In the Matter of the Gun Permit Appeal of A.A.R., Etc.

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: June 18, 2026
• Docket: A-3192-24
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-3192-24

IN THE MATTER OF THE GUN PERMIT APPEAL OF A.A.R.1 FROM THE DENIAL OF A FIREARMS PURCHASER ID CARD BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. ______________________________

Argued May 20, 2026 – Decided June 18, 2026

Before Judges Gummer, Paganelli and Vanek.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Warren County, Docket No. GPA-0006-24.

A.A.R., self-represented appellant.

Carolynn C. O'Dell, Assistant Prosecutor, argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey (Jessica L. Cardone, Warren County Prosecutor, attorney; Carolynn C. O'Dell, of counsel and on the brief).

Amanda McElfresh, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for amicus curiae Attorney General of New Jersey (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Stephen Ehrlich, Deputy Solicitor General, on the brief; David E. Leit and Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant

1 We refer to petitioner by initials because medical records are referenced in the trial court's decision. R. 1:38-3(a)(2). Attorneys General, of counsel; Andrew H. Yang, Amanda McElfresh and Giancarlo G. Piccinini, Deputy Attorneys General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Petitioner A.A.R. appeals from a May 22, 2025 order upholding the denial

of his application for a New Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card

(FPIC). We affirm, substantially for the reasons set forth in the judge's well-

reasoned decision.

I.

On February 29, 2024, petitioner filed an application for an FPIC with the

New Jersey State Police (NJSP). In addition to submitting a completed FPIC

application, petitioner emailed the NJSP a copy of nine gun permits he had

obtained from other states and the District of Columbia.

On April 11, 2024, the NJSP Superintendent denied petitioner's

application after an investigation, concluding he "lack[ed] the essential

character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm, pursuant to

N.J.S.A. 2C:53-3C(5)." The Superintendent's decision was predicated "on the

totality of the circumstances" after reviewing records demonstrating: Freehold

Township (Freehold) had denied petitioner's two previous FPIC applications—

one of which was affirmed on appeal to the Law Division; and petitioner's

A-3192-24 2 medical history, including a mental health evaluation; involvement in a domestic

dispute; and "violent tendencies."

After petitioner filed a Law Division action appealing the denial, the judge

conducted a plenary hearing. Freehold Chief of Police George Baumann and

Freehold Lieutenant Joseph Winwoski testified regarding their investigations

related to Freehold's denial of petitioner's prior FPIC application. NJSP

Firearms Investigation Bureau Trooper Richard Somers testified about the

NJSP's denial of petitioner's most recent application. Petitioner testified on his

own behalf.

The hearing testimony established that petitioner's FPIC application had

referenced his history of mental-health issues and he had been denied two FPIC

applications by Freehold, one in 2021 and the other in 2022. Chief Baumann

explained he had denied petitioner's first application in 2021 primarily because

of petitioner's prior mental-health evaluation and his failure to submit a clinical

psychologist's opinion stipulating to his ability to handle firearms. Chief

Baumann testified he had also been concerned with "a situation in [petitioner's]

home where [his] father . . . or parents had taken away [his] privileges to some

kind of computer use." They had "turned the electricity off and then [petitioner]

had rewired it within the home, or something, potentially almost causing a fire."

A-3192-24 3 Trooper Somers testified that during his investigation of petitioner's FPIC

application filed with the NJSP, he had reviewed medical records that

demonstrated in 2017 petitioner was psychiatrically evaluated in a hospital on

the advice of his therapist and because his parents believed he was "becoming a

threat to himself and others." Trooper Somers was concerned by two specific

notes in the medical records—one of which stated petitioner had a history of

treatment for depression along "'with a past history of vague suicidal gesture by

cutting himself.'" The second note of concern stated petitioner's mother had told

hospital staff she believed petitioner had "no moral compass," and she feared

petitioner would become a "'psychopath.'"

