In the Matter of the Denial of the Application, Etc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: September 19, 2025
• Docket: A-0746-23
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0746-23

IN THE MATTER OF THE DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A RENEWAL OF A PERMIT TO CARRY A FIREARM BY J.K. _____________________________

Submitted September 9, 2025 – Decided September 19, 2025

Before Judges Sumners and Chase.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County.

Evan F. Nappen Attorney at Law PC, attorneys for appellant J.K. (Louis P. Nappen, on the briefs).

LaChia L. Bradshaw, Burlington County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey (Jennifer B. Paszkiewicz, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM Petitioner J.K.1 appeals the trial judge's order upholding the denial of his

application for a permit to carry a handgun (PTC) and granting the State's motion

revoking his firearm purchaser identification card (FPIC). We affirm because

we conclude there was substantial credible evidence in the record to support the

trial judge's order that it would be contrary to "public health, safety, or welfare

because [J.K. was] found to be lacking the essential character of temperament

necessary to be entrusted with a firearm." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). Additionally,

we direct the trial court to correct an administrative oversight by issuing a gun

permit application number for all future gun permit appeals per Administrative

Office of the Courts, Administrative Directive #14-22, Criminal-Gun Permit

Procedures (Dec. 22, 2022) (AOC Directive #14-22).

J.K. possessed an FPIC for about fifteen years. On July 2, 2022, Medford

Township Police Chief Arthur E. Waterman, Jr. granted him a permit to

purchase handguns.

On August 5, J.K. submitted an application for a PTC with the Medford

Township Police Department. Two months later, Chief Waterman denied the

application based on an investigation by Medford Township Patrolman

1 We use petitioner and his neighbor's initials to protect their privacy. R. 1:38- 3(f)(1). A-0746-23 2 Timonthy Shockley. J.K. promptly appealed the denial to the Law Division.

While the appeal was pending, the State moved to revoke J.K.'s FPIC.

In an August 30, 2023 fact-finding hearing, the trial judge heard testimony

from Chief Waterman, Patrolman Shockley, and J.K. The central issue involved

an incident between J.K. and his next-door neighbors, which Chief Waterman

determined was the basis to deny J.K.'s PTC application.

On May 13, 2022, the Medford Township police received report of a man

with a handgun outside J.K.'s home. Police responded with a tactical approach

––disabling all audible warning devices, deploying tactical rifles, making a

tactical approach to the home––and called on the man to exit his residence.

D.Q., J.K.'s neighbor, told police that J.K. exited the back of his home, walked

to the fence separating their properties––where D.Q. and his family were

looking at a turtle that had ventured into their backyard––and cocked a handgun.

J.K. then walked in circles while holding the handgun.

J.K. came outside without incident. Recorded on police body-worn

camera, J.K. told police that even though he did not hear D.Q. and his family

talk about him, he armed himself out of concern they would enter his property.

He said his concern was based on a prior incident when he alleged D.Q.

threatened to kill him on his front step. The police later learned this prior

A-0746-23 3 incident occurred two years earlier, resulting in a municipal court ruling there

was insufficient evidence of a threat. J.K. stated his neighbors did not come

onto his property but went inside their own home. J.K. told police he held the

handgun––into which he inserted a magazine with ammunition when he walked

outside––at his side and did not point it at anyone. He admitted to holding the

handgun at his side "[on] an angle" when he inserted the magazine, but he did

not recall specifically how the firearm was positioned.

Before issuing a decision on J.K.'s PTC application, Chief Waterman

reviewed a police report regarding a June 2020 incident where D.Q. allegedly

threatened to assault J.K. and watched video footage of their encounter. J.K.

filed a municipal court harassment complaint against D.Q. leading to mediation

and a settlement agreement. D.Q. agreed to have no contact with J.K.,

"including verbal, looks, telephone, electronic, by using agents to communicate

or harass, and any other form of communication." And because they are

neighbors, D.Q. agreed that any property concerns would be addressed in

writing.

