NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0072-14T2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE 

INTEREST OF C.L.H.'S WEAPONS

____________________________

Submitted September 16, 2015 – Decided

Before Judges Sabatino, Accurso and 

O'Connor.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, 

Chancery Division, Family Part, Cumberland 

County, Docket No. FO-06-254-13.

Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County 

Prosecutor, attorney for appellant State of 

New Jersey (Jason H. Chessman, Assistant 

Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

Evan F. Nappen, attorney for respondent 

C.L.H. (Jeffrey A. Skiendziul, on the 

brief). 

The opinion of the court was delivered by

ACCURSO, J.A.D.

The State appeals from a final order of the Family Part 

denying its motion to have C.L.H. forfeit five illegal assault 

firearms, seventy-one other firearms and his firearms purchaser

identification card seized pursuant to the Prevention of 

Domestic Violence Act of 1991, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35. 

Because we conclude the court erred in determining the 2013 gun 

APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION

November 18, 2015

APPELLATE DIVISION

November 18, 2015
2 A-0072-14T2

amnesty law, L. 2013, c. 117, applied here and section 3c(8) of 

the Gun Control Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8), did not, we reverse.

Based on the parties' stipulations and the testimony at the 

forfeiture hearing, the judge found that a temporary restraining 

order (TRO) had been entered against C.L.H.'s wife in April 2013 

arising out of a domestic violence complaint brought by her 

eighty-one-year-old father. Because the victim noted the 

existence of two to five long guns and a .22 caliber revolver

located in the house and shed at his daughter's home, the TRO 

included a warrant directing law enforcement to search for and 

seize those weapons. Although C.L.H. had nothing whatsoever to 

do with the incident or the TRO, because he lived with his wife 

at the address specified in the warrant, Cumberland County 

sheriff's officers were authorized to enter their marital 

residence with the warrant and seize weapons belonging to C.L.H. 

for safekeeping pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence 

Act. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28j; State v. Harris, 211 N.J. 566, 580

(2012). 

C.L.H. cooperated with the officers executing the warrant, 

advising that there were weapons in the home in locked gun 

safes. The sheriff's officers removed four bows, one machete, 

four handguns and seventy-two long guns from C.L.H. and his 

wife's home. C.L.H. also voluntarily turned over his firearms 
3 A-0072-14T2

purchaser identification card.1 The officers did not find 

magazines for any of the guns.

The Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office sent eight of the 

guns seized to the State Police for testing and filed a timely 

petition for forfeiture in May. A detective in the ballistics 

unit testified that five of those guns, all of which were 

operable, qualified as assault firearms under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

1w(1), (2) or (4), as an enumerated weapon, one substantially 

 

1 It would not appear that the officers could have lawfully 

seized C.L.H.'s firearms purchaser identification card, as 

opposed to his weapons, under the domestic violence warrant as 

C.L.H. was not the defendant in the domestic violence complaint. 

See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28j, which provides in pertinent part:

Emergency relief may include forbidding the 

defendant from returning to the scene of the 

domestic violence, forbidding the defendant 

from possessing any firearm or other weapon 

enumerated in subsection r. of N.J.S. 2C:39-

1, ordering the search for and seizure of 

any such weapon at any location where the 

judge has reasonable cause to believe the 

weapon is located and the seizure of any 

firearms purchaser identification card or 

permit to purchase a handgun issued to the 

defendant and any other appropriate relief.

[(Emphasis added).]

This distinction is reflected in the phrasing of the warrant 

included in the standard New Jersey Domestic Violence Court 

Order. Domestic Violence Procedures Manual (Oct. 9, 2008), 

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/family/dvprcman.pdf. It is 

also consistent with another portion of the statute governing 

the conduct of police officers responding to a scene of domestic 

violence. See N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(1)(b).
4 A-0072-14T2

identical to an enumerated weapon or a semi-automatic rifle with 

a fixed magazine capacity exceeding fifteen rounds. 

The court accepted the detective's testimony as credible in 

all respects, and found the five guns are assault firearms, 

illegal to own or possess under New Jersey law. Although C.L.H.

testified that he did not have paperwork for any of the five 

assault firearms due to a "vindictive ex-wife" who destroyed his 

records "about" fifteen years ago, the detective testified that 

one of the enumerated weapons,2 the A[vtomat] K[alashnikov]-47 

type semi-automatic firearm, was imported in 2003. The court 

noted that the import date for that weapon, eleven years prior 

to the forfeiture hearing, "would be less than 15 years ago." 

