Episode 187-NJ Judge Goes Out Of His Way To Assassinate Your Character

SUMMARY KEYWORDS

gun, new jersey, court, firearms, case, permit, withdraw, law, hearing, issue, great, petitioner, handgun, references, purchase, due process, domestic violence, people, order, ptc

SPEAKERS

Evan Nappen, Speaker 3, Louis Nappen

Evan Nappen 00:00
Hi. I’m Evan Nappen, and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Today in the Gun Lawyer studio, I have with us my brother, Louis Nappen, who is also an ace gun lawyer. He recently won an excellent case in New Jersey at the Appellate level that we want to tell all of you about. These are the things that we deal with in New Jersey, and it’s just outrageous, beyond belief. But luckily, we did get justice in the end. Lou, why don’t you lay the groundwork as to this recent Appellate Division decision and what led up to it.

Louis Nappen 01:02
Great. Well, I want to put something out there. First off, I’ve been doing this for about 18-20 years. And I have to say, I have never had this issue before the Appellate Division. It’s completely novel. It was new research I had to do. Now with that being said, hopefully, that intrigues you. What kind of new gun issue could have happened? That we haven’t seen.

Evan Nappen 01:25
That we haven’t seen practice. I mean, it’s like, are you kidding me? And yet no part of the thing about practice of law. It seems like there’s no end to the bullshit. Just no end to it.

Louis Nappen 01:38
So, in this case, and it does use initials like every other case I’m here. It seems it’s always initials because I do go out of my way to protect the privacy of my clients. It is only initials because I did request that as part of my thing. Otherwise, his name would be out there, and we’d be hurting his reputation, possibly.

Evan Nappen 01:56
And it would defeat the whole purpose of why we went down this road.

Louis Nappen 02:00
So, let me explain because now the intrigue is all there. What is this about? It’s In re, in regarding, Application of KD for a Permit to Carry a Handgun. This is a Permit to Carry, not purchase. A Permit to Carry a Handgun, pursuant to N.J.S. 2C:58-4., which has all been opened up now in New Jersey. You’ve discussed ad infinitum about how, after Bruen, we can get these now as citizens. It used to be only about 600 people. Now, the last I heard it about 135,000.

Page – 1 – of 21

Evan Nappen 02:31
Tens of thousands. Yeah, really quick, I just want to mention. When you apply for a carry permit, the standard for a carry permit is the exact same standard as for a Firearms Purchaser ID Card and for a pistol purchase permit. That standard is found where, Lou? Where’s the license?

Louis Nappen 02:50
That’s under N.J.S. 2C:58.3. There are the standards for permits to purchase and Firearm Purchaser ID Cards. For a Permit to Carry you also have to do the shooting qualifications, of course. But the standards for denial are basically the same. They are the same standards.

Evan Nappen 03:10
So, in this case, our client went under the old system where you first applied to the chief, and then the application went to the judge. In the interim, the law changed. But that’s not the key issue here. Was he approved or denied by his chief?

Louis Nappen 03:26
Yeah. Because he was one of the earlier ones to apply. He already had a Firearms Purchaser ID card and permits to purchase (a handgun). He already had firearms. So, he’s already been vetted. He applied under the old standard to his local police chief. Now under that standard of that time, before they changed the law, in part I’d like to say, thanks to our Carlson decision, and we can talk about that. But his Chief approved him, in answer to your question. So, he went applied to his chief who approved him. Now, you say like, well, if that’s the case, you should be granted it. But the issuing authority at that time was not the chief. The chief had to only make whether he approved or not in terms of whether he thought it was proper. He doesn’t grant them though. And he had to send the packet . . .

Evan Nappen 04:17
It was a two-step process. One of the only decent things about the Carry Killer Law and that giant mountain of dog crap is that deep in it was a little gold coin, which was the removal of judges from the process. And here is a great example of why.

Louis Nappen 04:36
This case exemplifies it to the nth degree. Why it is so important that that change happened. Okay, so it went up. We’re waiting for the court to issue his permit. The court says it’s not. We’re setting it for a hearing and it’s about what’s going on. He says the court wants to have a hearing. Well, per the Carlson decision, which mandates that they must have a hearing, that was our case that went up to the Supreme Court. I’m proud of that one very much.