Following mediation, but before the handgun incident, three other

Medford Township police-investigated disputes occurred between J.K. and D.Q.

A-0746-23 4 and his family, which Chief Waterman believed provided context for J.K.

brandishing his handgun.

On October 18, 2021, J.K. complained to the police that D.Q. attempted

to reset his Gmail password, sign him up for various subscriptions, and requested

quotes from various businesses in J.K.'s name. Police determined the activity

reported by J.K. originated from an IP address associated with his residence.

In January 2022, D.Q. reported to the police that J.K. cyber-harassed him,

registering him for newspaper and magazine subscriptions without his approval,

and causing him to receive bills. Police determined the activity was associated

with J.K.'s residence.

On May 12, 2022, the day before the handgun incident, D.Q.'s wife and

J.K. clashed. She told police that J.K. was driving too quickly through the

neighborhood, honked his horn at her, and made an obscene gesture to her

juvenile daughter. She provided the police with video footage of the encounter

and filed a harassment complaint against J.K.

The trial judge found both Chief Waterman and Patrolman Shockley

credible. Considering the handgun incident in the context of the prior disputes

between the neighbors, the judge found Chief Waterman had a sound basis to

deny J.K.'s PTC based on the May 13 incident out of "well-grounded concern

A-0746-23 5 for the safety of the neighbors for whom . . . there were ongoing disputes," which

"ha[ve] to be considered regardless of who is responsible for continuing the

hostilities."

In contrast, the judge found J.K. "rather not credible" due to

embellishment. He rejected J.K.'s contention––also raised in J.K.'s unsuccessful

motion to dismiss at the close of the State's case––that the denial of the PTC was

based on the inadmissible hearsay testimony of Chief Waterman and Patrolman

Shockley. He noted hearsay is admissible "if it is deemed to be of credible

character, but [his ruling] cannot rest entirely on hearsay evidence alone." He

stressed there was first-hand testimony about the handgun incident from

Patrolman Shockley and J.K., as well as the body camera video depicting J.K.'s

explanation for taking his handgun outside because he feared his neighbors

would come onto his property. The judge emphasized the body camera footage

showed that D.Q. and his family were far enough away from J.K.'s property that

they were not a threat to J.K. and that J.K. could not have heard D.Q. talking

about coming onto his residence. The judge maintained J.K.'s expressed concern

for his safety was not supported by the evidence. The judge pointed out that if

J.K. wanted to see if D.Q. and his family were threatening to enter his property,

he could have viewed his surveillance camera system that, as he testified,

A-0746-23 6 covered his entire property, and called police if he believed D.Q. or his family

posed a threat to his safety. The judge found Chief Waterman "had a well-

grounded concern for the safety of [J.K.'s] neighbors [with] whom . . . there were

ongoing disputes." Regardless of who was at fault for J.K. and his neighbors'

continuing feud, the judge reasoned J.K.'s lack of judgment and insight, based

almost exclusively upon the handgun incident, warranted denial of his PTC. The

judge found no violation of J.K.'s Second Amendment right to bear arms because

the incident demonstrated J.K. did not use his handgun "reasonably and

responsibly." The judge documented his ruling in a September 26, 2023 order.

In his appeal, J.K. raises several challenges to the trial judge's order.

J.K. first asserts the judge's order contradicts N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol

Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 21-22 (2022), because it denies his

constitutional right to bear arms. He argues he had the right to possess his

handgun on his property, and the judge stripped him of his right given that he

had not threatened anyone with a gun. J.K. contends that contrary to Bruen's

objective analysis requirement, the judge engaged in a subjective analysis. See

id. at 11. We are unpersuaded.

After the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bruen was issued, our

court recognized "the public health, safety or welfare provision

A-0746-23 7 [disqualification] [in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5)] has largely been applied in

conjunction with the specific disabilities identified under various subsections of

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c), but where the facts do not quite rise to the level of those

disabling conditions." In re M.U.'s Handgun Purchase Permit, 475 N.J. Super.

