PAUL L. ABRAMO, ESQ. (PA9199) 

93 Main Street 

PO Box 12 

Newton, New Jersey 07860-0012 

Phone: (973) 940-0600 

Fax: (973) 940-0601 

Steven W. Dulan Esq. (P54914) 

1750 East Grand River Ave. Ste. 101 

East Lansing, MI 48823 

Phone: (517) 333 -7132 

Fax: (517) 333 -1691 

Counsel for Amici Curiae, 

MCRGO and NJCSD 

 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

JEFFREY M. MULLER; DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI; 

JOHN M. DRAKE; GREGORY C. GALLAGHER; 

LENNY S. SALERNO; FINLEY FENTON; 

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; and No. 2: 10-CV-6110 (WHW) (CCC) 

ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL 

CLUBS, INC., 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. Hon. William H. Walls 

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA, in his Official Capacity 

as Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County; THE 

HON. RUDOLPH A. FILKO, in his Official Capacity as 

Judge of the Superior Court of Passaic County; THE HON. 

EDWARD A. JEREJIAN, in his Official Capacity as Application of Amici Curiae

Judge of the Superior Court of Bergen County; THE HON. Michigan Coalition for

THOMAS A. MANAHAN, in his Official Capacity as Responsible Gun Owners

Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County; COL. RICK (MCRGO)and New Jersey

FUENTES, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Coalition for Self Defense 

 New Jersey State Police, CHIEF FRANK INGEMI, in his (NJCSD) for Leave to File

Official Capacity as Chief of the Hammonton, New Jersey an Amicus Brief in Support

Police Department, CHIEF RICHARD COOK, in his of Plaintiffs

Official Capacity as Chief of the Montville, New Jersey 

Police Department; and PAULA T. DOW, in her Official 

Capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 17 PageID: 320
 

Through undersigned counsel, the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, and the New 

Jersey Coalition for Self Defense do hereby apply to the Court for leave to file a Brief as Amici Curiae in 

this case for the facts and reasons stated below. The proposed Brief is attached hereto as Exhibit A for the 

convenience of the Court and counsel. 

INTEREST OF AMICI 

Amicus New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense is the first and only New Jersey volunteer citizen's 

non-profit organization, founded in 2003, whose mission is to perform a public education service with 

respect to our Civil, Human, and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and to provide training and 

education on practical principles of effective self defense for personal, family and public safety. Our 

objective is to effect positive change in New Jersey's current public policy of discouraging, penalizing, 

and criminalizing, legitimate and necessary acts and methods of self defense through legislative 

initiatives, grassroots activism, statewide public information campaigns, and legal action. 

Amicus Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is the largest state-based gun rights 

advocacy group in the United States and has been in existence for over 10 years. MCRGO is a nonpartisan group whose board members include elected officials of both major parties serving as County 

Sheriffs, State Representatives, and State Senators. The MCRGO's mission is to support the individual 

citizen's right to own and carry firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes in Michigan and 

elsewhere by advocating and supporting right to carry reciprocity with other states. The vast majority of 

jurisdictions in the United States now recognize Michigan Concealed Pistol Licenses, and efforts are 

underway to create similar agreements in the remaining jurisdictions. 

The proposed brief provides an overview of recent and longstanding Supreme Court Second 

Amendment jurisprudence, the Constitutional bases requiring the recognition of a right to carry firearms 

in public, and addresses an open question that has resulted from this jurisprudence and plagued New 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 17 PageID: 321
Jersey’s scheme for permitting exercise of the right to carry firearms in public as that scheme has 

been implemented by statute and practice for more than forty (40) years last past. This amicus brief also 

addresses open questions relating to New Jersey’s “justifiable need” requirement for obtaining a permit to 

carry firearms, illuminates why such requirement is unreasonable and unconstitutional, and addresses the 

matter of delegating the discretion to determine “justifiable need” as a de facto unconstitutional exercise 

of discretion by law enforcement personnel, rather than by the judiciary, in consequence of which the 

regulations and practices developed under the statute have resulted in persistent violations of the Second 

Amendment’s right to bear arms. 

District courts have inherent power to grant third parties leave to file briefs as amici curiae, 

particularly if they “deem[] the proffered information timely and useful.” Yip v. Pagano, 606 F. Supp. 

