From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Renewal Application for Permit to Carry

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Nov 5, 2015
DOCKET NO. A-4640-13T3 (App. Div. Nov. 5, 2015)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-4640-13T3

11-05-2015

IN THE MATTER OF RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN OF FRANK ROKINS.

Evan F. Nappen attorney for appellant Frank Rokins. Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Kimberly L. Donnelly, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief).


NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fisher and Rothstadt. On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County. Evan F. Nappen attorney for appellant Frank Rokins. Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Kimberly L. Donnelly, Special Deputy Attorney General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Frank Rokins appeals from the Law Division's denial of his application, without a hearing, for a renewal permit to carry a firearm, after his local police department's captain approved the application. According to the application, Rokins was employed by an agency as a "private detective." The application included a letter of need from his employer that stated Rokins would be providing security services to various retail establishments and, for the most part, would be in a uniform when performing security services. Rokins' application was approved by the Plainfield Police Department's captain and then submitted to the court for approval pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d).

A copy of this letter was not provided in either parties' appendix. We rely upon the Law Division judge's description as discussed in the judge's April 23, 2014 statement of reasons.

On April 30, 2014, Judge Scott J. Moynihan entered an order denying Rokins' application. In a supporting written statement of reasons, Judge Moynihan, relying on the statute and the Supreme Court's decisions in In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990) and Siccardi v State, 59 N.J. 545 (1971), explained that Rokins' application did not establish any "justifiable need" for him to carry a handgun. The judge entered the order and this appeal followed.

On appeal Rokins argues:

POINT 1

THE COURT BELOW ERRED BY FAILING TO CONSIDER THE CHIEF POLICE OFFICER'S INVESTIGATION AND APPROVAL, WHICH REQUIRED A FINDING OF JUSTIFIABLE NEED AND REMAINS UNREBUTTED.

POINT 2

THE EXERCISE OF A FUNDAMENTAL, INDIVIDUAL RIGHT CANNOT BE BASED UPON NEED.
POINT 3

NEW JERSEY LAW UNCONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRES "JUSTIFIABLE NEED" TO POSSESS A HANDGUN IN THE HOME OR ELSEWHERE; WITHOUT A PERMIT, ANY CITIZEN POSSESSING A HANDGUN FACES A "PRESUMPTION OF ILLEGALITY."

POINT 4

PRE-HELLER AND -MCDONALD NEW JERSEY CASE LAW UPHOLDING THE JUSTIFIABLE NEED REQUIREMENT IS NO LONGER VALID, AND DRAKE V. FILKO IS BASED ON FAULTY REASONING.

POINT 5

IF THE JUSTIFIABLE NEED REQUIREMENT IS ALLOWED TO STAND, THEN NEW JERSEY'S STATUTE PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A HANDGUN WITHOUT A PERMIT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010).

Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. denied sub nom., Drake v. Jerejian, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2134, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1124 (2014). --------

We have considered Rokins' arguments in light of our review of the record and the applicable principles of law. We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Moynihan in his cogent, April 23, 2014 statement of reasons and we find Rokins' arguments, which were not raised before the Law Division, to be without sufficient merit, see In re Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. 560, 597 (App. Div. 2013) ("New Jersey's 'justifiable need' standard [does] not impermissibly burden the right" to carry weapons); In re Pantano, 429 N.J. Super. 478, 486-90 (App. Div. 2013), certif. granted, 214 N.J. 235 (2013), and appeal dismissed, ___ N.J. ___ (2014), to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION


Summaries of

In re Renewal Application for Permit to Carry

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION
Nov 5, 2015
DOCKET NO. A-4640-13T3 (App. Div. Nov. 5, 2015)
Case details for

In re Renewal Application for Permit to Carry

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN OF…

Court:SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Nov 5, 2015

Citations

DOCKET NO. A-4640-13T3 (App. Div. Nov. 5, 2015)