Evan Nappen 05:08
That wasn’t just a win. That was a unanimous win – all seven judges voted for our side and said that you have a right to a hearing in which we enshrined due process for carry. So, getting a hearing is an important thing in due process.

Page – 2 – of 21

Louis Nappen 05:24
And here’s where that plays out. Because they used to do, what it was is you only got a hearing if you had been denied by the chief or Superintendent. Then what judges were doing, if you got approved by your police chief, the judge would just deny you without a hearing. The statute only said you got a hearing if you were denied by the chief on appeal. KD was approved by the chief and sent it up, but now he’s entitled to a hearing if the court intends to deny or has concerns. So, we were like, okay, this gentleman is not perfect. He does have some what they called encounters with police, but he has no disqualifiers, no convictions that bar him, no restraining orders that bar him, none of that. He’s had firearms for some time. So, it’s not like he had something . . .

Evan Nappen 05:27
The chief approved him every time.

Louis Nappen 06:15
Right. Exactly. So, here he goes to the court. And what we wanted to do here is we wanted to make sure. We want to see what’s in the discovery. What is it that the concern here is, because you just don’t know.

Evan Nappen 06:30
What’s discovery? Let’s tell them what discovery is.

Louis Nappen 06:31
The best thing about discovery, you might want to watch “My Cousin Vinny”. They discuss it in that movie. It’s a classic movie.

Evan Nappen 06:32
All right, we’re hitting a new low. Because we’re citing “My Cousin Vinny”.

Louis Nappen 06:43
No, that movie actually had good advisors on it, and it’s not that bad when it comes to legal procedure. She talks about how you’re entitled to it in that sense, discovery, to know about the facts of the case, both positive and negative.

Louis Nappen 07:00
Right. So, we were waiting for this discovery. They set it for a hearing date, and I put in my request to please provide the discovery so that we go in prepared and know what their concern might be, in particular. If there’s anything in particular, because he might think he knows his record, but I’ve been surprised by clients who find out there’s something there that they didn’t know about or forgot about.

Evan Nappen 07:00
So, it’s all the arrest reports, incidents reports, anything the State intends to rely on, videos, etc. You’re entitled to it all up front. So that way, there’s no surprises, and your attorney and you can adequately prepare for the hearing. And that’s called due process.

Page – 3 – of 21

Louis Nappen 07:37
Or it’s just only an error and just not them.

Louis Nappen 07:41
Right. Exactly. Just plain error. And we have to say no, that wasn’t him. You’re getting Senior and Junior mixed up.

Evan Nappen 07:47
Well, yeah, we’ve had that any number of times.

Louis Nappen 07:48
Yes, that’s right. Or two people with the same name. That happens, too. It went there. So, within the week before the hearing, approximately, I finally got discovery. Now we look at it, and we say, okay, he can clean himself up a little bit. He never took advantage of laws that can clean yourself up. And also, the law had changed so that permits were now going to be issued by police chiefs.

Evan Nappen 07:49
Only. So, his chief had already approved him. Under the new law, you get it on issuance of the chief. So, why are we going to now have a hearing to get a judge issued permit and risk a denial, when the law has been changed for it to be done strictly by the chief? So, why take that risk, when it’s unnecessary? And what was our advice?

Louis Nappen 08:18
Well, one of the reasons why you don’t want a denial is it’s a question on the application form. On all future applications, he would have to say “yes” to that for no good reason. So, now we have the discovery, and we see what he has. We know that we have a friendly police chief in his favor. We can also, or on his own whichever way he wants to go, clean himself up and make himself just. You know, why have that stuff out there?

Evan Nappen 08:45
And keep in mind, he’s going into this with an approval by the chief. He has not been denied anything yet.

Louis Nappen 08:49
So, approximately three days before the hearing, which is plenty of time before the hearing because I only got the discovery a couple of days before that, I sent to the court that we are going to withdrawal. Now the petitioner . . .