1566, 1568, aff’d, 782 F.2d 1033 (3rd Cir. 1986) (internal quotations omitted). Here, amici bring a broad 

and deep perspective to the issues raised by this case and have a compelling interest in the federal court’ 

interpretation of Second Amendment issues. Amici thus respectfully submit the attached brief to assist the 

Court with the constitutional issues in this case, including important matters of first impression in New 

Jersey under the Second Amendment. 

Amici, therefore, respectfully request the grant of leave to submit the attached Brief to assist the 

Court in deciding the complex and significant issues raised in this case. 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 3 of 17 PageID: 322
February 18, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, 

 s/Steven W. Dulan 

 ______________________________ 

 Stevem W. Dulan, Esq. 

 The Law Office of Steven W. Dulan, PLC 

 Counsel for Amicus Curiae, 

 Michigan Coalition for Responsible 

Gun Owners (MCRGO) 

 1750 E. Grand River Ave., Ste. 101 

 East Lansing, MI 48823 

 Phone: (517) 333-7132 

 Fax: (517) 333-1691 

 s/Paul L. Abramo 

 ______________________________ 

 Paul L. Abramo, Esq. (PA-9199) 

 The Law Office of Paul L. Abramo, Esq. 

 Counsel for Amicus Curiae, 

 New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense 

 (NJCSD) 

 93 Main Street 

 PO Box 12 

 Newton, NJ 07860 

 Phone: (973) 940-0600 

 Fax: (973) 940-0601 

  

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 4 of 17 PageID: 323
EXHIBIT A 

to 

Application of MCRGO and NJCSD 

For Leave to File an Amicus Brief 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 5 of 17 PageID: 324
______________________________________________________________________________ 

JEFFREY M. MULLER; DANIEL J. PISZCZATOSKI; 

JOHN M. DRAKE; GREGORY C. GALLAGHER; 

LENNY S. SALERNO; FINLEY FENTON; 

SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION, INC.; and No. 2: 10-CV-6110 (WHW) (CCC) 

ASSOCIATION OF NEW JERSEY RIFLE & PISTOL 

CLUBS, INC., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. Hon. William H. Walls 

THE HON. PHILIP J. MAENZA, in his Official Capacity 

as Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County; THE 

HON. RUDOLPH A. FILKO, in his Official Capacity as 

Judge of the Superior Court of Passaic County; THE HON. 

EDWARD A. JEREJIAN, in his Official Capacity as Brief of Amici Curiae

Judge of the Superior Court of Bergen County; THE HON. Michigan Coalition for

THOMAS A. MANAHAN, in his Official Capacity as Responsible Gun Owners

Judge of the Superior Court of Morris County; COL. RICK (MCRGO)and New Jersey

FUENTES, in his Official Capacity as Superintendent of the Coalition for Self Defense 

 New Jersey State Police, CHIEF FRANK INGEMI, in his (NJCSD) in Support of Plaintiffs

Official Capacity as Chief of the Hammonton, New Jersey 

Police Department, CHIEF RICHARD COOK, in his 

Official Capacity as Chief of the Montville, New Jersey 

Police Department; and PAULA T. DOW, in her Official 

Capacity as Attorney General of New Jersey, 

 Defendants. 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The  Law Offices of Steven W. Dulan Esq. (P 54914)                 The Law Office of Paul L. Abramo, Esq.

Counsel for Amicus Curiae MCRGO                                            Counsel for Amicus Curiae, NJCSD  

in support of  Plaintiffs                                                                  in Support of Plaintiffs

1750 East Grand River Ave. Ste. 101                                           93 Main Street, PO Box 12     

East Lansing, MI 48823                      Newton, NJ 07860  

Phone: (517) 333 ‐7132                      Phone: (973) 940‐0600

Fax: (517) 333 ‐1691                      Fax: (973) 940‐0601

________________________________________________________________________________

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE MCRGO AND NJCSD IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 6 of 17 PageID: 325
INTEREST OF AMICI ..................................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................1

I) The New Jersey Permitting Scheme Implicates the Constitutional Framework 

for the Protection of Second Amendment Rights ......................................................1

