In Re the State for the Forfeiture of Personal Weapons & Firearms Identification Card Belonging to F.M.
139 A.3d 67
| N.J. | 2016Background
- In March 2010, after an altercation with his then-wife G.M., Roseland police seized respondent F.M.’s personal firearm and firearms purchaser identification card under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act; a temporary restraining order issued but a final restraining order was denied and related criminal charges were later dismissed after counseling.
- The State moved to forfeit F.M.’s weapon and identification card under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), arguing rearming him would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare; the Family Part ordered continued retention pending completion of counseling and a batterer-intervention program.
- At the forfeiture hearing, G.M. testified to multiple incidents (reported and unreported) of domestic violence; Officer McDonnell corroborated the March 14, 2010 incident.
- The State presented two unrefuted fitness-for-duty (FFD) expert reports (Drs. Guller and Schlosser) concluding F.M. was not fit for full duty and expressing concern he should be disarmed because of poor impulse/anger control and elements of personality disorder traits.
- The Family Part denied the State’s forfeiture motion, finding the experts described only subclinical tendencies, questioning G.M.’s credibility, and (incorrectly) requiring more than a showing that some danger might exist; the Appellate Division affirmed and ordered return of the weapon subject to stay; Supreme Court granted certification.
- The Supreme Court reversed: it held the Family Part applied an incorrect legal standard, improperly relied on information outside the hearing record, gave insufficient weight to unrefuted expert testimony, and concluded forfeiture under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | F.M.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) disqualifies a person from firearm possession when rearming "would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare" — standard and burden | Preponderance of evidence that rearming would harm public health/safety/welfare; statute targets individual unfitness and does not require a diagnosable disorder | Second Amendment/Heller requires more than showing some danger; State must show more than a mere possibility of risk | The correct standard is preponderance that possession would not be in public interest; Heller does not demand a higher showing here; statute constitutional and applicable |
| Whether the Family Part erred by treating expert FFD opinions (fitness for duty) as irrelevant to private firearm possession | Experts’ unrefuted FFD opinions about danger and need to disarm are directly relevant to whether possession would harm public safety | F.M.: experts evaluated police fitness, not private gun ownership; lack of diagnosable disorder and no prior inappropriate firearm use weigh against forfeiture | Court held FFD opinions are relevant; statute does not require a diagnosable mental disorder and experts’ concerns about rearming are probative of unfitness |
| Whether the Family Part improperly relied on matters outside the evidentiary record and misweighed credibility | State: judge impermissibly considered extra-record conversations and dismissed unrefuted expert testimony | F.M.: trial judge entitled to "feel for the case" from prior proceedings; deference due to Family Part expertise | Court found judge relied on extra-record matters; declined to afford special deference to those factual findings and reversed |
| Whether the record supports return of F.M.’s weapon and ID card | State: record (officer corroboration + unrefuted experts + history of incidents) supports forfeiture under (c)(5) | F.M.: most allegations were unreported, no final restraining order, and no evidence he ever used a firearm improperly | Court held substantial credible evidence supports forfeiture and ordered weapons and ID card forfeited |
Key Cases Cited
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (Second Amendment does not protect an unlimited right to firearms)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (States may regulate firearms consistent with the Second Amendment)
- In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108 (appellate deference to trial factual findings supported by substantial credible evidence)
- State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. Super. 524 (App. Div. 2004) (burden is preponderance in forfeiture proceedings)
- In re Osworth, 365 N.J. Super. 72 (App. Div. 2003) (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) addresses individual unfitness beyond enumerated disqualifiers)
- Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (liberal construction of Domestic Violence Act; Family Part expertise in family matters)
- Rova Farms Resort v. Inv’rs Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474 (standard for disturbing trial court findings: must be manifestly unsupported by substantial credible evidence)