In re Wheeler
433 N.J. Super. 560
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2013Background
- Wheeler and Daudelin, retired from Newark Fire Department Arson Investigation Unit, applied for New Jersey special carry permits under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(l) and LEOSA provision.
- Special permits permit some retirees to carry handguns without the ordinary need showings; ordinary permits require a show of justifiable need under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4d.
- Applicants contended the justifiable need requirement and the subsection l distinctions unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment and created arbitrary classifications.
- The Division denied their applications; trial court affirmed; cases were consolidated on appeal, challenging multiple statutory provisions and potential preemption by LEOSA.
- The court analyzes the Firearms Law grid, the role of justifiable need, and whether NJ’s scheme with two permit tracks comports with Heller and McDonald, including distinctions among retiree categories.
- The court ultimately held that the justifiable need requirement passes intermediate scrutiny and that the targeted exemptions for retirees are constitutionally justifiable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the justifiable need requirement violate the Second Amendment? | Wheeler/Daudelin argue it renders the right illusory. | NJ asserts it serves public safety and falls within permissible regulation. | No; passes intermediate scrutiny |
| Are the subsection l retiree exemptions arbitrary distinctions violating equal protection or Privileges & Immunities? | Retirees eligible for special permits differ from others; classifications are arbitrary. | Differences reflect distinct duties, training, and risk profiles; rational basis supported. | Rational basis pass; distinctions reasonably related to governmental interests |
| Does LEOSA preemption foreclose NJ prosecution for possessing a handgun without a permit for these retirees? | LEOSA precludes prosecution for qualified retirees carrying without NJ permit. | LEOSA does not compel NJ to issue permits and does not preclude state enforcement in this context. | Preemption not properly before court; no ruling on prosecution liability |
| Does NJ’s use of LEOSA by reference in subsection l misinterpret LEOSA or violate LEOSA’s scope? | LEOSA’s definition expands beyond NJ’s statutory framework. | Legislature intended LEOSA reference as fixed cross-reference; further expansion not implicated here. | LEOSA reference not read to broaden beyond NJ’s defined categories |
| Do Privileges and Immunities considerations necessitate different treatment for domicile in or out of NJ? | Domicle-based differential treatment violates Privileges and Immunities Clause. | Record inadequate to evaluate; substantial justification exists for domicile-based distinctions. | Issue not reached on merits; dismissed due to record insufficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (handgun ban in home invalid; recognized core self-defense right)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) (Second Amendment applicable to states; self-defense in home)
- Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 2012) (upholds state public-carry regulation under intermediate scrutiny)
- Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013) (justifiable-need standard upheld under intermediate scrutiny)
- Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F.3d 865 (4th Cir. 2013) (public-carry permits with need-based distinctions sustained)
- Masciandaro v. Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011) (outside-home carry rights reviewed with emphasis on public-safety concerns)
- Moore v. Madigan, 702 F.3d 933 (7th Cir. 2012) (struck down Illinois public-carry ban; discussed reasonable limits)
- Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010) (declined to read strict scrutiny for gun-regulation challenges; favored substantial relation)