A) Heller held that the Second Amendment protects two unique and 

distinct individual self-defense rights: to keep arms and to bear arms ....................2 

B) McDonald incorporated Heller to protect against infringement by 

unreasonable state government regulations .............................................................3 

C) Miller proves that the New Jersey permitting statute implicates a 

Protected Second Amendment activity: handgun possession ..................................3 

II) The Justifiable Need Requirement is Unconstitutional Because it is an 

Unreasonable Regulation of the Second Amendment’s Right to Bear Arms .........4

A) The Justifiable Need Requirement is Applied so Stringently that Private 

Citizens are Prohibited from Exercising the Right to Bear Arms ............................4 

B) The Justifiable Need Requirement as Applied Makes Victimization a Precondition 

to the Exercise of Second and Fourteenth Amendment Rights ...............................5 

III) Delegating the Discretion to Determine Justifiable Need is Unconstitutional 

Because it is an Unreasonable Regulation of the Second Amendment’s 

Right to Bear Arms ......................................................................................................6

A) Exercise of this Discretion has Proven to be the Functional Equivalent 

of a Ban on the Right to Bear Arms for Private Citizens .........................................6 

B) The Availability of Judicial Review has Not Checked the Abuse 

of Discretion Exercised by Police ............................................................................7 

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................8

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases 

Application of “X,” 59 N.J. 533, 284 A.2d 530 (1971) ...................................................................8 

District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008) .............................2, 3, 4, 5, 6 

Doe v Dover Tp, 216 N.J. Super. 539, 524 A.2d 469 (1987) ...........................................................8 

In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 830 A.2d 507 (2003) ....................................6, 7 

In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 573 A.2d 149 (1990) ..........................................................................5, 7 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 7 of 17 PageID: 326
Matter of Johnson, 267 N.J. Super. 600, 632 A.2d 539 (1993) .......................................................8 

McDonald v Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 894 (2010).......................................................3 

Parker v District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 375 U.S. App. D.C. 140 (2007) ..............................4 

Siccardi v State, 59 N.J. 545, 284 A.2d 533 (1971) ................................................................5, 6, 7 

Reilly v State, 59 N.J. 559, 284 A.2d 541 (1971) ........................................................................5, 8 

US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816 (1939) .............................................................................3 

Statutes 

NJS § 2A:151-44.2...........................................................................................................................7 

NJS § 2C:58-4 ..................................................................................................................................4 

US Constitution, Second Amendment ..........................................................................................1,2

INTEREST OF AMICI

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 8 of 17 PageID: 327
Amicus New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense is a volunteer citizen's non-profit 

organization founded in 2003 whose mission is to perform a public education service with 

respect to our Civil, Human, and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and to provide 

training and education on practical principles of effective self defense for personal, family and 

public safety. Our objective is to effect positive change in New Jersey's current public policy of 

discouraging, penalizing, and criminalizing, legitimate and necessary acts and methods of self 

defense through legislative initiatives, grassroots activism, statewide public information 

campaigns, and legal action. 

Amicus Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners is the largest state-based gun 

rights advocacy group in the United States and has been in existence for over 10 years. MCRGO 

is a non-partisan group whose board members include elected officials of both major parties 

serving as County Sheriffs, State Representatives, and State Senators. The MCRGO's mission is 

to support the individual citizen's right to own and carry firearms for self-defense and other 

lawful purposes in Michigan and elsewhere by advocating and supporting right to carry 

reciprocity with other states. The vast majority of jurisdictions in the United States now 

recognize Michigan Concealed Pistol Licenses, and efforts are underway to create similar 

agreements in the remaining jurisdictions. 

ARGUMENT 

I) THE NEW JERSEY PERMITTING SCHEME IMPLICATES THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF SECOND 

AMENDMENT RIGHTS 

 The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to a free society, and as such is protected 

by the United States Constitution from governmental infringement. U.S. Const., Second 

Amendment. The right is firmly rooted in the common law tradition. The United States 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 9 of 17 PageID: 328
Supreme Court has acknowledged that the right pre-existed the inclusion of the Second 

Amendment in the Bill of Rights as part of the fundamental individual interest in self-defense. 