Evan Nappen 09:30 Withdrawal what?

Louis Nappen 09:31
We wanted to withdraw his application . . .

Page – 4 – of 21

Evan Nappen 09:38
And it hadn’t been decided yet.

Louis Nappen 09:41
Correct. We wanted to withdraw that because it hadn’t been decided yet. He had an approval by the chief. So, it wouldn’t be a denial below, and we wanted to withdraw the Because there was no sense in what we just discussed going to a hearing. So, and as the appellant, you hold that right to be able to withdraw because it’s your appeal, your case, your appeal. If you decide you don’t want to proceed, you can say, I’m withdrawing. Now, most courts are happy. One less thing on my docket. I don’t have to deal with this. Terrific, goodbye. Here’s the order. They can’t sign it fast enough to be done with a case.

Evan Nappen 10:21
Right. Because it clears another case off their docket. They don’t have to do anything, write anything. Hold the hearing, all that time? They’re like, great. Go, go. Have a nice day. We’re glad you withdrew. Right.

Louis Nappen 10:33
Right. So, we’re waiting for the order of withdrawal. If I recall correctly, I sent in, attached please find the proposed order withdrawing. It’s just really one sentence. We withdraw in that sense. Hereby withdraws his appeal. I forget the timeline exactly on it, but shortly thereafter, we get an opinion

Evan Nappen 10:59 How long of an opinion?

Louis Nappen 11:00
and a statement of reasons. We got an order saying I am allowing them to withdraw, basically what it said. I can. It said. Wait a minute. I grant his request to withdraw, but that the court finds that KD would be an ineligible for a permit to carry a handgun had he proceeded. Then there’s 17.

Evan Nappen 11:28
Well, isn’t that wonderful? When there’s been no hearing to actually determine that, and he’s pre- judged. He’s pre-judged.

Louis Nappen 11:36
Exactly. It’s a 17 page opinion based on . . .

Evan Nappen 11:39
Wait. How long was the opinion?

Louis Nappen 11:41 Seventeen pages.

Evan Nappen 11:43
Seventeen pages of slamming our client.

Page – 5 – of 21

Louis Nappen 11:47
And it’s all based on hearsay, because all he has before him, since there was no hearing, are whatever police reports, incident reports, contacts . . .

Evan Nappen 11:54
Whatever somebody may have said.

Evan Nappen 11:55
No corroboration or may have alleged or . . .

Louis Nappen 11:55
Whatever’s there. May have alleged.

Louis Nappen 12:00
Or foundation. Nothing. None of that. So, it’s just, these are all the allegations or the contacts that he’s had. And I find that in the interest of public health, safety, welfare, he would not be eligible for this permit.

Evan Nappen 12:17
So, this would be similar to a criminal prosecutor deciding to drop the criminal case, and the judge signing the order of dismissal but doing 17 pages saying how he would have found him guilty if he had a trial.

Louis Nappen 12:31 Had he had a trial.

Evan Nappen 12:32
But there was no trial, and no defense was presented. No evidence. Nothing. No due process. But he would have found him guilty anyway. Isn’t that nice?

Louis Nappen 12:42
Right. That’s exactly what it was. Now, we have for years argued, of course, with the court and saying that the Executive Branch and the Judicial Branch need to be separated. Why our the courts being an issuing authority of a permit. That’s an Executive Function. The courts are there to arbitrate when you have a difference with the police or the state in terms of whether something, whatever it is your application.

Evan Nappen 13:08
The court is supposed to be a neutral judicial authority to determine the issue. A neutral judicial authority.

Page – 6 – of 21

Louis Nappen 13:18
Right. So, for years New Jersey, and when they only were issuing subcontract, whatever it was, they held on to that. But now that they had to hold all these hearings and do all this. Bottom line is, so he gets this thing. He has a withdrawal. But now why is that a problem? And that’s important to look at. So, you say, okay, it’s withdrawn, and this opinion doesn’t matter. Well, no, that’s not true. Because this statement of reasons why he should be found ineligible sits in his gun file, in his file, in his history, forever, as a finding that he’s ineligible for a carry permit. Even though the actual application never had a hearing, never went anywhere. So, it’s a prospective judgment.

