I don't have the actual cite to yesterday's ruling. The following was taken from a NJ Law Journal daily news alert. The underlining is mine. This decision continues the trend in NJ to pay lip service to, but then disregard, due process, all consistent with Lautenberg.
PREVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE LAW HELD CONSTITUTIONAL
New Jersey's Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, which allows courts to issue restraints without a jury and based on a minimal burden of proof, is constitutional, the state Supreme Court says. Thursday's unanimous, per curiam ruling in Crespo v. Crespo, A-28-09, affirms the Appellate Division's overturning of a trial court opinion that struck down the 19-year old law. The Court agreed there is no constitutional right to a jury in a domestic violence hearing; the preponderance-of-evidence standard does not flout due process; and the specification of court procedures does not violate separation of powers. The Court also agreed with the rejection of a Second Amendment argument: that the act's provision for seizure of guns is inconsistent with the individual right to bear arms recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. There is no reason to think the ruling prohibits taking guns way from people who commit domestic violence, the state Court said.
"There is no reason to think the ruling prohibits taking guns way from people who commit domestic violence..." but this begs the question as to whether the defendant did, in fact, commit domestic violence in the first place or whether this is a "he said, she said" situation. I don't know the case so I don't know how egregious the defendant's behavior was or what level of proof was offered. Bottom line: while this isn't new news, it is a reminder that domestic situations can be and are treated in a different manner to other disputes, with potentially disastrous consequences for a gun owner.