Amici in support of Defendants, Brady Center, et. al., mistake the fear of disarmament as the 

source of the right rather than merely one reason for including it in the Constitution. As the 

Supreme Court put it in District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 599 (2008), “self-defense 

had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.” 

(emphasis in original).

A) Heller Held that the Second Amendment Protects Two Unique and Distinct 

Individual Self-Defense Rights: to Keep Arms and to Bear Arms 

In Heller, the Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects two 

distinct rights belonging to individuals in their capacity as citizens rather than to the collective 

people as potential militia members. This holding is significant for two reasons. First, it 

acknowledges that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to all individuals, regardless of any 

affiliation with a militia or purpose to defend one’s state. Heller, at 599. Secondly, contrary to 

the insistence of Amici Brady Center, et. al., it recognizes that the right to keep and bear arms 

actually protects two unique rights belonging to the people: to keep as in to possess and own 

firearms, and to bear as in to carry firearms. Amici admits as much in its own brief at page 7, 

then contrives an explanation attempting to conflate the two unique rights in blatant defiance of 

the primary thrust of the Court’s holding: “[W]e find that [the Second Amendment] guarantee[s] 

the individual right to posses and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. (emphasis added). 

The Court specifically addressed this argument as it was raised in Justice Stevens’ dissent. It 

said: “Justice STEVENS believes that the unitary meaning of ‘keep and bear Arms’ is 

established by the Second Amendment’s calling it a ‘right’ (singular) rather than ‘rights’ (plural). 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 10 of 17 PageID: 329
There is nothing to this. State constitutions of the founding period routinely grouped multiple 

(related) guarantees under a singular ‘right...’. Id. (internal citations omitted). 

B) McDonald Incorporated Heller to Protect Against Infringement by 

Unreasonable State Government Regulations 

In McDonald v Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the Supreme Court held 

that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Heller decision to protect 

against infringement by state governments of the individual rights to keep and to bear arms. No 

one contends that this limitation prevents states from enacting reasonable regulations pertaining 

to the exercise of those rights. However, recent Second Amendment jurisprudence has served to 

define a Constitutional floor below which states are forbidden to infringe on the right to keep and 

bear arms. (See Heller, at 636, 2822. “[T]he enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily 

takes certain policy choices off the table.”) 

C) Miller Proves that the New Jersey Permitting Statute Implicates a Protected 

Second Amendment Activity: Handgun Possession

In United States vMiller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court defined the category of 

arms for which the right to bear is protected from infringement. Its test has two prongs, 

protecting only those arms which were of the kind “in common use at the time” and the use or 

possession of which “has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well 

regulated militia.” Id. at 179. It has been held that the right to bear pistols, including their 

modern handgun descendents, are squarely within the Miller category of arms protected by the 

Second Amendment. Heller, at 2818. 

With this framework in mind, the issue presented by this case is whether the New Jersey 

permit requirements, specifically the justifiable need requirement codified in NJS § 2C:58-4, 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 11 of 17 PageID: 330
constitute a reasonable regulation on the right to bear arms. Given that unlicensed possession of 

handguns is illegal in New Jersey, conditioning the right to obtain a permit, and therefore to 

exercise a constitutional right, on justifiable need is prima facie unreasonable. 

II) THE JUSTIFIABLE NEED REQUIREMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

BECAUSE IT IS AN UNREASONABLE REGULATION OF THE SECOND 

AMENDMENT’S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

A) The Justifiable Need Requirement is Applied so Stringently that Private 

Citizens are Prohibited from Exercising the Right to Bear Arms

The majority in Heller held that a statutory ban on the right to keep arms in one’s home 

violated the Second Amendment’s protections. However, Justice Breyer’s dissent gave examples 

of regulations that have repeatedly been upheld. 

These consist of (1) “prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons”; (2) 

“prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons”; (3) “prohibitions on the 

possession of firearms by ... the mentally ill”; (4) “laws forbidding the carrying of 

firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings”; and (5) 

government “conditions and qualifications” attached “to the commercial sale of 

arms.” Heller, supra, at 2869, 721. 

The D.C. Circuit Court provided the most apposite explanation of why some of these regulations 

are presumably reasonable: they “promote the government’s interest in public safety... Just as 

importantly, however, they do not impair the core conduct upon which the right was premised.” 

