Essex County TERPO Dismissed: Firearms Returned After Year-Long Litigation in Two Counties

The Tormey Law Firm secured a significant Second Amendment victory for an Essex County client whose firearms had been seized under a Temporary Extreme Risk Protective Order (TERPO). After more than a year of litigation spanning two counties, the court dismissed the TERPO, denied the State’s request for a Final Extreme Risk Protective Order (FERPO), and ordered the return of our client’s lawfully owned firearms.

What Is a TERPO in New Jersey?

A Temporary Extreme Risk Protective Order, governed by New Jersey’s Extreme Risk Protective Order Act (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-20 et seq.), allows law enforcement or family or household members to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual alleged to pose a significant danger of causing bodily injury to themselves or others. If granted, a TERPO results in the immediate surrender of all firearms and firearms purchaser identification cards, and prohibits the respondent from purchasing or possessing any firearm or ammunition while the order remains in effect.

A TERPO is the first step. Within ten days, the court must hold a hearing to determine whether a Final Extreme Risk Protective Order (FERPO) should issue. A FERPO can remain in place indefinitely and carries serious, lasting consequences for an individual’s Second Amendment rights, employment in fields requiring firearms, and personal reputation.

The Allegations Against Our Client

Our client, a longtime Essex County resident, was accused of engaging in conduct involving former co-workers that, according to the petitioning officer, suggested he posed a significant risk of using a firearm to cause harm to himself or others. Based on those allegations, a TERPO was issued in March 2025, and our client’s lawfully owned firearms were seized.

Notably, the matter was initially filed in Bergen County despite our client residing in Essex County. A Bergen County Superior Court Judge dismissed the petition on jurisdictional grounds. The State then refiled the same allegations in Essex County, where the matter ultimately proceeded to trial in May 2026 — more than a year after the original TERPO issued.

The Client’s Background

Apart from the allegations contained in the TERPO petition, our client had no history suggesting any risk of harm to himself or others. At trial, he testified to the following:

Personal history: Married for nearly fifty years, with children and grandchildren, and steadily employed in the security field.

Clean legal record: Never named as a defendant in a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), never subject to any prior TERPO, never accused of violating the TERPO at issue, never the subject of a Victim’s Assistance and Survivor Protection Act (VASPA) order, and no other contact with law enforcement before or after the March 2025 petition.

No history of violence or mental health concerns: Never diagnosed with any mental health condition, and never committed any act of physical violence.

Lawful firearm ownership: Lawfully owned firearms since 2012 with no incidents.

Healthy coping skills: Demonstrated stable, non-violent approaches to handling conflict in both personal and professional settings.

How We Won the Case at Trial

At the Essex County hearing, the State’s case rested almost entirely on the testimony of the officer who petitioned for the TERPO. Critically, that officer had no direct, first-hand knowledge of the underlying interactions. The officer’s testimony was built on hearsay statements made by third parties, and the State produced no independent corroborating evidence, including:

No witness testimony: None of the former co-workers whose statements formed the basis of the petition appeared to testify against our client or be subject to cross-examination.

No criminal charges: Despite the seriousness of the alleged conduct, no criminal charges were ever filed against our client arising from the same incident.

No corroborating physical or documentary evidence: The State offered nothing beyond the petitioning officer’s secondhand account.

Our defense methodically dismantled the State’s evidentiary foundation while presenting our client as exactly who the record showed him to be: a law-abiding firearms owner with decades of stable employment, deep family ties, and zero history of violence or instability. After hearing the full record, the judge dismissed the TERPO, denied the State’s application for a FERPO, and ordered the return of our client’s firearms.

What This Case Illustrates for New Jersey Gun Owners

This outcome restored our client’s Second Amendment rights after more than a year of litigation across two counties — but the case also highlights several realities every New Jersey firearms owner should understand.

TERPO matters are aggressively pursued. Even where the underlying allegations are uncorroborated and no criminal charges are filed, the State will often press forward through trial. Without effective representation, a respondent can lose their firearms and their Second Amendment rights for an indefinite period.

Hearsay-based petitions can still result in seized firearms. A TERPO can be issued based on limited, secondhand information. The burden then falls on the respondent to present a complete defense at the FERPO hearing. If circumstances later change, it may be possible to pursue termination of an Extreme Risk Protective Order through the courts.

Words and interactions matter. Casual conversations — particularly with co-workers, neighbors, or acquaintances — can be misinterpreted, mischaracterized, or amplified in ways that put a lawful firearms owner’s rights at risk.

Procedural defenses count. Filing a petition in the wrong county, as the State did here, can result in dismissal — but only when a defense attorney identifies and presses the issue. For an example of a similar outcome, see our Bergen County TERPO dismissal.

Facing a TERPO or FERPO in New Jersey? Contact Our Firearms Defense Team Today

If you have been served with a Temporary Extreme Risk Protective Order, or if a FERPO hearing is approaching, the time to act is now. The consequences of an unchallenged FERPO can follow you for years, affecting your ability to lawfully possess firearms, your employment, and your standing in the community.

The Tormey Law Firm has extensive experience defending New Jersey firearms owners against TERPO and FERPO petitions across every county in the state. Attorney Travis Tormey leads a team that includes former prosecutor Jacqueline D. Smith, whose background gives the firm valuable insight into how the State builds and presents these cases. The firm’s attorneys, including Jeffrey Skiendziul, have successfully tried these matters and obtained the return of clients’ firearms.

Call our office today for a free consultation to discuss your case, the evidence against you, and the defenses available to protect your Second Amendment rights.