Based on the parties' stipulations, the judge found that 

C.L.H. had no criminal history and no juvenile record. He was 

not a defendant in the domestic violence proceeding, which was 

later voluntarily dismissed in any event. The prosecutor did 

 

2 The other enumerated weapons were an Uzi type semi-automatic 

firearm and an FN-FAL type semi-automatic firearm. The 

detective testified he found C.L.H.'s .223 caliber Bushmaster 

semi-automatic carbine substantially identical to the Bushmaster 

Assault Rifle under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w(2), because it had a flash 

suppressor, a bayonet lug, a pistol grip and a telescoping 

stock. The remaining weapon, the Winchester .22 long rifle 

caliber, semi-automatic carbine, the detective deemed an assault 

firearm under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w(4), because it had a fixed 

tubular magazine on the underside of the barrel with a capacity 

of fifteen plus one rounds. 
5 A-0072-14T2

not file any charges arising out of the domestic violence 

incident, or file charges against C.L.H. arising from his 

illegal possession of the five assault firearms. The State 

stipulated that it was not aware of any drug or alcohol problems 

C.L.H. might have suffered or any record of involuntary 

commitments. 

The parties stipulated that C.L.H. had been a life-long 

collector of the types of guns seized from his home. They also 

stipulated that the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office and 

the Cumberland County Sheriff's Office conducted eleven separate 

"Gun Buy Backs" from June 1997 through June 2010. The court 

noted that "[a]ssuming that C.L.H. possessed the five . . . 

illegal weapons during any of the times listed, he could have 

turned in the weapons at any one of the 'buy backs,' perhaps for 

money and with 'no questions asked.'" 

Finally, the parties stipulated that C.L.H.'s counsel sent 

a letter to the assistant prosecutor in December 2013 stating 

that C.L.H. "hereby transfers to a license[d] firearms dealer 

(whose name will be provided at a future date) . . . under P.L. 

2013, Ch.117/A.3796, effective August 8, 2013," the five assault 

firearms seized by the sheriff's officers in April 2013, citing 
6 A-0072-14T2

N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3)(b).

3 That subsection of the statute allows

an owner whose firearms are not to be returned following the 

hearing required under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3) to arrange for 

their sale to a registered dealer within sixty days of the order 

of forfeiture in order to avoid the weapons being disposed of by 

the prosecutor.

The court found on the basis of the stipulations, C.L.H.'s 

testimony and that of two friends who testified on his behalf 

that there was "simply no basis to find that C.L.H. is a danger 

to the community's health, safety, welfare or any other way." 

Although not saying so directly, the court impliedly rejected

the prosecutor's contention that C.L.H. should be disqualified 

under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5) (disqualification in the interest of 

the public health, safety or welfare), based on his knowing 

possession of an assault firearm in disregard of the State's gun 

ownership laws. 

The court also rejected the prosecutor's contention that 

because C.L.H.'s weapons were seized pursuant to the Prevention 

of Domestic Violence Act, and cannot be returned because they 

are illegal firearms under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w, the Domestic 

 

3 Counsel's letter referred to N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3)(a) which 

refers to weapons other than firearms and is thus inapplicable. 

We assume he meant to refer to subsection d(3)(b) of the 

statute.
7 A-0072-14T2

Violence Forfeiture Statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3), disqualified 

C.L.H. from obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card 

under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8), or legally possessing the remaining 

seventy-one firearms seized from his and his wife's home. 

Acknowledging that "[a] strict interpretation of the law" would 

lead to precisely that result, the court deemed it "not 

equitable" here.

The court instead allowed C.L.H. to take advantage of the 

2013 gun amnesty law based on his counsel's letter to the 

assistant prosecutor sent during the 180 days of the amnesty 

law's operation. The court rejected the prosecutor's argument 

that the amnesty law did not apply because the assault firearms 

were not in C.L.H.'s possession as of the law's August 8, 2013 

effective date, having been seized from his and his wife's home

by Cumberland County sheriff's officers some four months 

earlier. Reasoning that N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8)'s bar must "be due 

to some fault of the person whose guns were seized," see M.S. v.

