State v. Neumann

Decision Date24 September 1968
Docket NumberNo. M,M
Citation246 A.2d 533,103 N.J.Super. 83
PartiesSTATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff, v. Neil Richard NEUMANN, Defendant. isc. 1722.
CourtNew Jersey County Court

Thomas L. Yaccarino, Asst. County Prosecutor, for the State (Elliott L. Katz, Long Branch, on the brief).

Burton L. Fundler, Asbury Park, for defendant (Michael B. Kirschner, Asbury Park, on the brief, Mirne, Nowels, Fundler, Cornblatt & Magee, Asbury Park, attorneys).

McGANN, J.C.C.

This matter comes before the court on motion by the Monmouth County Prosecutor pursuant to N.J.S. 2A:151--45, N.J.S.A. to revoke a permit to carry a revolver previously issued to Neil Richard Neumann. The uncontroverted facts leading up to the action by the State are these:

On March 8, 1968 a call came to the Asbury Park Police Headquarters in which the caller stated that he had just been in the Sunset Lounge Tavern on Kingsley Street where a man was sitting at the bar with a 'gun on his hip.' In response to the call Officers Montepara and Moyna were dispatched to the tavern. They arrived at about 12:50 A.M. Upon gaining admittance they found about six or seven people in the bar in addition to the bartender. Neumann was seated at the bar in his shirtsleeves with a drink in front of him. He was wearing a Colt .38 caliber revolver in a pull-away holster fully exposed on his left hip. It was loaded.

When questioned by the police Neumann first said he was a police officer of the Long Branch police. He produced an I.D. card indicating he was a member of the Long Branch Police 'Reserves.' It developed that he was not then a member of the 'Reserves' although he previously had been.

He then produced his permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Neumann has had such a permit since June 1961. His original application (and all subsequent renewal applications) sets forth as the reason for the permit the fact that he is a pharmacist and requires a gun for protection in connection with the operation of his drug store in the Cliffwood section of Matawan Township--both because there are narcotics on the premises and because night deposits of business receipts are made in a local bank.

It is undisputed that Neumann is of good general repute, that he was a small-arms specialist with the United States Army during his military service, and that he suffers none of the statutory disabilities. N.J.S. 2A:151--33 and 2A:151--4, N.J.S.A..

On the evening in question Neumann had closed his drug store in Cliffwood at 10:15 P.M. and made a night deposit in the local bank. He had an appointment to meet with his accountant and another man to discuss a business deal. He drove to the Sunset Lounge Tavern and arrived there some time between 11 and 11:30 P.M. He had had one drink and was on his second when the police came into the tavern.

N.J.S. 2A:151--45, N.J.S.A. provides, Inter alia, that

'Any permit may be revoked by a judge of the county court of the county wherein the permit was issued, after hearing upon notice and upon a finding that the holder thereof no longer qualifies for the issuance of such permit. The county prosecutor of any county * * * may apply to such judge at any time for the revocation of such permit.'

The prosecutor moved for revocation on notice to the permit holder. A full hearing was held. Briefs were subsequently submitted.

With certain exceptions not applicable to this case, it is a crime to carry a pistol or revolver without a permit, N.J.S. 2A:151--41, N.J.S.A., N.J.S. 2A:151--45, N.J.S.A., provides, Inter alia, that 'A permit issued under section 2A:151--44 of this chapter shall be sufficient authority for the holder thereof to carry a revolver or pistol In all parts of the State.' (Emphasis...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Drake v. Filko
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 31 juillet 2013
    ...and neither had ascribed any meaning to it. See McAndrew v. Mularchuk, 33 N.J. 172, 162 A.2d 820, 827 (1960); State v. Neumann, 103 N.J.Super. 83, 246 A.2d 533, 535 (Monmouth Cnty.Ct.1968). 16. Even if modern laws alone could satisfy the longstandingness test, there presumably would have to......
  • Burton v. Sills
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 16 décembre 1968
    ...the issuance of the permit or identification card would nonetheless be contrary to the public interest. Cf. State v. Neumann, 103 N.J.Super. 83, 87, 246 A.2d 533 (Monmouth County Ct. In the light of this narrowed construction, the statutory standard is undoubtedly sufficient to withstand at......
  • State v. Hatch
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 28 décembre 1973
    ...dangers that the Legislature sought to avoid even where permits and identification cards have been obtained. Cf. State v. Neumann, 103 N.J.Super. 83, 86--87, 246 A.2d 533 (1968). Nothing in the statute suggests that, while the Legislature restricted resident hunters, it placed no restrictio......
  • Drake v. Filko
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 31 juillet 2013
    ...need requirement, and neither had ascribed any meaning to it. See McAndrew v. Mularchuk, 162 A.2d 820, 827 (N.J. 1960); State v. Neumann, 246 A.2d 533, 535 (Monmouth Cnty. Ct. 1968). 37. Even if modern laws alone could satisfy the longstandingness test, there presumably would have to be a s......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT