A Bergen County man has lost his bid to fight the confiscation of his guns and ammunition following a domestic violence arrest and charges that he had high-capacity magazines and hollow-point ammunition.

An appellate decision on Tuesday upheld a Superior Court judge's earlier ruling that Arthur Vinogradsky was no longer qualified to be a gun owner even though the charges against him were eventually dropped.

It's the latest example of New Jersey's gun-control laws, which are among the strictest in the nation.

In New Jersey, residents must apply to their local police departments to obtain permits to buy, own or carry firearms and must meet a list of criteria before they can be approved. Few residents are granted carry permits.

This month, the appellate division denied a Middlesex County man's application for a gun permit just because of his terrible driving record.

Earlier this month, a Superior Court judge in Monmouth County denied a soldier's request for a carry permit because he couldn't prove "justifiable need” even though he worked on a military facility that had faced terrorist threats.

In June 2013,Vinogradsky's wife got a temporary restraining order against her husband. As a matter of course, police removed the guns from their home. As the weapons were removed, police arrested the defendant for possession of high capacity magazines and hollow point bullets.

The wife later dismissed her complaint and the husband completed a pretrial intervention program, which spared him a criminal conviction on the weapons charges. But the judge moved forward with stripping him of gun ownership rights, finding that he assaulted his wife and committed a crime.

The decision acknowledged that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to possess a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. But according to the courts, the Constitution does not trump "states' enforcement of their 'longstanding

prohibitions' on firearm possession," and "like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

The appellate decision faulted Vinogradsky for his "unwillingness to familiarize himself with our gun control laws."

Officers testified she had a splint on her finger and said she was "a little scared" at the police station. In the police report of the incident the wife told police her husband tried to pull her engagement ring off her finger which caused bruising and strained the finger.