Man Denied N.J. Gun Permit, Largely Based on Mental Health Records + Social Media Posts

From In the Matter of Gun Permit Appeal of A.A.R., decided yesterday by the N.J. intermediate appellate court (Judges Katie Gummer, James Paganelli, and Christine  Vanek):

[The New Jersey State Police] denied petitioner’s application [for a gun purchase permit] …, concluding he “lack[ed] the essential character and temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:53-3C(5).” The Superintendent’s decision was predicated “on the totality of the circumstances” after reviewing records demonstrating: Freehold Township (Freehold) had denied petitioner’s two previous FPIC [Firearms Purchaser Identification Card] applications—one of which was affirmed on appeal to the Law Division; and petitioner’s medical history, including a mental health evaluation; involvement in a domestic dispute; and “violent tendencies.” …

[Freehold Chief of Police] Baumann explained he had denied petitioner’s first application in 2021 primarily because of petitioner’s prior mental-health evaluation and his failure to submit a clinical psychologist’s opinion stipulating to his ability to handle firearms. Chief Baumann testified he had also been concerned with “a situation in [petitioner’s] home where [his] father … or parents had taken away [his] privileges to some kind of computer use.” They had “turned the electricity off and then [petitioner] had rewired it within the home, or something, potentially almost causing a fire.”

[NJSP Firearms Investigation Bureau] Trooper Somers testified that during his investigation of petitioner’s FPIC application filed with the NJSP, he had reviewed medical records that demonstrated in 2017 petitioner was psychiatrically evaluated in a hospital on the advice of his therapist and because his parents believed he was “becoming a threat to himself and others.” Trooper Somers was concerned by two specific notes in the medical records—one of which stated petitioner had a history of treatment for depression along “‘with a past history of vague suicidal gesture by cutting himself.'” The second note of concern stated petitioner’s mother had told hospital staff she believed petitioner had “no moral compass,” and she feared petitioner would become a “‘psychopath.'”

The medical records reviewed by Trooper Somers also demonstrated petitioner had “been posting racially biased videos on YouTube, which” continued even after petitioner’s parents and school had asked him to remove the videos and to refrain from further posts. The records also referenced physical altercations between petitioner and his father when petitioner’s father cut electricity to stop petitioner’s online computer activities and when petitioner had tried to restore electrical access to his bedroom. According to the records, petitioner had been diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder requiring mental health treatment.

Trooper Somers also searched the internet as part of his investigation and discovered online activity that “concern[ed]” him. One of the online postings he saw was a 2022 petition that sought signatures to support petitioner’s expulsion from Penn State University based on assertions petitioner was a “violent misogynist, homophobic, [and a] white supremacist” who had violated the school’s student conduct policies and had created a dangerous environment on the school’s campus.

The petition stated petitioner had publicly announced he wanted to “shoot up a school,” used racial slurs, hurt students and staff, sent pornographic images to minors, and promoted gun violence, rape, and white supremacy—with reference to specific examples of the petitioner’s actions, both online and at the university. The petition contained 1458 out of the required 1600 signatures. Petitioner submitted a document stating Penn State University did not take any disciplinary action against him as a result of the petition.

Trooper Somers also reviewed petitioner’s social-media posts in which he responded to a hypothetical, fictional scenario posed by an anonymous Reddit user who asked: “You are unable to be killed or injured for [twenty-four] hours and any crimes you commit during this time, you can’t be charged for, no matter how extreme. What do you do with this power?” Petitioner responded in part:

Oh man, I’d do a bunch of f[***]ed up shit. To start, I’d rape a bunch of really hot girls. I’d then probably start driving around and shoot at random cars & pedestrians GTA style. I’d definitely shoot up a school and make sure “Pumped Up Kicks” is blasting on the loud speaker, I’d then impersonate a cop and commit police brutality. I’d then take over the White House and become dictator of the U.S. Oh, and I’d rob banks so I have enough money for life. Ok I’m done….

Petitioner’s testimony confirmed his 2017 confrontation with his parents, he had authored the Reddit posts, and he had publicly uttered racial slurs and had made statements about raping women. Petitioner submitted a letter from Jordan Faiman, an outpatient counseling services provider he had visited in 2017 and once in March 2021. Faiman asserted petitioner “had made significant progress through outpatient on-site counseling treatment over the course of more than three years” particularly “in the areas of anger management and impulsivity control.” Based on his session with petitioner in March 2021, Faiman concluded petitioner was “not currently a danger to himself and/or others.” …

The judge … found petitioner’s online activity “troubling” and his posts “advocate[d] violent crimes against women and stated that [petitioner] would engage in this type of conduct if there were no consequences.” The judge determined these posts, when “coupled with the mental health records from 2017[,] caution[ed] th[e] court as to whether [petitioner] possesse[d] the sufficient character required to be issued an FPIC.”

Because the medical evidence conflicted, the judge stated she did not “rely solely on the medical records for [her] decision.” The judge concluded that “when looking at the totality of the circumstances including the social-media posts, medical documentation, the previous denials by Freehold … and the admissions by [petitioner], the [c]ourt [wa]s extremely concerned about [petitioner]’s character or temperament.”

The court held that this was consistent with New Jersey statutes:

{Even without petitioner’s mental-health records, the judge had a sufficient factual basis to deny petitioner’s appeal as not being in the interest of “public health, safety[,] or welfare.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5).} The judge’s decision—predicated on sworn testimony and admitted records—is entitled to deference. We are unconvinced the judge impermissibly relied on petitioner’s medical records to support the denial. Petitioner’s mental-health records, obtained with his authorization, were considered along with other evidence to deny petitioner’s FPIC application. The judge did not solely rely on petitioner’s mental-health records but also considered his social-media posts, testimony as to Freehold’s previous FPIC denials, and Trooper Somers’s testimony and petitioner’s testimony regarding his concerning behavior, all of which validated the NJSP’s investigation results.

And the court held that this didn’t violate the First Amendment:

We have … reason[ed that] the legislative intent contemplates inquiry into cases of “individual unfitness” where the applicant’s background demonstrates a risk to the community. See also U.S. v. Rahimi (2023) (rejecting the defendant’s facial and as applied constitutional challenges to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which, under subsection (C)(i), barred a person from possessing a firearm if a restraining order concluded the person posed “a credible threat to the physical safety” of another).

The right to possess firearms is not boundless. Petitioner’s argument that the judge impermissibly relied on “protected speech” to determine his fitness to possess a firearm under New Jersey’s statute is without merit. By applying for an FPIC, petitioner subjected himself to investigation by the NJSP and the consequences of that investigation, consistent with our jurisprudence….

For more on what appears to the be the Penn State petition discussed in the case, see The Daily Collegian (Olivia Estright); that article names the student targeted by the petition as Avi Rachlin.

Carolynn O’Dell argued on behalf of the state, and Amanda McElfresh argued on behalf of the N.J. Attorney General as amicus.