilities, felons, approved, government, lawyer, pardon
Evan Nappen, Speaker 3
Evan Nappen 00:21
I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Since the Bruen decision and the ability for law-abiding, honest citizens to no longer be victims, but actually be defenders and carry the most effective means of self-defense, a firearm, in places where they never could before. New Jersey is a great example. Well, the folks that are the elitist, the gun haters, the anti-Second Amendment folks, the system itself that just doesn’t want to do anything pro-gun unless it’s done kicking and screaming, has been, of course, trying to figure out ways to thwart our liberty and ways of various mechanisms of abuse. Now, as a gun attorney, so to speak, in New Jersey as the practitioner of gun law in New Jersey, I get to see and speak to client after client and the most pressing issues and shenanigans that are taking place. Because I’m in this special position, helping individuals in real time that are facing the newest obstacles and challenges, I’m able to tell you, my great listeners, about emerging and very current threats, traps, problems and things you need to be warned about.
Evan Nappen 02:18
One of those things, which has come to light very strong lately, individuals that are applying for carry permits in Bergen County. I want to explain to you how this works, and I want to get more into the weeds than you would normally get. Even have any chance of hearing about in the legacy lamestream media. They don’t even touch this stuff, but I want to explain to you what’s going on. So, you can be warned and prepared for the ambush that is being set for you now since Bruen eliminated the requirement of justifiable need to get a carry license. In New Jersey, there were three basic things you had to show prior to Bruen. Three basic things that would get you a carry permit. The three things were – number one, that you were of good character and not subject to the disabilities of N.J.S 2C:58-3. Now those disabilities are the list of disqualifiers: you’re not a felon, you’re not a domestic violence abuser, you don’t have a restraining order, you don’t have any mental health commitments, etc. That’s the disabilities under 2C:58-3. You have to show you’re not subject. The state investigation will do your background check and will then be evaluated by your Chief of Police or Superintendent depending on where you are applying. So, that’s the first requirement.
Evan Nappen 04:20
The second requirement is that you show that you are safe and qualified for the handling of the firearm. To meet that requirement, you need to pass the course by trainers, have the correct training and demonstration of your proficiency. That’s more or less objectively accomplished as well. The third thing Page – 2 – of 7
was “justifiable need” and that’s what basically stopped everybody because “justifiable need” was so outrageous and so extreme. A test where you had to show that you were personally subjected to threats of serious bodily harm or injury, you personally, and that carrying a handgun was necessary to avert those threats. It was such a high standard and so virtually impossible to achieve. You basically had to show you needed to use deadly force before you needed to use deadly force. So, if you’ve just been shot and killed, well, now you qualify for a carry license. Congratulations. Now that was eliminated by Bruen. So, we’re left with two criteria to get you a carry. Are you a person of good character and not subject to the disabilities? Do you have the adequate training?
Evan Nappen 05:43
Now you need to understand that the 2C:58-3 disabilities that are under the carry license law, the carry permit, are the exact 2C:58-3 disqualifiers for getting a New Jersey Firearm Purchaser ID card and a pistol purchase permit. So, the disqualifiers under 58-3 are the same disqualifiers for a Firearms ID Card, pistol purchase, permit, and Permit to Carry a handgun. So, you might rationally say, well, look, I’ve had my Firearms ID card that was granted, and I’ve had pistol purchase permits. Obviously, I’m not prohibited under 58-3. I did my approved certification qualification, met the standard. And I submit for my carry, which does have a few other bureaucratic hurdles, like three pages, double-sided, that have to each be individually filled out, each signed three times by you and your three witnesses, and notarized three times, and you need to submit a photo that is 1.5 by 1.5, not the normal 2 by 2. For some reason, New Jersey decided to adopt the Argentine passport requirement for its carry license. I don’t know why. But these are bureaucratic hurdles that we can all deal with and at least objectively overcome them.
Evan Nappen 07:27
You would think that if you meet all those hoops and loops, and you haven’t had any disqualifiers, because you qualified for your possession permit, then when it comes to getting your carry, you should be in like Flynn. You should be totally good. Why would there be any problem? Well, this is where you need to understand the problem. The problem is that one of the criteria under 2C:58-3 is this very vague, very general, what I call the “all-inclusive weasel clause” that says any person where they’re a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. Not being in the interest of public health, safety, welfare. A vague WHAT THE HELL catchall standard is this. Now, for the most part, getting possession permits, your Firearm ID cards and your Permits to purchase, chiefs more or less have been reasonable. They look at the objective criteria more and as long as you don’t have a per se disqualifier and unless there’s something they particularly know about you being problematic in a more severe way, you would get your possession permits approved.