Evan Nappen 14:05
And wasn’t that specifically stated in the opinion that that was what it was intended to do?

Louis Nappen 14:11
Umm, well, I’d have to reread the whole thing as to that he should not be I mean . . .

Evan Nappen 14:18
That he should not be granted this permit and that he’s barred.

Louis Nappen 14:23
Exactly. All right. I can find it, if you really want to go into that. Well, I have it here. I mean, it’s a 17 page thing in terms of . . . The court finds that if appellant were granted a permit to carry he would pose a danger to self or others pursuant to the catch all provision of 58-3. Moreover, permitting applicant to carry a handgun “would not be in the interest of public health, safety, or welfare,” pursuant to 58-3.c.5 because many of the incidences . . . It goes on and on.

Evan Nappen 14:51
Yeah, and guess what? That’s what why we call it the all inclusive weasel clause. Any subjective basis for denial. When we had John Petrolino on Gun Lawyer, he looked at the stats and how that’s used with institutionalized racism to deny blacks at a greater ratio than whites as well. And that’s where the abuse takes place. So, here is an example of the all inclusive weasel clause being exercised without a trial, without due process, without anything presented, because we withdrew.

Louis Nappen 15:27
And all it does is hurt. It would ruin his reputation. Okay, we’re going to get into that. So, we do the appeal here. I think it’s just for fun, because I’ve never written a brief like this. I want to read my seven points that I raised. By the way, it’s law school 101, the courts are not supposed to. I mean, you really do learn this first year constitutional law that courts are, unless there’s a case or controversy before the courts, our Constitution talks about this. The courts are not supposed to give advisory opinions. You can’t just say, hey, okay, that you hear those time. If this were to happen, what would you do? No, the Courts are not supposed to issue those. They have to have an actual case before them to deal with. In this case, they did not because it was withdrawn.

Page – 7 – of 21

Louis Nappen 16:16
So, the court below had. These are my points that I argued, my legal arguments. The court below had no jurisdiction to issue prospective judgments upon a withdrawn application and such advisory opinions regarding Petitioner’s qualifications should be struck from the record. Point 2, the court below erred by making judgments without a hearing and therefore said judgments should be struck from the record. Point 3, the court below erred by finding that Petitioner informed the court of his intent to withdraw after Petitioner had withdrawn his application and accordingly, the court below is unfounded prospective judgments should be struck. The court below’s speculative judgments are nothing short of character assassination, absent due process, and should be struck from the record. Point 5, the court below’s order and statement denied Petitioner due process. Point 6, per Bruen, because at this point, Bruen was in effect, the Government must demonstrate that issuing prospective judgments upon withdrawn applications is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Good luck even finding firearm permitting regulation about licensing at the foundations founding. And in Point 7, it is respectively requested that the court’s opinion reference Petitioner by his initials, because

Evan Nappen 17:35
and how long was your brief on?

Louis Nappen 17:38
Okay. My brief was 22 pages.

Evan Nappen 17:46 Twenty-two pages.

Louis Nappen 17:48
Oh, wait a minute. Wait, I’m sorry. Wait a minute, it’s a little longer. Twenty-seven pages. Excuse me.

Evan Nappen 17:54
Now, once you file your brief, the State in a carry permit does not have an official automatic response.

Louis Nappen 18:01
Oh, that’s good. Now this is an amazing thing. Now the state is actually, you’re correct. They really don’t have a function. New Jersey says that if they want to chime in, they can within two weeks. They can make an objection or not, after a person appeals a denial. They can chime in and be there and say why it shouldn’t be issued in the interest of the public or what have you. But, in this case, what’s weird is on appeal, the Appellate Division said I had to notify the state. I was trying to explain. I apologize about that. I tried to explain how the state didn’t have any function and did not appear because there was no hearing. This is really unopposed in that sense that there’s no opposition. I’m just saying the court did something that shouldn’t have done. But they said that the state, this is New Jersey, that the state, meaning the prosecutor’s office, represents the judge’s interest in this matter. They have to put forth their position regarding it as an opposition.

