Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division.
In the Matter of Anthony DUBOV.

Argued Sept. 15, 2009.
Decided Oct. 19, 2009.

[...]

Before Judges SKILLMAN, GILROY and SIMONELLI.FN1

The opinion of the court was delivered by

SKILLMAN, P.J.A.D.

This appeal involves the procedures that govern a trial court's consideration of an appeal from a police chief's denial of an application for a permit to purchase a firearm.

[...]

Appellant argues that N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), which prohibits issuance
of a firearms purchaser card or handgun purchase permit if
“issuance would not be in the interest of the public health,
safety or welfare[,]” is unconstitutionally vague. In Burton
v. Sills, 53 N.J. 86, 91, 248 A.2d 521 (1968), appeal dismissed, 394
U.S. 812, 89 S.Ct. 1486, 22 L. Ed.2d 748 (1969), the Court rejected a
similar challenge to the constitutionality of the predecessor to
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), stating:

	 The Legislature's goal was to keep guns out of the hands of
	 unfit persons. To that end it disqualified certain classes
	 which quickly come to mind. To guard against inadvertent
	 omissions, it delegated authority to appropriately designated
	 officials to disqualify any unfit individuals who, though not
	 strictly within the enumerated classes, should not in the
	 public interest be entrusted with firearms. To guard against
	 arbitrary official action the Legislature directed early
	 determination and provided for easy appeal to the county
	 court.... Review from the county court is readily available
	 in the Appellate Division and, when necessary, in this
	 Court. As has been pointed out elsewhere, these safeguards
	 are probably of greater significance than further details in
	 the statutory standard.

	 [Citations omitted.]

Appellant suggests that the Supreme Court of the United States'
decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, --- U.S. ----, 128
S.Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed.2d 637 (2008), requires reconsideration of the
constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5). However, Heller did not
involve a claim that a firearms licensing statute was void for
vagueness. The issue in Heller was whether the Second Amendment
protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection
with military service or also protects an individual's right to
possess a firearm for other purposes such as self-defense and
hunting. Id. at ----, 128 S.Ct. at 2789171 L. Ed.2d at 648. The Court
held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep
and bear firearms, id. at ----, 128 S.Ct. at 2799171 L. Ed.2d at 659,
and that this holding required invalidation of District of Columbia
statutes that totally prohibited handgun possession in the home and
required any lawful firearm in the home to be disassembled or bound by
a trigger lock, thus rendering it inoperable. Id. at ----, 128
S.Ct. at 2817-22171 L. Ed.2d at 678, 679-84.

However, the Court expressly indicated that its holding did not
require invalidation of statutes that require a license to purchase or
possess a firearm. Id. at ----, ----, 128 S.Ct. at 2816-17, 2819171
L. Ed.2d at 678, 680-81. In fact, the Court noted that
“[r]espondent conceded at oral argument that he does not
‘have a problem with ... licensing’ and that the
District's law is permissible so long as it is ‘not enforced
in an arbitrary and capricious manner[,]’ “ thus
obviating the need for the Court to address the validity of the
specific provisions of the District of Columbia's gun licensing
statutes. Id. at ----, --- U.S. ----, 128 S.Ct. 2819, 171, L. Ed.2d at
681. Therefore, Heller has no impact upon the constitutionality of
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5).

[...]