Millburn Police Dep't, 197 N.J. 236, 251 (2008), the court found 

"there is no 'fault' or other inappropriate, unlawful or bad 

behavior of C.L.H., the guns were seized solely because of a 

restraining order issued against a person he resided with, his 

wife." 
8 A-0072-14T2

The court noted that "C.L.H. could have surrendered those 

guns but for the fact that they were held by the Cumberland 

County Prosecutor's [O]ffice due to no reason other than the 

fortuitous circumstance of misfortunes that occurred to C.L.H.'s 

wife." The court concluded that "to hold under these 

circumstances that the guns in question were not in C.L.H.'s 

possession so that he could not take advantage of the August 8, 

2013 [gun amnesty] law allowing for a voluntary surrender of the 

same is simply not equitable." The court granted the State's 

application for stay pending appeal. 

The State argues on appeal that the 2013 gun amnesty law

does not apply here, and because C.L.H.'s weapons were not 

returned for a reason set forth in the Domestic Violence 

Forfeiture Statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3), the weapons and 

C.L.H.'s firearms purchaser identification card cannot be 

returned to him under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(8). We agree.

We begin our analysis by noting we have no quarrel with the 

trial judge's factual findings. The findings are supported by 

substantial credible evidence in the record, and we do not 

disturb them. See In re Return of Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J.

108, 116 (1997) ("an appellate court should accept a trial 

court's findings of fact that are supported by substantial 

credible evidence"). Our disagreement is with the court's legal 
9 A-0072-14T2

conclusions, to which we owe no deference under our plenary 

standard of review. Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of 

Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995) ("A trial court's 

interpretation of the law and the legal consequences that flow 

from established facts are not entitled to any special 

deference.").

The 2013 gun amnesty law provides in pertinent part that: 

[a]ny person who has in his possession an 

assault firearm on the effective date of 

this act may retain possession of that 

firearm for a period of not more than 180 

days after the effective date. During that 

time period, the possessor of the assault 

firearm shall:

 (1) transfer the assault firearm to 

any person lawfully entitled to own or 

possess such firearm;

 (2) render the assault firearm 

inoperable; or

 (3) voluntarily surrender the assault 

firearm pursuant to the provisions of 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12.

[L. 2013, c. 117, § 2a.]

We cannot find under any construction of this statute that the 

assault firearms seized from C.L.H. and his wife's home in April 

2013 and made the subject of a timely forfeiture petition by the 

prosecutor in May, were "in his possession" as of the August 8, 

2013 effective date of the law. See DiProspero v. Penn, 183 

N.J. 477, 492 (2005) (explaining it is not the function of 
10 A-0072-14T2

courts "to 'rewrite a plainly-written enactment of the 

Legislature []or presume that the Legislature intended something 

other than that expressed by way of the plain language'") 

(quoting O'Connell v. State, 171 N.J. 484, 488 (2002)). On that 

date, the weapons were in possession of the prosecutor for 

safekeeping where they remained through expiration of the 

amnesty law on February 5, 2014. 

Our plain reading of the amnesty statute's meaning is 

buttressed by the Legislature's requirement that any voluntary 

surrender under the amnesty law comply with the provisions of 

N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12. See DiProspero, supra, 183 N.J. at 492 

(directing that statutory words and phrases be read "in context 

with related provisions so as to give sense to the legislation 

as a whole"). That separate enactment allows a person to 

voluntarily surrender firearms to law enforcement without 

criminal liability "provided that the required [written] notice 

is received by [law enforcement] before any charges have been 

made or complaints filed against such person for the unlawful 

possession of the weapon . . . and before any investigation has 

been commenced by any law enforcement agency concerning the 

unlawful possession." N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12. 

The purpose of the limitation is obvious; it is to prevent 

a person from escaping liability for possession of a weapon by 
11 A-0072-14T2

trying to "voluntarily surrender" it to the authorities after it 

has already been seized or otherwise come to the attention of 

law enforcement. Without it, N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12, and the 2013 

gun amnesty law, would be transformed from devices to encourage 

the surrender of firearms to a "free pass" for those the police 

have already found or suspect to be in illegal possession, a 

result plainly not intended by the Legislature. As C.L.H.'s 

counsel's notice to the prosecutor was well after the filing of 

the complaint for forfeiture, C.L.H. was not entitled to 

"voluntarily surrender" his assault firearms under the express 

terms of the gun amnesty law and N.J.S.A. 2C:39-12, even were he 

somehow deemed to be still in possession of the weapons after 

they had been confiscated from his and his wife's home.

