not be based solely upon hearsay. The burden is on the
State by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appeals from the results of such hearing shall be in
accordance with law. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3d.
H. Revocation
Any card may be revoked by the Superior Court of the
county wherein the card was issued after a hearing with
notice given to the holder and where there is a finding
that the holder no longer qualifies. The county
prosecutor of any county, the chief police officer of any
municipality, or any citizen may apply to such court at
any time for the revocation of such card. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-
3f.
The State is not required to bring action to revoke a
card within forty-five days after seizure of a weapon under
the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, but may do so
at any time that holder no longer qualifies. State v.
G.P.N., 321 N.J. Super. 172 (App. Div. 1999); see
N.J.S.A. 2C:25-21.
There is no statutory procedure for revocation of a
permit. Such procedure is not needed because such
permits limit purchase to a single handgun and would
have already served its purpose, unlike cards which do not
similarly limit the number of rifles or shotguns that can
be purchased in the future. Delaney v. Teaneck Tp., 144
N.J. Super. 483 (1976).
III. PERMITS TO CARRY HANDGUNS
(N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4)
A. Permits Generally
Permits are required to carry handguns. Any person
who holds a valid permit to carry a handgun is authorized
to carry a handgun in all parts of this State, except as
prohibited by N.J.S.A. 2C:39-5e. Only the actual and
legal holder of the permit may carry a handgun, but one
permit is sufficient for all handguns owned by the holder.
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4a.
B. Exemptions
Only a few particular classes of persons, such as law
enforcement officers, are permitted to carry a handgun
without a permit. N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6a, b, c.
C. Who May Obtain
All three statutory requirements are critical and must
be met. In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990). These
requirements are: (1) the applicant must demonstrate
that he is a person good character who is not subject to
any of the disabilities set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3c, (2)
that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and
use of handguns, and (3) that he has a justifiable need to
carry a handgun. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c.
As to the first requirement of good character and
fitness, it may not be presumed that a former policeman
satisfies this requirement. In re Preis, supra.
As to the second requirement of being thoroughly
familiar with the handling and use of handguns, the fact
that a person is a former policeman is not sufficient to
satisfy this requirement. Even current police officers are
required to qualify annually in the use of a revolver or
similar weapon. In re Preis, supra.
As to the third requirement of justifiable need, in In
re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990), the Supreme Court
declared that a private citizen must show an urgent
necessity for self-protection. Generalized fears for
personal safety or need to protect property alone are
inadequate. Specific threats or previous attacks
demonstrating a special danger to applicant’s life that can
not be avoided by other means are required. See In re
Johnson, 267 N.J. Super. 600 (App. Div. 1993) (permit
denied to mayor who had statutory duty as head of the
police department because such duties were really only
administrative and there was no particularized showing
of urgent necessity for self-protection); Doe v. Dover
Township, 216 N.J. Super. 539 (App. Div. 1987) (permit
denied for person in jewelry business who carried large
sums of money and jewelry between places of business
where other vendors had had sample cases stolen, because
no claims of previous threat or special danger); Reilly v.
State, 59 N.J. 559 (1971) (permit denied for physicians
required to carry narcotics in high-crime areas where
there had been prior attacks, because no evidence of any
recent attacks that involved substantial threat of injury);
Siccardi v. State, 59 N.J. 545 (1971) (permit denied for
theater manager required to carry substantial sums of
money from theater to nearby bank depository in late-
evening hours in high-crime area, because no personal
attacks on manager over the thirty-five years in that area);
In re “X”, 59 N.J. 533 (1971) (permit denied for
diamond dealer and salesman who carried loose