cdTOCtest

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