IN THE MATTER OF APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CARRY HANDGUN RAMIRO GONZALEZ, JR. (CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-5514-17T4
IN THE MATTER OF
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT
TO CARRY HANDGUN
RAMIRO GONZALEZ, JR.
Submitted October 3, 2019 – Decided October 24, 2019
Before Judges Koblitz and Mawla.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Cumberland County.
Evan F. Nappen, PC, attorneys for appellant Ramiro
Gonzalez, Jr. (Louis P. Nappen, on the brief).
Jennifer Webb-McRae, Cumberland County
Prosecutor, attorney for respondent State of New Jersey
(Danielle R. Pennino, Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel
and on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Ramiro Gonzalez, Jr. appeals from the June 14, 2018 order denying, after
an evidentiary hearing, his application to renew his gun carry permit pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4. We affirm.
Gonzalez initially received a gun carry permit in 2016, without objection
from the Cumberland County Prosecutor's Office. He submitted his two-year
renewal application to the Chief of Police of the City of Vineland. After an
investigation and review of his application, the police chief approved the
renewal application and forwarded it to the court for review. The prosecutor,
however, objected to Gonzalez's renewal application.
After hearing testimony from Gonzalez and reviewing the documents
provided in support of his renewal, the trial court denied his renewal application.
The trial court found that Gonzalez failed to establish a "justifiable need" as
required by statute and our Supreme Court. In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990).
The trial court acknowledged its mistake in initially granting the permit.
On appeal, Gonzalez argues that the trial court erred by not finding a
justifiable need to carry a gun. He also argues for the first time on appeal that
the N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 requirement of justifiable need is unconstitutional.
Defendant's constitutional arguments are without sufficient merit to require
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). The justifiable need
requirement in N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c) and (d) has been found constitutional in
Drake v. Filko, 724 F.3d 426 (3d Cir. 2013), and in our decision In re Wheeler,
A-5514-17T4
2
433 N.J. Super. 560, 590–622 (App. Div. 2013). We find no basis in the record
to depart from that well-reasoned precedent.
Gonzalez's primary argument focuses on how his qualifications and
experience in performing statutorily authorized duties, coupled with the known
threats of his security work, are sufficient to establish a justifiable need to carry
a handgun. Gonzalez is thirty-four years old and employed as the Director of
Operations and in-house Firearms Instructor for RST Security & Investigations,
LLC located in Vineland, New Jersey. The company is owned by two retired
state troopers and employs twenty to twenty-five people.
According to the letter from his employer attached to his renewal
application, Gonzalez is certified under the Security Officer Registration Act,
N.J.S.A. 45:19A-1 to -12, as an armed security officer. In his capacity as a
security officer, he performs statutorily authorized duties under circumstances
that present a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself and others
under his protection. The employer provided evidence of specific work
incidents involving a threat.
The court denied Gonzalez's renewal application for a permit to carry a
handgun because he had not demonstrated the justifiable need that is required
under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4 and discussed by our Supreme Court in Preis. The court
A-5514-17T4
3
found Gonzalez to be a "model citizen" and "found his testimony to be credible
and candid." Not only had Gonzalez "established proficiency with weapons,
self-defense, defense of others and property, but [he] is uniquely qualified to
teach those who teach others such tactics."
In its opinion, the court focused on the fact that Gonzalez is employed by
an agency that, under the Private Detective Act of 1939, N.J.S.A. 45:19-8 to -
42, is "authorized to protect persons or property." Citing to our Supreme Court's
holding in Preis, the court noted that the Legislature has not carved out an
exemption from the strict gun carry provisions for those who are employed by
private-detective agencies or private-security agencies. "Only employees of
armored-car companies are singled out for special treatment." Preis, 118 N.J. at
569.
The court stated that the "applicant's employer provides services to a
number of different entities, some of which would meet the standard set forth
by the Preis Court, and some that would not." Renewing the gun carry permit
would result in a "generalized issuance of a permit without demonstrable need
to carry guns for self-protection from dangers to either self or to others."
We apply a de novo standard of review when reviewing conclusions of
law. In re Sportsman's Rendezvous Retail Firearms Dealer's License, 374 N.J.
A-5514-17T4
4
Super. 565, 575 (App. Div. 2005). We "should accept a trial court's findings of
fact that are supported by substantial credible evidence." In re Return of
Weapons to J.W.D., 149 N.J. 108, 116 (1997).
We understand the potential employment ramifications for Gonzalez in
the denial of his application, especially in light of its initial approval. However,
if the court makes a mistaken decision in initially granting a permit, it should
not add to the error by its repetition at the time of renewal. After our de novo
legal review, we affirm substantially for the reasons expressed in the trial court's
comprehensive written opinion attached to its order.
Affirmed.
A-5514-17T4
5