The medical records reviewed by Trooper Somers also demonstrated

petitioner had "been posting racially biased videos on YouTube, which"

continued even after petitioner's parents and school had asked him to remove

the videos and to refrain from further posts. The records also referenced

physical altercations between petitioner and his father when petitioner's father

cut electricity to stop petitioner's online computer activities and when petitioner

had tried to restore electrical access to his bedroom. According to the records,

petitioner had been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder requiring

mental health treatment.

A-3192-24 4 Trooper Somers also searched the internet as part of his investigation and

discovered online activity that "concern[ed]" him. One of the online postings

he saw was a 2022 petition that sought signatures to support petitioner's

expulsion from Penn State University based on assertions petitioner was a

"violent misogynist, homophobic, [and a] white supremacist" who had violated

the school's student conduct policies and had created a dangerous environment

on the school's campus. The petition stated petitioner had publicly announced

he wanted to "shoot up a school," used racial slurs, hurt students and staff, sent

pornographic images to minors, and promoted gun violence, rape, and white

supremacy—with reference to specific examples of the petitioner's actions, both

online and at the university. The petition contained 1458 out of the required

1600 signatures. Petitioner submitted a document stating Penn State University

did not take any disciplinary action against him as a result of the petition.

Trooper Somers also reviewed petitioner's social-media posts in which he

responded to a hypothetical, fictional scenario posed by an anonymous Reddit

user who asked: "You are unable to be killed or injured for [twenty-four] hours

and any crimes you commit during this time, you can't be charged for, no matter

how extreme. What do you do with this power?" Petitioner responded in part:

Oh man, I'd do a bunch of f[***]ed up shit. To start, I'd rape a bunch of really hot girls. I'd then probably

A-3192-24 5 start driving around and shoot at random cars & pedestrians GTA style. I'd definitely shoot up a school and make sure "Pumped Up Kicks" is blasting on the loud speaker, I'd then impersonate a cop and commit police brutality. I'd then take over the White House and become dictator of the U.S. Oh, and I'd rob banks so I have enough money for life. Ok I'm done.

Trooper Somers testified that after he concluded his investigation, he

denied petitioner's FPIC application because he lacked the essential character

and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm pursuant to N.J.S.A.

2C:53-3(c)(5). Freehold Lieutenant Winowski also testified he would be

uncomfortable with petitioner having a firearm.

Petitioner's testimony confirmed his 2017 confrontation with his parents,

he had authored the Reddit posts, and he had publicly uttered racial slurs and

had made statements about raping women. Petitioner submitted a letter from

Jordan Faiman, an outpatient counseling services provider he had visited in 2017

and once in March 2021. Faiman asserted petitioner "had made significant

progress through outpatient on-site counseling treatment over the course of more

than three years" particularly "in the areas of anger management and impulsivity

control." Based on his session with petitioner in March 2021, Faiman concluded

petitioner was "not currently a danger to himself and/or others."

After the hearing, the judge denied petitioner's FPIC application in an

A-3192-24 6 order accompanied by a written decision. The judge found Chief Baumann and

Trooper Somers had testified "truthfully and forthrightly" and that Lieutenant

"Winowski testified credibly." The judge also found petitioner's online activity

"troubling" and his posts "advocate[d] violent crimes against women and stated

that [petitioner] would engage in this type of conduct if there were no

consequences." The judge determined these posts, when "coupled with the

mental health records from 2017[,] caution[ed] th[e] court as to whether

[petitioner] possesse[d] the sufficient character required to be issued a n FPIC."

Because the medical evidence conflicted, the judge stated she did not "rely

solely on the medical records for [her] decision." The judge concluded that

"when looking at the totality of the circumstances including the social-media

posts, medical documentation, the previous denials by Freehold . . . and the

admissions by [petitioner], the [c]ourt [wa]s extremely concerned about

[petitioner]'s character or temperament."

Petitioner argues on appeal the judge erred in upholding the denial of his

FPIC application by relying on medical evidence he asserts was "neither

admissible nor supported by the testimony regarding the [medical record

release] form" and impermissibly considered First Amendment-protected

conduct and speech in violation of his Second Amendment rights. Petitioner

A-3192-24 7 also asserts the judge erred by refusing to consider his constitutional challenges

to the governing statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3.