Page – 8 – of 21

Louis Nappen 18:04
Now, think about that. So, in other words, it’s basically an admission that the judge and the prosecutor are on the same side. So much for neutral judicial authority. Huhhh.

Louis Nappen 18:25
Right. So, now I know what I would do if I were the state in this case. I’d be like, the guy wants to withdraw. He just wants this statement of reasons off the record. Why do I want to spend time on this? The court should not be doing advisory opinions. There’s no case or controversy. I agree. No. Instead, Morris County Prosecutor’s Office, and I’m mentioning it because they do talk about it being out of Morris County. I’m going that far. Instead they write their own brief and say that Petitioner’s argument is moot since the decision of this court will have no practical effect on the proceeding. We just went over that this is going to stay in his file forever, being there for any police chief or anybody else, anytime he applies for a permit, to say that he should not be granted this with no means to, if he didn’t act now, he would never be able to get this off of his file. There’s no way to get this out of a file, once it’s in there as an order and a statement of reasons. And then two, Petitioner’s argument is not right, because petitioner has not shown any actual prejudice as a result of it. So, it’s like, I mean, okay. So, they write their brief and obviously he is prejudiced by this whole thing.

Evan Nappen 20:50
Which is the whole point of why it was done.

Louis Nappen 20:52
Right. Because what other reason is there to do all that? Other than to put it to besmirch his character and put this out there forever, that he’s . . .

Evan Nappen 21:04
Besmirch. Ah, you said the magic word. You win a million dollars. What was the . . .

Louis Nappen 21:12
Okay, well, wait a minute. Just to tell you now, I thought this was a quick thing. Then I had to reply to the Prosecutor’s Brief. I had to write a reply brief, which I’m entitled to be able to do. The issue of the trial court wrongfully filed advisory opinions is not moot. Appellant is plainly prejudiced by the court below’s filing of prospective judgments upon him. I write another ten page brief as to how and why he’s forever prejudiced by the court doing this. Now, a lot of people wouldn’t care. But I give KD serious credit here for saying I’m not going to just take this lying down.

Evan Nappen 21:50
He was smart to do that, too, because he realized the implications, and his persistence paid off, Lou. So, what was the outcome.

Louis Nappen 22:02
Yeah. So, on May 17, 2024, we got a decision from the Appellate Division, and it was a victory. I don’t think that that’s a surprise. And,

Page – 9 – of 21

Evan Nappen 22:19
Well, it is Jersey. So that’s always a surprise.

Louis Nappen 22:20
Oh, yeah, you’re right. You never know, you never know. They listed what I raised, and they do list my points, which I always get a good kick out of. And they talked about it. They were persuaded by the contentions raised in KD’s first point. They didn’t even go beyond Point One.

Evan Nappen 22:40
There’s no such thing as overkill. That’s okay.

Louis Nappen 22:43
Yes, right. Several others in there. And it only took one head, when

Louis Nappen 22:47
And they did accept my reasons for privacy, because the whole point is about that, using initials. So, they did that, too. We reverse and remand for entry of a revised order without a statement of reasons.” Then they said, we don’t need to look at the rest except for using the initials. But it was awesome in that sense.

Evan Nappen 23:08
I’m really pleased for our client, who now no longer has that hanging over him, ruining his reputation and something that could come up later that he’d have to go through and try to have a hearing after the fact and have oh, well, the judge already decided this. You can’t let that sit.

Evan Nappen 23:33
That’s right. Think about that. If you’re a police chief and you have that order in front of you, or even if it’s the next police chief who sees that order, remember police chiefs aren’t always there forever. They change. They come and go. Or the guy might move to another town. They’re going to say it’s already been decided. You’re not eligible.

Evan Nappen 23:57
Right. Then they also could have used it to bring a motion to revoke his other licenses, or it could escalate to . . .

Louis Nappen 24:08 Hey, I just had a case. . .

Evan Nappen 24:09
a gun forfeiture. All these things. So, it was nipped in the bud by your excellent appeal.