Having concluded that the 2013 amnesty law cannot be

applied to the circumstances here, we must consider whether the 

trial court could have properly returned the assault weapons to 

C.L.H., notwithstanding. We think the clear answer to that 

question is no. 

The trial court found that five of the weapons seized from 

C.L.H. and his wife's home under the Prevention of Domestic 

Violence Act were assault firearms as defined by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-

1w(1), (2) or (4). C.L.H. has not challenged that finding on 

appeal, and because it is supported by substantial credible 
12 A-0072-14T2

evidence in the record, we do not disturb it. See J.W.D., 

supra, 149 N.J. at 116. Those weapons are contraband and can 

never lawfully be returned to C.L.H. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1w; :39-5f; 

:64-1a(1). Because the five assault firearms were seized 

pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act and cannot 

be returned to C.L.H. under the Domestic Violence Forfeiture 

Statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3), he is expressly disqualified 

from obtaining a handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser 

identification card under the Gun Control Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

3c(8), and thus from regaining possession of his seventy-one

other firearms and his firearms purchaser identification card

held by the prosecutor.

To the extent the trial judge determined forfeiture to be 

"not equitable," because C.L.H. was not a defendant in the

domestic violence complaint, we think he erred. The law is well

settled that the Family Part has the authority to order a weapon 

forfeiture following the dismissal of a domestic violence 

complaint regardless of whether the dismissal was voluntary or 

for lack of evidence. See J.W.D., supra, 149 N.J. at 116; State 

v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. Super. 524, 533-34 (App. Div. 2004); State 

v. One Marlin Rifle, 319 N.J. Super. 359, 371 (App. Div. 1999); 

State v. Freysinger, 311 N.J. Super. 509, 514-15 (App. Div.

1998); State v. Volpini, 291 N.J. Super. 401, 412-13 (App. Div.
13 A-0072-14T2

1996). As the Domestic Violence Forfeiture Statute applies to 

defendants against whom no domestic violence was ever proved, we 

see no logical reason to limit its scope to only those accused. 

In addition to allowing the issuance of a warrant for the 

search and seizure of "any firearm" and the seizure of any 

firearms purchaser identification card or purchase permit 

"issued to the defendant," N.J.S.A. 2C:25-28j, the Act provides 

that "a law enforcement officer who has probable cause to 

believe that an act of domestic violence has been committed 

shall:"

(b) upon observing or learning that a weapon 

is present on the premises, seize any weapon

that the officer reasonably believes would 

expose the victim to a risk of serious 

bodily injury. If a law enforcement officer 

seizes any firearm pursuant to this 

paragraph, the officer shall also seize any 

firearm purchaser identification card or 

permit to purchase a handgun issued to the 

person accused of the act of domestic 

violence.

[N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(1)(b) (emphasis added).]

We must assume the distinction between seizing "any 

firearm" without restriction as to ownership and seizing only 

those firearms cards "issued to the person accused of the act of 

domestic violence" was intentional.4 A domestic violence 

 

4 The language regarding the seizure of a defendant's firearms 

card and permit to purchase a handgun was added in the 2003 

(continued)
14 A-0072-14T2

defendant, as here, could well have access to firearms, not her

own, that would expose a victim to the risk of serious injury,

thus necessitating their temporary seizure for safekeeping. 

Although it would be unreasonable to seize a domestic violence

defendant's firearms for safekeeping but not the documents to

allow her to purchase additional weapons, see In re Seized 

Firearms Identification Card of Hand, 304 N.J. Super. 360, 370 

(Ch. Div. 1997), the same is not true for a firearms card 

belonging to one whose only threat to the victim is posed by the 

ready accessibility of his weapons to the defendant. 

Accordingly, it seems plain that the Legislature intended 

that weapons, but not firearms cards, could be temporarily

seized under the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act from 

persons who are not defendants in domestic violence complaints. 

See supra, note 1. Of course, regardless of whether seized from 

a defendant or some other person, all weapons and any firearms 

 

(continued)

amendment, L. 2003, c. 277. The legislative history does not 

offer an explanation for differentiating between the seizure of

weapons reasonably believed to pose a threat to the victim, 

regardless of ownership, and the seizure of a firearms card 

belonging to defendant only. We note, however, that N.J.S.A.

2C:25-21d(3), which governs return of any weapons seized, has 

since enactment referred to "the owner" and not "the defendant." 