Evan Nappen 08:51
But what’s going on now in Bergen (County), particularly before Judge (Christopher R.) Kazlau, is that this criteria, this vague part of one of the disqualifiers under 58-3. is frankly, being taken to extremes that I have never in 35 years of practicing gun law in Jersey ever seen before. What happens is you have a Firearms ID Card, you have pistols that you got with purchase permits, and everything’s fine. You submit for your carry license, and the Chief approves your carry license. Now remember, in New Jersey, the carry license has two steps. First, your Chief or Superintendent depending on where you live, the Superintendent of State Police or the Chief of Police. They have to approve or deny your Page – 3 – of 7
application within 60 days. Now once they approve it or if they deny it, but if they approve it, they send it to the judge who actually has to issue it. Now the judge, if they have any kind of concern or problem, if their intent is to possibly deny you, even though the chief approved you, they must give you a hearing. It was my firm, Evan Nappen Attorney at Law PC, by the good work of my brother, Louis Nappen, established through case law, that you have a right to this hearing. Prior to that, you could just get a rubber stamp of a denial by the Superior Court, but that can’t happen anymore. So, that was really a good thing.
Evan Nappen 10:45
Now what’s going on in Bergen. Here’s how it comes down. You filed your app. You’ve been approved by the Chief. You’ve already had a Firearm ID Card and permit to purchase a pistol. You know that you’re good on the disabilities, not a problem. Late Tuesday, you get a call or an email from the Court saying you need to come in for your permit on Thursday morning. That’s giving you one full day, Wednesday, to make your preparations to come in Thursday and to go before the judge so he can ask you a few questions. That’s what is being told to the folks when they’re told they need to come in. The amount of time given is, you’re lucky if it’s 48 hours before, it’s normally less than that. You’re told to come in and it’s downplayed. Oh, yeah, just come in, the judge has a few questions. He needs to talk to you. So, with only a day and you figure well, I’m all good to go. I’ve never had a problem. This is, of course, going to be a reasonable expectation that justice will be there, and things will be reasonable. I’ve never had a problem.
Evan Nappen 12:08
So, you just mosey on in on Thursday. That’s where, folks, if you have anything less than a stellar, I mean you’ve never had any encounters with the police where a report was filed, even though there was nothing that ever came out of it. You’ve never had a traffic ticket. You’ve never had anything. You have an absolutely stellar background. If that isn’t you, even though you have no disqualifiers per se, it doesn’t matter. You go in there; you’re going to be aggressively questioned by the judge over however minor this thing might be. Lo and behold, you end up where a finding is made, that it’s not in the interest of public safety for you to have your gun permit. I am talking about actual cases that we are fighting right now. Where an individual was denied because he had a careless driving ticket six years ago, or because he was married three times. Do you believe that? Married three times is part of a criteria for denying you as being not in the public interest. Now, look, if you’ve been married three times, maybe you don’t learn your lesson really well, but I don’t think that makes you a danger to have a firearm. I mean, we’re talking about matters that have been years old that have been expunged, expunged. Officially expunged, in which motions get brought to reopen your expunged matters and that these matters with whatever the allegations were from them, even if you were convicted of nothing and that expunged arrests, become basis to deny you under this vague standard in the law.
Evan Nappen 14:14
We are getting case after case after case. There is a pattern of case after case after case. So let me just tell you folks, real simple. If you’ve applied for your carry license in Bergen County, and you’re called to come into that court, my advice is do not go there without an attorney who knows and understands gun law. Because this is ongoing, and it doesn’t stop there. Because after the judge finds you to be this problem under public health, safety, welfare, well that is one of the criteria of the Page – 4 – of 7
disqualifiers however subjective and vague it is. Now, your Firearm Purchaser ID card is invalid, arguably, because you’re a disqualified person as found by the judge. The follow up punch that we’re seeing is a motion to revoke your Firearms ID card that you had for years, and then move to forfeit and take your guns. So, it escalates. From here, you thought you could get your carry permit, to not only are you not going to get your carry permit, but you’re going to lose your gun rights and your guns. We are fighting on appeal many of these. This is not a one-off deal, folks. This is a pattern.