Parker v District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370, 401; 375 U.S. App. D.C. 140 (2007). 

The justifiable need requirement in New Jersey’s permit laws impairs the core conduct 

upon which the right to bear arms is premised – that being self-defense. The statute is eerily 

similar to that rejected in Heller (banning the keeping of functional arms in one’s home) in that it 

virtually bans the bearing of arms by private citizens for self defense outside the home. Even if 

the statute at issue here is distinguishable from that in Heller, it is certainly a far more extensive 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 12 of 17 PageID: 331
restriction on the right to bear arms than the examples cited therein as presumably reasonable 

regulations and is therefore unconstitutional. For example, New Jersey’s statutes ban both the 

open and concealed carry of firearms. The justifiable need requirement is applied to prohibit 

virtually all private citizens from bearing arms, not just felons or the mentally ill. Furthermore, 

the ban on unlicensed carrying applies throughout the entire state rather than only in sensitive 

places such as schools and government buildings. Heller recognized that the need for the right 

to keep arms is “most acute” in the home. Heller, at 2817-2818. This Court should not ignore 

the fact that the need for the right to bear arms is equally acute outside the home where most 

people spend most of their time and more potential threats to personal safety exist. 

B) The Justifiable Need Requirement As Applied Makes Victimization a 

Precondition to the Exercise of Second and Fourteenth Amendment Rights

To qualify for a permit under the statute, a private citizen must prove “urgent necessity 

for self-protection.” In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 566; 573 A.2d 149, 151 (N.J. 1990). This 

requires proof of “specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating special danger to applicant’s 

life that cannot be avoided by other means, and generalized fears for personal safety are 

inadequate, as is a need to protect property alone.” Reilly v State, 59 N.J. 559, 562; 284 A.2d 

541 (1971). In Siccardi v State, 59 N.J. 545, 284 A.2d 533 (1971), the New Jersey Supreme 

Court deemed inadequate the applicant’s statement that his personal safety had been threatened 

several times over the phone and in person, and that he regularly transported large sums of 

money from his work to a bank at night along a route where “there have been numerous 

incidents involving beatings and robberies.” Id. 

In rejecting the application, the New Jersey Supreme Court relied on the fact that the 

applicant “has never been subjected to a street assault or attack.” Id. at 540. In doing so, the 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 13 of 17 PageID: 332
Court functionally built into the statute a requirement that the applicant have been previously 

victimized by an assault and battery that the local Chief of Police deems “serious in nature” such 

that police action is “urgently necessary.” 

None of the fundamental rights protected by the first nine Amendments are absolute; they 

are all subject to some degree of regulation. Heller, at 2816-2817. None of them, however, 

restrict their protections to narrow subsets of the population or require those they protect to 

“earn” that protection by first being victimized by the precise kind of wrong that the 

Amendments are in the Bill of Rights to protect against in the first place. Given the recent trend 

in Second Amendment jurisprudence, this Court should be hesitant to legitimize New Jersey’s 

treatment of the right to keep and bear arms as a second-class protection in the Bill of Rights. 

III) DELEGATING THE DISCRETION TO DETERMINE JUSTIFIABLE NEED IS 

UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT IS AN UNREASONABLE REGULATION 

OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT’S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

A) Exercise of this Discretion has Proven to be the Functional Equivalent of a 

Ban on the Right to Bear Arms for Private Citizens

The statute at issue vests the ultimate discretionary authority to grant or deny permits in 

the judiciary, but the decision to deny applications is made most often by the police in order to 

deter applicants from appealing to the courts at all. Siccardi, at 537. The decision is an ad-hoc 

factual inquiry, made on a case-by-case basis “in the light of the circumstances presented.” In re 

Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 26;830 A.2d 507, 517 (2003). In Siccardi, at 536, 

several police chiefs conceded that, when presented with applicants’ circumstances, they were 

consciously moving towards a more strict interpretation of justifiable need so as to minimize the 

number of private citizens who could carry pistols. 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 14 of 17 PageID: 333
The authority of Police and Judges in New Jersey to tinker with the application 

requirements is limited by NJS 2A:151-44.2. It states that “there shall be no further conditions 

or requirements ... by the licensing authority for the issuance of a permit than those set forth by 

the superintendent and those that are specifically set forth in this chapter.” Despite this clear 

prohibition against adding any categorical rules regarding to whom to grant permits, in Siccardi, 

several police chiefs admitted to only granting applications to security officers, heads of private 

detective agencies, etc. “[T]hey undertook the furtherance of a strict policy” restricting “the 

issuance of carrying permits to persons specifically employed in security work...” Id. at 540. 