We take from this that the Legislature has never intended to 

limit the seizure of firearms under the Act to only those owned 

by the defendant, but anticipated that some weapons that would 

pose a threat to the victim by being accessible to the defendant 

could be owned by others not accused of domestic violence.
15 A-0072-14T2

cards seized under the Act must be returned to the owner within 

forty-five days unless the prosecutor, within that period,

petitions a judge of the Family Part to obtain title to the 

weapons or to revoke any permits for their possession on notice 

to the owner. N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d(3). If such a person is

determined to be disqualified from regaining possession of his

weapon under the Domestic Violence Forfeiture Statute, then that 

person is permanently barred from obtaining a firearms card, see

Millburn, supra, 197 N.J. at 246, notwithstanding that he was 

not a perpetrator of domestic violence or a defendant in the 

underlying domestic violence action. 

By focusing on C.L.H.'s lack of culpability in the 

circumstances leading to the seizure of his firearms from his 

and his wife's home under the Prevention of Domestic Violence 

Act, a fact not critical to the outcome of the forfeiture 

hearing, the court lost sight of the fact that was critical –

that C.L.H. was in possession of five fully-functioning assault 

rifles. The knowing possession of an unlicensed, operable 

assault firearm is a crime of the second degree. N.J.S.A.

2C:39-5f. Possession of assault firearms, except under limited 

circumstances not present here, has been illegal in this State 

since 1990. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-12. As the trial court noted, at 

least one of the assault firearms in C.L.H.'s possession was not 
16 A-0072-14T2

imported until 2003, well after the assault weapon ban went into 

effect. Further, as the testimony also made clear, C.L.H. was 

knowledgeable and selective about the firearms in his 

collection. As there is no question on this record but that 

C.L.H. was in knowing possession of five illegal assault 

weapons, that those weapons could not be returned under the 

Domestic Violence Forfeiture Statute was certainly "due to some 

fault" of C.L.H. Millburn, supra, 197 N.J. at 251.

Because the Domestic Violence Forfeiture Statute expressly 

allows the prosecutor to petition "to obtain title to the seized 

weapons, or to revoke any and all permits . . . for the use, 

possession, or ownership of such weapons pursuant to the law 

governing such use, possession, or ownership," N.J.S.A. 2C:25-

21d(3), and the five illegal assault firearms seized from 

C.L.H.'s and his wife's home are prima facie contraband in which 

no property right exists and which are subject to forfeiture 

under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1a(1), the court erred in concluding that 

the forfeiture of those illegal assault firearms was not 

mandated on the facts it found. We agree with the holding of 

State v. 6 Shot Colt .357, 365 N.J. Super. 411, 417 (Ch. Div. 

2003), that the knowing possession of an assault firearm 

contrary to this State's gun control laws is sufficient basis 

for forfeiture under N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21d, without the need to 
17 A-0072-14T2

find that C.L.H. is unfit or a danger to the public under 

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5).

5 Accord In re Osworth, 365 N.J. Super. 72,

81 (App. Div. 2003) ("[I]t does not serve public safety to issue 

a handgun purchase permit to someone who has demonstrated his 

willingness to disregard the gun laws of this State."), certif. 

denied, 179 N.J. 310 (2004). 

Because the five assault firearms were lawfully seized from 

C.L.H. and his wife's home pursuant to the Prevention of 

Domestic Violence Act and cannot be returned to C.L.H. under the 

Domestic Violence Forfeiture Statute as they are contraband

under N.J.S.A. 2C:64-1a(1), C.L.H. is expressly disqualified 

from obtaining a handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser 

identification card under the Gun Control Law, N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

3c(8), and thus from regaining possession of his seventy-one

other firearms and his firearms purchaser identification card 

held by the prosecutor.

Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the entry of an 

order revoking C.L.H.'s firearms purchaser identification card 

and directing that the five assault weapons be forfeited to the 

prosecutor for destruction in accord with N.J.S.A. 2C:25-

 

5 Although not relevant given our disposition of the appeal, we 

note that we have elsewhere addressed and rejected the arguments 

C.L.H. makes that the public health and safety exception of 

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c(5) is unconstitutionally vague, see In re 

Dubov, 410 N.J. Super. 190, 196-97 (App. Div. 2009).
18 A-0072-14T2

21d(3)(c) and 2C:64-6a, with the remaining weapons to be 

disposed of by the prosecutor only if C.L.H. does not arrange 

for their lawful sale in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:25-

21d(3)(b).

Reversed and remanded for the entry of an order consistent 

with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.