Evan Nappen 15:53
We have many appeals pending where, unfortunately, we weren’t even able to be there in the court below where the person walked in without counsel and were completely taken by surprise. They had no idea. You’re not warned about what you’re going to be questioned about. No, it’s downplayed. You’re not given time to speak. You have one day, if you’re lucky, before you have to show up there, and you have no clue that this is going to happen. Yet the judge not only can deny you your carry, but also take away your existing licenses and your guns. You need to be aware and be warned about what is going on, particularly in Bergen County on this, in this carry license application process. We’ve not seen this play out in any other counties yet, and I hope it doesn’t metastasize to other counties, but it may. So, bottom line is, if you have anything in your background and you’re going before a judge on your carry, you may be well advised to speak to an attorney, if not actually hire an attorney.
Evan Nappen 17:12
Beware, because on top of everything else, if something you said on that application and maybe you never meant to give the wrong answer, but somehow you gave the wrong answer because of a misunderstanding of the complexities of what the question asked. It’s easy to inadvertently make a mistake or not understand exactly how let’s say a disorderly person offense translates to some misdemeanor in another jurisdiction, and you wrote no, when you should have written yes. You just didn’t understand it. You didn’t mean to falsify. It doesn’t matter. Now, the findings will include falsification of the application as well as a basis to deny you. Now your reputation has been hammered for you being essentially a liar. If you have a falsification on a license denial, well, that’s also criminal, by the way. You can face five years in state prison for lying on the gun application. It can escalate to that, too.
Evan Nappen 18:22
This is what we’re seeing going on. This is the problem that comes from the judge exercising this interrogation. Keep in mind this is with approvals from the Chief of Police or Superintendent. You’re going into the court, approved by the well, the person who should know best, the local chief in your town that knows you that knows all about you, that knows the people that live in his or her town has approved you. But it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter that they’ve approved you. It’s not given deference, not given deference, just the opposite. I’ve had a case where the judge is criticizing the issuing authority for issuing it. So, this is what’s going on. You need to be warned and you need to understand it. Don’t walk into an ambush. Don’t walk in unprepared. Don’t go there and end up not only getting your carry permit denied, but even more rights are taken and destroyed. When we come back, we have some other fascinating things to discuss. Page – 5 – of 7
Speaker 3 20:04
For over 30 years attorney Evan Nappen has seen what rotten laws due to good people. That’s why he’s dedicated his life to fighting for the rights of America’s gun owners. A fearsome courtroom litigator fighting for rights, justice, and freedom. An unrelenting gun rights spokesman tearing away at anti-gun propaganda to expose the truth. Author of six best-selling books on gun rights including Nappen on Gun Law, a bright orange gun law Bible that sits atop the desk of virtually every lawyer, police chief, firearms dealer, and savvy gun owner. That’s what made Evan Nappen America’s Gun Lawyer. Gun laws are designed to make you a criminal. Don’t become the innocent victim of a vicious anti-gun legal system. This is the guy you want on your side. Keep his name and number in your wallet and hope you never have to use it. But if you live, work, or travel with a firearm, the deck is already stacked against you. You can find him on the web at EvanNappen.com or follow the link on the Gun Lawyer resource page. Evan Nappen, America’s Gun Lawyer.
Speaker 3 21:18
You’re listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast.
Evan Nappen 21:33
Hey, welcome back, folks, and thanks for listening to Gun Lawyer. I love being able to talk to you, and just like we’re doing now giving you warnings so that you hopefully don’t end up making mistakes and trapped and having problems that others are suffering unfortunately through. You can avoid these things. I want to keep you on top of it, on the cutting edge of it, as we practice gun law in New Jersey. There’s been some other interesting developments. One of them that I find just fascinating in a way is that our current president has announced that he is pardoning all marijuana possessions. You may have heard this. Anyone convicted of marijuana possession under federal law. It’s essentially those that have District of Columbia and other places for the possession charges. He’s going to pardon them, and you know what, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. I’m going to say good, pardon them. Good. And with the pardons, comes a restoration of rights. That means gun rights being restored for folks that have these charges and that’s something I’m always glad to see.
Evan Nappen 23:04
That aspect of the pardons which the media has been playing up is I’m sure important to a number of folks, but it’s not the real important thing that he actually announced. What’s really important is that he actually has asked or requested that the Justice Department, Department of Justice there, to review the scheduling of marijuana on the controlled dangerous substances, on the prohibited drug list. Hopefully get it removed from that schedule, so that it is no longer a controlled substance. Because right now, any drug is on that list creates a gun disqualifier if you’re a user of it. With states having legalized it, that’s why we’ve been saying, Bang or Bong, you can’t have both, because Federal law prohibits the marijuana user from firearms. But if this is successful and if it is removed, so it no longer is on that prohibited schedule that the gun law focuses on, then you can have both Bangs and Bongs. That will be, as far as I’m concerned, a good thing because I want to see folks exercise and have their gun rights. Maybe this will happen, and then I’ll have to say, there was one thing that this guy did that was good. I’ll give it that. That’ll be the one thing, but it will be. Let’s see if it comes to pass. You can see why it will help tremendously those individuals that have medical marijuana cards, need it for medicinal Page – 6 – of 7
purposes. They get barred out of their gun rights. Well, not it they remove it from the schedule. Individuals that live in states where it’s legal that don’t even realize that by using it, they’re jeopardizing their gun rights. All that can go away and that would be great. Love to see it.