148, 179-80 (App. Div. 2023). This is consistent with our prior case law

upholding the constitutionality of the "public health, safety or welfare"

disqualification in In re Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons & Firearms Identification

Card Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J. 487, 505 (2016), In re Winston, 438 N.J.

Super. 1, 5 (App. Div. 2014), In re Dubov, 410 N.J. Super. 190, 195 (App. Div.

2009), and Burton v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 91 (1968). Id. at 193. As explained

below, the trial judge objectively applied credible facts in the record to reach his

findings under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) that J.K. should not have a PTC nor a

FPIC.

J.K. also contends the judge failed to make findings that he lacked

"character of temperament" under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). Based upon our de

novo review of J.K.'s application, In re N.J. Firearms Purchaser Identification

Card by Z.K., 440 N.J. Super. 394, 397 (App. Div. 2015), we discern no injustice

in the judge's fact-findings, In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108,

117 (1997). The judge's finding that "public health, safety and welfare" would

A-0746-23 8 be in jeopardy if J.K. is allowed to purchase a gun and a PTC is supported by

his credibility findings. We are not "convinced that those findings and

conclusions were so manifestly unsupported by or inconsistent with the

competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to offend the interests

of justice." Griepenburg v. Twp. of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239, 254 (2015) (internal

quotations and citation omitted). The judge astutely considered the totality of

circumstances, noting J.K.'s decision to exit his home with a loaded handgun

was based on an unfounded belief that his neighbors were threatening to come

onto his property by merely seeing them in their own backyard a distance away.

The judge felt this was a bad omen for future disproportionate use of a gun given

J.K.'s statement to police that he "may have to" shoot D.Q. or his family if they

came onto his property again.

J.K. further argues the judge erred in basing his decision on inadmissible

hearsay testimony and not granting his motion for dismissal. Our review of the

record does not demonstrate the judge's decision rested exclusively upon

hearsay. The judge primarily based his ruling regarding the handgun incident

due to the first-hand observations of Patrolman Shockley and J.K. and the video-

recorded statements of J.K. and D.Q. The neighbors' prior disputes merely

provided a backdrop to explaining their acrimony towards each other. That said,

A-0746-23 9 as our high Court held in Weston v. State, hearsay is generally admissible in

reviewing an administrative decision. 60 N.J. 36, 51 (1972). "Hearsay may be

employed to corroborate competent proof, or competent proof may be supported

or given added probative force by hearsay testimony," but the Court added,

"there must be a residuum of legal and competent evidence in the record ." Ibid.

"The residuum rule does not require that each fact be based on a residuum of

legally competent evidence but rather focuses on the ultimate finding or findings

of material fact." Ruroede v. Borough of Hasbrouck Heights, 214 N.J. 338, 359

(2013). In sum, we see no abuse of discretion in the judge's evidentiary rulings,

Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 52-53 (2015), and as noted, we discern no

injustice in his fact-findings.

Finally, J.K. maintains the trial court failed to provide a docket number

for his PTC application as required by AOC Directive #14-22. He maintains the

lack of a docket number "frustrated . . . his attempt to appeal this matter to [our

court] through the e-court system." The lack of a docket number was neither

discussed at the fact-finding hearing nor formally presented to the judge for

disposition. Normally, we decline to consider newly raised arguments because

they are not jurisdictional in nature nor do they substantially implicate the public

interest. Zaman v. Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) (citation omitted).

A-0746-23 10 However, the record does show that in response to counsel's request for a docket

number, the judge's chambers, without referencing a statute, regulation, or

administrative directive, advised "gun permit appeals do not receive docket

numbers." This is contrary to AOC Directive #14-22, which requires "a

universal numbering protocol for docketing and tracking [gun permit] appeals."

We thus direct that all future gun permit appeals should comply with this

directive. This administrative oversight has no bearing on the merits of the

appeal. See R. 1:13-1.

Affirmed.

A-0746-23 11