Evan Nappen 24:16
Yeah, five years later, it’s an emergency.

Page – 10 – of 21

Louis Nappen 24:16
I just had a case where after five years of an emergency protection order, they moved, now it was denied. But at the same time, they waited five years until they decided to try and take a person’s firearms because it’s an emergency and you should have been

Louis Nappen 24:34
Five years later. Correct. So, it can happen. And

Evan Nappen 24:41 well, that is really,

Louis Nappen 24:42
I told you no case like this ever that I’ve had ever, going into

Evan Nappen 24:46
A 17-page opinion that was completely wrong to even write.

Louis Nappen 24:54
I just I do. I do sit there and question. Did he have it prepared beforehand? Was he just so proud of it? Was it a clerk who he wanted to give some credit to? You spend some time writing something because it’s

Evan Nappen 25:07
and add on a Second Amendment zealot. I don’t know. We don’t know. No one knows what.

Louis Nappen 25:14
I don’t know why. But it just makes me wonder why? All I hear is the courts are understaffed. There’s . . .

Evan Nappen 25:21
We don’t even know the time.

Louis Nappen 25:22
There’s not enough judges. They’re all on recall. Yet, they have time to write . . .

Evan Nappen 25:27
Time for your writing a 17 page thing to go at our client on a matter that has been withdrawn. I’m glad to hear that Morris County has so much judicial time available to do these things. These unnecessary, unlawful by way of the Constitution, advisory opinions, without due process. How nice?

Louis Nappen 25:51
Yeah, right. Now there is a better separation of executive and judicial functioning, which is good. Look, I also want to say, how many briefs have you and I written that the matter got resolved, and we didn’t

Page – 11 – of 21

have to submit it. So, if that was the case, that’s just ridiculous. I’ve worked hours on things that turned out, it’s moot. I don’t have to submit it because something else came up. So, I just don’t know why?

Evan Nappen 26:18
Overcome by events. OBE. Overcome by events.

Louis Nappen 26:21
But it doesn’t mean you don’t prepare.

Evan Nappen 26:23
OBE (Overcome By Events) I hear you. Well, hey, you know, not only are we fighting for gun rights with one client at a time that we’re so happy to help. But our state Association, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is there defending our rights in New Jersey. They’re the number one gun rights defender. They are in the courts, as we speak, in federal court challenging the assault firearm ban, which is the modern sporting rifle ban in Jersey. They’re also challenging the large capacity magazine ban, which is really the standard capacity magazine ban. They’re challenging the Carry Killer law in all of its sensitive places and other onerous requirements after their hissy fit after Bruen. Because now they have to issue permits, and their idea is to make them useless, even though they have to issue them. Our great Association is in Trenton with a full-time paid lobbyist, keeping an eye on those scoundrels as they try to further deteriorate our Second Amendment rights with various laws. You need to be a member of the State Association, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, which is anjrpc.org. Make sure you join. They are an umbrella organization of all the gun clubs in New Jersey, but they also have individual memberships. By being a member, you become part of the solution.

Evan Nappen 27:59
I also want to say thank you to our good friends at WeShoot, which is great indoor range in Lakewood, New Jersey. They are fantastic. What a great place. A matter of fact, Lou and I both got our CCARE certification and training from WeShoot, and it was great fun and easy. They offer the courses so you, too, can get what you need to get your carry. They have a full service pro shop, and they can get you equipped with your proper firearm, holster, and all the training that you need so that you can become and remain a law-abiding gun owner. To be able to protect yourself and your loved ones and have a good time at the range. They have so many great events. May is Member Appreciation Month. So, you want to get down there now. They are running all kinds of great sales and specials. They’re also offering a great sale on new memberships with what I believe is $100 off. So, you want to check out WeShoot. You can find them at weshootusa.com (weshootusa.com) Check out their website. They have beautiful photography. They pride themselves on their photography. I highly recommend going to WeShoot. They are right off the Parkway, easy access, located in Lakewood, New Jersey. So, if you’re in Monmouth County, Ocean County, or anywhere there in Central Jersey, you have a great resource right at your fingertips. Take advantage of it.