The State argues that because N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) contemplates a

character analysis, the judge properly considered the totality of the evidence as

to petitioner's actions and statements to deny his FPIC application. Both the

State and amicus curiae the Attorney General of New Jersey submit petitioner

waived his constitutional arguments by failing to properly brief them and,

further, the FPIC statute is constitutional based on prior decisional law.

II.

We "review a trial court's legal conclusions regarding firearms licenses de

novo." In re N.J. Firearms Purchaser Identification Card by Z.K., 440 N.J.

Super. 394, 397 (App. Div. 2015). Appellate review of a trial judge's factual

findings in firearm licensure matters, however, is "limited." In re Z.L., 440 N.J.

Super. 351, 355 (App. Div. 2015). As such, an appellate court should ordinarily

"accept a trial court's findings of fact that are supported by substantial credible

evidence." In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 116 (1997).

III.

We are satisfied the judge applied the appropriate legal standard and

predicated the FPIC denial on substantial, credible evidence in the record.

A-3192-24 8 A.

To purchase a firearm in New Jersey, a person must first obtain an FPIC.

The governing statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3, states in pertinent part as follows:

Except as hereinafter provided, a person shall not be denied . . . a [FPIC], unless the person is known in the community in which the person lives as someone who has engaged in acts or made statements suggesting the person is likely to engage in conduct, other than justified self-defense, that would pose a danger to self or others, or is subject to any of the disabilities set forth in this section or other sections of this chapter. A . . . [FPIC] shall not be issued:

....

(5) To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety[,] or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c).]

Under the statutory scheme governing FPIC applications, "the chief police

officer or the superintendent of the [NJSP must] . . . 'investigate the application

to determine whether or not the applicant has become subject to any of the

disabilities set forth in this chapter.'" In re Appeal of the Denial of R.W.T., 477

N.J. Super. 443, 461 (App. Div. 2023) (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(e)). Under

subsection (e), the FPIC application form used must set forth:

A-3192-24 9 [W]hether the applicant has been attended, treated or observed by any doctor or psychiatrist or at any hospital or mental institution on an inpatient or outpatient basis for any mental or psychiatric condition, giving the name and location of the doctor, psychiatrist, hospital or institution and the dates of the occurrence.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(e).]

In R.W.T., we elaborated on this requirement, holding subsection (e)

shows a legislative determination that this information is relevant and material for the background investigation into an applicant's fitness to purchase a firearm. The undeniable relationship between mental illness and the numerous mass-shootings around the Nation plainly shows why the Legislature deemed it necessary to require gun permit applicants not only to disclose whether they have ever been treated by a doctor or psychiatrist for a mental or psychiatric condition, but also to disclose when and where the treatment occurred so that a police chief can conduct an appropriate follow-up inquiry.

[477 N.J. Super. at 471.]

"[A] judicial declaration that a defendant poses a threat to the public

health, safety[,] or welfare involves, by necessity, a fact-sensitive analysis."

State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. Super. 524, 535 (App. Div. 2004). Because of the

importance of developing an appropriate record of factual findings, the statutory

scheme has been interpreted to require Law Division evidentiary hearings to

develop the critical facts bearing on a contested permit application. See In re

A-3192-24 10 Dubov, 410 N.J. Super. 190, 200 (App. Div. 2009) (noting "the informality of a

chief of police's initial consideration of an application for a gun permit requires

an evidentiary hearing when an applicant appeals a denial to the [Superior]

Court"). "The court may consider hearsay but may not base its decision upon

hearsay alone." Matter of M.U.'s Application for a Handgun Purchase Permit,

475 N.J. Super. 148, 173 (App. Div. 2023) (citing Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36,

50-52 (1972)).

The judge's decision—predicated on sworn testimony and admitted

records—is entitled to deference. We are unconvinced the judge impermissibly

relied on petitioner's medical records to support the denial. Petitioner's mental-

health records, obtained with his authorization, were considered along with

other evidence to deny petitioner's FPIC application. The judge did not solely

rely on petitioner's mental-health records but also considered his social-media

posts, testimony as to Freehold's previous FPIC denials, and Trooper Somers's

testimony and petitioner's testimony regarding his concerning behavior, all of

which validated the NJSP's investigation results. Even without petitioner's

mental-health records, the judge had a sufficient factual basis to deny

petitioner's appeal as not being in the interest of "public health, safety[,] or

welfare." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5).