Evan Nappen 25:27
Now, unfortunately, as nice as that might be, for the feds to look into, one of the things the Feds just recently did was they passed what’s called that CR, the Continuing Resolution, to fund the government. We keep going through these emergent government fundings. Otherwise, we’re going to have a government shutdown. Which I love. Great, shut it down. But no, they gotta keep it going. Keep it going. So, we have to fund it. Then they put these bills in that are chock full of all kinds of pork and spending and you name it. So, they can continue with the government. Right. Great. Okay. This has been ongoing for a long time, these continuing resolutions. Well, this last one that they passed, and I think in December, they have to come up with another budget yet again, to pass. But again, do you know what this CR did? It denied funding, it barred funding, for the Federal Relief from Disabilities Program and that is a sin. It is disgusting. When you want to talk about institutionalized racism, for real, this is one of the greatest examples that exist, and it has to do with guns.
Evan Nappen 26:50
Under the federal law, we literally have a law that says, if you’ve been convicted, particularly of a federal crime, but it doesn’t have to be federal, but if it is federal, if you’ve been convicted of that, and you’ve lost your gun rights as a convicted felon, you could apply for relief from disabilities. And what that was, was an application to the government, essentially the ATF who would run your background check, and then decide whether you should have your rights restored. If so, the waiver was issued, and you regained your Second Amendment rights. That’s how it was supposed to happen. But you see way back in, like ’92 or so, Charles Schumer and company stopped the funding of the relief from disabilities. The law is still on the books, but no application can be processed. None. And yet again, they put a provision in failing to fund, prohibiting the funding of this. You may say, well, why is this racist? Well, I’ll tell you why it’s racist. It’s racist based on the U.S. government’s own litigation against BMW and Dollar General. In those cases, individuals were applying for jobs, and they were all set to be hired. Then they would get denied because a background check was done. And lo and behold, they found they were a convicted felon.
Evan Nappen 28:22
Now, why would that be racist? Well, the government argued and said, look, blacks were five to six times more likely to be felons than whites, and Hispanics were two to one. So, by barring felons flat out, you are discriminating at that five or six to one ratio, and therefore, it’s racist. That’s what the government argued. Well, if that’s racist, then it’s racist to prohibit felons from having guns. It’s the same ratio. Now many of us can say, well, maybe felons should be prohibited from having guns and all that. Well, okay. Let’s just say we’re going to accept that premise. What about people that are no longer a danger or a problem, that have proved themselves, that should be able to get their rights restored, so that they too could participate in being law enforcement, military, security, and have their own rights to protect themselves and their family? Shouldn’t there be a program that would allow the good people at least to get their rights restored? Page – 7 – of 7
Evan Nappen 29:25
Well, yeah, that’s in the law, except it isn’t funded on purpose by the Democrats, for years, since ’92. They’re the ones that got rid of the funding, and it continues to not be funded to this very day in the latest CR, where again, the funds are prohibited. Again, it is, according to the government’s own litigation, racist. I say it’s time for them to stop acting racist and prohibiting good people that deserve a second chance, that have proven themselves not to be a danger, that would absolutely qualify to get a waiver of the disability, to be able to have that chance to make their case. But no, the Democrats have stopped it yet again. Folks, I would say this, next time in December, there should be a push for them to finally open this up again. So that good people that have proven themselves and may have made a mistake, but are not a danger, that they can get their rights back, particularly a Second Amendment right. That is the equivalent, as per Bruen, the equivalent of freedom of speech and the equivalent of freedom of religion. And you’re denying them? Imagine denying these folks the right to worship as they please, or denying these folks the right to free speech? Well, it’s the same thing when you’re denying them their right to keep and bear arms. If you want to argue that felons, dangerous felons, still should not have their rights, then allow the good people that are not dangerous. Those that have paid the price and proven themselves. That have been completely rehabilitated and that are great and productive members of society to get their Constitutional rights back. We need to do this. Enough already. This is Evan Nappen, reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.
Speaker 3 31:54
Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.