They went on to testify about the remarkably low number of “private citizen[s] not connected 

with the police department” they knew of who had used licensed firearms to thwart an attack. Id. 

at 536. From this “statistic,” they collectively concluded that “private possession of a handgun is 

rarely an effective means of self-protection.” Id. Apparently it eluded them that private citizens 

could not use licensed firearms to thwart an attack precisely because the police so rarely granted 

licenses to private citizens to enable them to bear arms in self-defense. 

B) The Availability of Judicial Review has Empirically Not Checked the Abuse 

of Discretion Exercised by Police

The statutory scheme, in theory, has built-in safeguards against such incoherent 

application of the permit procedures. “[T]he safeguards against arbitrary official action are of 

greater significance than the details in the statutory standard. Those safeguards are found in 

ample measure in the provisions for hearing before the County Judge and review before the 

Appellate Division and, where necessary, before [the New Jersey Supreme Court].” Siccardi, at 

539 (internal citations omitted). However, New Jersey case law is replete with cases controlling 

the justifiable need determination in which judicial review served to affirm denials or reject 

granted permit applications. See Siccardi, In re Preis, In re Application of Borinsky, Reilly. See 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 15 of 17 PageID: 334
also Application of “X,” 59 N.J. 533, 284 A.2d 530 (1971), Doe v Dover Tp, 216 N.J. Super. 

539, 524 A.2d 469 (1987), and Matter of Johnson, 267 N.J. Super. 600, 632 A.2d 539 (1993). 

Thorough research encompassing relevant case law and the annotated New Jersey Statutes did 

not reveal a single case in which a private citizen applied for a permit to carry, was rejected by 

the police, appealed to the courts, and was granted a permit to exercise his or her constitutional 

right to bear arms in self-defense. This evidence seems to indicate that the procedural safeguards 

exist not to protect the people but only to protect the arbitrary application of unreasonable 

regulations on the right to keep and bear arms. 

CONCLUSION 

New Jersey’s permit scheme is unconstitutional at least insofar as it contains a justifiable 

need provision making it virtually impossible for private citizens to exercise their Second 

Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The statute is as much a ban on the right to bear arms 

as the statute in Heller was a ban on the right to keep arms. Because the Second Amendment 

protects those as unique, individual rights, the New Jersey statute must not unreasonably regulate 

them. For the reasons articulated above and supported by 40 years of New Jersey case law, it is 

obvious that the permit scheme does run afoul of the constitutional protection guaranteed to the 

right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, Amici supporting Plaintiffs request that this Court rule 

accordingly to end New Jersey’s unconstitutional practice of denying its residents the right to 

keep and bear arms for self-defense. 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 16 of 17 PageID: 335
February 18, 2011 Respectfully Submitted, 

 s/Steven W. Dulan 

 ______________________________ 

 Stevem W. Dulan, Esq. 

 The Law Office of Steven W. Dulan, PLC 

 Counsel for Amicus Curiae, 

 Michigan Coalition for Responsible 

Gun Owners (MCRGO) 

 1750 E. Grand River Ave., Ste. 101 

 East Lansing, MI 48823 

 Phone: (517) 333-7132 

 Fax: (517) 333-1691 

 s/Paul L. Abramo 

 ______________________________ 

 Paul L. Abramo, Esq. (PA-9199) 

 The Law Office of Paul L. Abramo, Esq. 

 Counsel for Amicus Curiae, 

 New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense 

 (NJCSD) 

 93 Main Street 

 PO Box 12 

 Newton, NJ 07860 

 Phone: (973) 940-0600 

 Fax: (973) 940-0601 

 

Case 2:10-cv-06110-WHW -MCA Document 30-3 Filed 02/18/11 Page 17 of 17 PageID: 336