Evan Nappen 29:41
I’d also like to shamelessly promote my book, which is New Jersey Gun Law. It is the Bible of New Jersey gun law. It’s over 500 pages with 120 topics all in a Question and Answer format. This is your

Page – 12 – of 21

guidebook to the treacherous waters of New Jersey gun law, and I wrote it for you. It’s labor of love. It’s the 25th Anniversary Edition. I put hundreds and hundreds of hours into this book. When you get the book, make sure you scan the front cover, get right in on that QR code on the front cover, which sends you to our subscriber database where, for free, you get to become a free member. You’ll be able to access all the updates, the archived materials, and I send out email alerts for any changes in laws, changes in Attorney General opinions, all kinds of great things that you need to know so that your book will stay current. If you want to get a copy of the big orange book, New Jersey Gun Law, go to EvanNappen.com, EvanNappen.com. Click the big orange book, and you’ll have it within a matter of days. Protect yourself and know New Jersey gun laws before you become the next GOFU. You want to avoid that. So, I have some great letters from listeners, which I always enjoy. Lou, if you have anything to add to any of these, please feel free. I’m glad you’re staying on as we go through the show.

Louis Nappen 31:31
Thank you for not besmirching me.

Evan Nappen 31:34
Ah, yes. I will not besmirch you today at least.

Louis Nappen 31:38
I’m determined to bring that word back.

Evan Nappen 31:41
I think you should. It’s a great word. And it’s one that we need to hear more of. Okay, this one is from David, regarding gun serial number wrong on original purchase. Hi, Evan. Thank you for the great information. I’m a reader and listener. I hope you are well. Today I went to fill in for SP-182a to add a gun to my PTC. The gun was purchased in New Jersey, so it’s already registered on the New Jersey government list. I wanted to make sure not to make an error. So, I double checked the serial number against both the gun itself and my original permit to purchase. I discovered that they don’t match! On the original purchase, the seller, a dealer, not an individual, left out a zero – instead of and then he gives a serial number that had a zero in it. Okay, well this isn’t the actual serial number. So, he said ABC0123, and they wrote ABC123 on the permit. So now I’m a little concerned. If I register the gun on the SP-182a as ABC123, I’m perpetuating the error and not filling out the form correctly. But if I register the gun on the SP-182a as ABC0123, I’m effectively notifying the police that the original purchase permit was incorrect. This sounds like the classic paperwork error that lands people in the Gulag, and I don’t want to be the GOFU. If it matters, the original purchase was in 2010, so perhaps the statute of limitations has lapsed?

Evan Nappen 33:14
So, what we have there would be what a Scrivener’s error, arguably just a typographical error, on the permit. The permit to purchase is just that. It’s a permit to purchase, and it’s only valid for 90 days unless you get it extended for another 90 days. It doesn’t mean a damn thing. It allowed you to make the purchase. You made the purchase. You lawfully made your purchase. With that said, the screw up on that doesn’t matter, but you need to be truthful in what you submit now. So, you need to use the correct and proper serial number on your gun. And that’s all you have to do. Look you can even put

Page – 13 – of 21

guns on there that don’t have any Jersey paper. We’ve reviewed on the show many ways you can have guns in New Jersey that don’t have any permit to purchase behind it. Now I don’t recommend you do that, only because there’s no reason to put guns that aren’t on the state’s radar on the state’s radar. But if you want to do that, you’re welcome to do it. There is no issue here to worry about. Just put the truthful serial number on the form if that’s a gun that you want to carry. Lou, do you have any comments on that one?

Louis Nappen 34:30
Peripherally, just he says he does not want to be the GOFU. You need a term for people who are proactive in making sure they don’t become a GOFU. I don’t know if that’s PAFO, Pro Active or unGOFU? Or . . .

Evan Nappen 34:48
something that has been unbesmirched, unbesmirched . . .

Louis Nappen 34:52
People who take preventative measures to make sure they don’t get in trouble. That’s the unGOFU. Oh, yeah, right. Right like antebellum is before. Right?

E