A-3192-24 11 We reject petitioner's suggestion that his application for a New Jersey

FPIC should be granted because other states have issued gun permits to him

under similar statutes. The record does not contain the information before the

other jurisdictions at the time petitioner applied for those permits, nor an

analysis of their statutory schemes. The judge was statutorily bound to make an

independent determination of the record before her under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3

rather than rely on the conclusions of other jurisdictions.

B.

We next turn to petitioner's contention that the judge erred in relying on

his statements and conduct for the denial because they are protected by the First

Amendment. We are unconvinced by that argument.

As a threshold issue, the NJSP and the OAG posit petitioner waived his

constitutional arguments by making only limited references to "constitutional

claims" in his merits brief. We agree petitioner only minimally references his

constitutional arguments and does not provide a fulsome substantive analysis

for our consideration. See N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot. v. Alloway Twp., 438 N.J.

Super. 501, 505-06 n.2 (App. Div. 2015) (noting "[a]n issue that is not briefed

is deemed waived upon appeal"); see also State v. D.F.W., 468 N.J. Super. 422,

447 (App. Div. 2021) (disallowing consideration of issues not formally briefed

A-3192-24 12 by defendant); R. 2:6-2(a)(6).

Because the NJSP and the OAG addressed petitioner's minimal

submissions on the constitutional issues in his merits brief, we briefly note the

objections raised have been previously rejected by our decisional law.

Following the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle

& Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), we upheld the

constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) in M.U., 475 N.J. Super. at 197. See

also R.W.T, 477 N.J. Super. at 454 (rejecting, after the United States Supreme

Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2023), a "facial

challenge to the constitutionality of the 'public health, safety[,] or welfare'

disqualification criterion").

In M.U., we found the historical record showed "legislatures traditionally

imposed status-based restrictions" that were "not limited to individuals who

demonstrated a propensity for violence" but "also applied to entire categories of

people due to the perceived threat they posed to an orderly society." M.U., 475

N.J. Super. at 189. Thus, we concluded N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), which

contemplates a holistic view of the individual applicant, was facially

constitutional. Id. at 190-94.

A-3192-24 13 We have also rejected as-applied challenges, reasoning the legislative

intent contemplates inquiry into cases of "individual unfitness" where the

applicant's background demonstrates a risk to the community. In re Osworth,

365 N.J. Super. 72, 77 (App. Div. 2003) (quoting Burton, 53 N.J. at 91); see also

Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 693 (rejecting the defendant's facial and as applied

constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which, under subsection

(C)(i), barred a person from possessing a firearm if a restraining order concluded

the person posed "a credible threat to the physical safety" of another).

The right to possess firearms is not boundless. Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 690-

91; see also In re Forfeiture of Pers. Weapons & Firearms Identification Card

Belonging to F.M., 225 N.J. 487, 506-08 (2016) (explaining the limitations on

the right to bear arms and the reasonable limitations imposed under New Jersey

law). Petitioner's argument that the judge impermissibly relied on "protected

speech" to determine his fitness to possess a firearm under New Jersey's statute

is without merit. By applying for an FPIC, petitioner subjected himself to

investigation by the NJSP and the consequences of that investigation, consistent

with our jurisprudence.

We decline to address the other constitutional claims raised in the

submissions because "they are not 'imperative to the disposition' of this matter."

A-3192-24 14 Matter of Polatov, ___ N.J. Super. ___, ___ (App. Div. 2026) (slip op. at 18)

(quoting Randolph Town Ctr., L.P. v. County of Morris, 186 N.J. 78, 80 (2006));

see also R.W.T., 477 N.J. Super. at 476 (declining to address constitutional

questions not necessary to our decision).

To the extent we have not otherwise addressed them, any remaining

arguments raised by petitioner lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R.

2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.

A-3192-24 15