On April 22, the Appellate Division affirmed the astute decision of Judge Ronald L. Reisner, denying an application for three permits to purchase a handgun, based upon the fact that the applicant had been arrested for a domestic violence assault upon his wife 15 years prior (although acquitted), and the police, in the 10 years following the alleged assault, had responded to his home five times to resolve domestic disputes (although his wife never obtained a restraining order against him). In re: Application of Z.L. for a Firearms Permit, ___ N.J. Super.___ ( App. Div. 2015).

In denying the gun permits, Judge Reisner noted that “It is evident from the 1998 domestic violence arrest and multiple subsequent police interactions that the [husband and wife] are unable to amicably resolve minor disputes. Accordingly, the volatile situation between [husband and wife] is not [the] place, in this court's opinion, to add firearms.” This, in spite of the applicant's contention that his relationship with his wife was “better than at that time, and ascribed her decision to sleep separately to her sleep disorder,” which contention Judge Reisner, not surprisingly, found “unconvincing.”

In so ruling, the Appellate Division pointed out that the Gun Control Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)5, permits a denial of a gun permit where the issuance “would nonetheless be contrary to the public interest.” Noting that although “an arrest that did not result in conviction is not one of the [eight] listed disqualifications [in the statute],” the court pointed out that the statute “is intended to address issues of individual unfitness, not otherwise categorized in the statute.” For this reason, the court held that the denial of the permit was appropriate, in this case, because “under all the circumstances … the defendant poses a threat to public health, safety, or welfare” (not to mention, in this author's opinion, a threat, specifically, to the safety of applicant's wife).