In the Matter of D.J.K., A-0032-23

D.J.K. appealed a final extreme risk protective order (FERPO) issued under New Jersey's Extreme Risk Protective Order Act ("Red Flag Law") following incidents at his home involving alleged physical altercations with his children and a subsequent threat made by his son at school.
Police responded to two incidents: one in October 2021 with D.J.K.'s daughter and another in February 2022 with his son; neither led to criminal charges, but both prompted DCPP involvement.
In September 2022, D.J.K. applied for a handgun carry permit and failed to disclose past voluntary psychiatric hospitalization; he provided a doctor’s note affirming his current fitness to possess firearms.
In March 2023, a school threat by D.J.K.'s son led authorities to request D.J.K. voluntarily surrender firearms; he was evasive, denying initial ownership, and resisted a later search and seizure at his home.
The State sought and obtained a TERPO followed by a FERPO, revoking D.J.K.'s firearm permits and compelling sale of his firearm, citing continued dishonesty, community safety concerns, and failure to secure weapons.
D.J.K. challenged the FERPO’s issuance, arguing the findings were not supported, his Second Amendment rights were violated, and his firearm permit revocation was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Issuance of FERPO	Insufficient evidence for FERPO	Evidence supported significant danger	Affirmed: Ample evidence supported significant danger
Second Amendment Challenge	FERPO violated constitutional gun rights	Not properly raised before trial court	Not considered: Issue waived on appeal
Revocation of Firearm Permits and Forced Sale	Revocation and sale not warranted	Requirements met by statutory findings	Affirmed: No abuse of discretion or misapplication of law

Cesare v. Cesare, 154 N.J. 394 (N.J. 1998) (sets the standard for appellate review of fact-finding in family and protective proceedings)
Peterson v. Peterson, 374 N.J. Super. 116 (App. Div. 2005) (reviewing court is bound by trial court's findings if supported by credible evidence)
State v. Revie, 220 N.J. 126 (N.J. 2014) (statutory interpretation is a legal question reviewed de novo)
State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317 (N.J. 2015) (legal conclusions reviewed without deference to trial court)
D.L.B., 468 N.J. Super. 397 (App. Div. 2021) (outlines standards and process under New Jersey's red flag law)
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rothman, 208 N.J. 580 (N.J. 2012) (issues not raised below generally are not considered on appeal)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (N.J. 1973) (appellate courts typically will not consider issues not raised at trial)