An East Brunswick man has been denied a firearms license for the third time because of his admission that he was an alcoholic, despite his claims that he has been sober for more than 30 years.
A state Appellate Division ruling on July 17 upheld a Superior Court ruling that the man be denied the license. The man had originally appealed the East Brunswick Police Department's denial of the license to Superior Court.
Court papers say the man, who said he belongs to Alcoholics Anonymous, and who MyCentralJersey.com is not naming for this reason, checked off being an alcoholic on the gun permit application, a factor in the repeated denials.
The East Brunswick Police Department's background check also revealed an eight-day period in 1992 when he was reported to the police three times, according to court papers.
All three reports involved domestic incidents with heavy drinking and suicidal threats leading him to be checked into a hospital, according to court papers.
He applied for a gun license in February 2022 but was denied because of the three incidents along with his admission that he is an alcoholic.
According to state law, alcoholics are unable to obtain a gun permit unless they obtain a certificate from a state-licensed medical doctor, treatment provider, psychiatrist or provide “other satisfactory proof” affirming the severity of that alcoholism won’t affect the handling of a firearm.
His first appeal was rejected in Middlesex County Superior Court in 2023, leading to the appeal to the appellate court.
The man contested that his 31 years of sobriety is “satisfactory proof” that he could handle a firearm safely, but admitted alcoholism is “a lifelong disease that could not be cured but only controlled," court papers say.
He also claimed he was only an alcoholic "for AA purposes" because he is required to admit it, but he failed to show proof of consistently attending AA meetings or to present testimony from his sponsor whom he claims he talks to once a month, according to court papers.
He also failed to produce a certificate from a doctor, treatment provider or psychiatrist, and he did not refute the details of the three incidents more than 30 years ago.
The appellate court then determined that after admitting to a disqualifying feature – alcoholism – on his application, he failed to produce “sufficient” proof he was no longer suffering from this, affirming the previous ruling.
The court also acknowledged that the man had “not only a history of alcoholism, but mental health treatment and suicidal ideation” and he provided no medical evidence suggesting he doesn’t pose a threat to public health, safety and welfare.
Ethan Mannello: EMannello@mycentraljersey.com
Most Popular
Comments / 0