IN RE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN OF WILSON MACK

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-04584-14T2

IN RE RENEWAL APPLICATION

FOR PERMIT TO CARRY A

HANDGUN OF WILSON MACK.

_________________________

December 28, 2016

Submitted December 6, 2016 Decided

Before Judges Reisner and Koblitz.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County.

Hassen Ibn Abdellah, attorney for appellant (Noelle Van Baaren, on the brief).

Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Milton S. Leibowitz, SpecialDeputy AttorneyGeneral/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Wilson Mack, who has worked as an armed security guard for twenty years, appeals from the October 9, 2014 order denying his renewal application for a permit to carry a handgun. The judge denied appellant's application because appellant failed to cite any specific threats of danger that would satisfy the "justifiable need" to carry a handgun standard required by N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) and In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990). We reverse and remand for the court to reconsider in light of the additional information Mack attempted to bring before the court by way of a subsequent application.

Mack is required to possess a valid permit to carry a handgun for his job. Mack was last issued a two-year permit on August 29, 2012. Mack applied for a renewal on August 21, 2014. In support, Mack submitted a letter of need from Visual Protection Security Services. The letter was a conditional letter of employment for Mack to work as an armed security guard in Newark's recreational facilities and public buildings located "more often than not in high crime areas within the City of Newark." The Roselle Police Chief approved the application five days later.

After a review of the papers, the judge found that Mack failed to demonstrate a justifiable need sufficient for the court to issue the permit. Without a lawyer, Mack erroneously filed another renewal application, rather than a motion for reconsideration, Rule 4:49-2. With this second renewal application, Mack submitted: (1) a letter of need from Beau Security and Investigations, which stated that Mack worked for the company as a full-time "Armed Private Patrolman"; (2) a certificate of firearm competency; and (3) two incident reports, each detailing a specific violent threat at one of Mack's assigned security locations. Another judge dismissed this second application, informing Mack that his only relief was to file an appeal of the earlier denial. Mack then appealed that earlier denial.

The State objects to our consideration of these documents, which do not technically comprise a part of the appellate record. R. 2:5-4(a). The October 9, 2014 order denying this August 21, 2014 application is the only order listed on the notice of appeal. We therefore do not now consider the substance of these documents. Even if we were to consider the content of these documents, we would not exercise original jurisdiction to consider granting a weapons permit when the trial court has not had the opportunity to do so. See Prince v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 294-95 (2013) (discussing under what conditions an appellate court should exercise original jurisdiction). We do, however, "review a trial court's legal conclusions regarding firearms licenses de novo." In re N.J. Firearms Purchaser Identification Card by Z.K., 440 N.J. Super. 394, 397 (App. Div. 2015).

N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) requires that an applicant for a handgun permit demonstrate "that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." To demonstrate such a need, the applicant must establish: "(1) that the applicant, in the course of performing statutorily-authorized duties, is subject to a substantial threat of serious bodily harm; and (2) that carrying a handgun is necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious bodily harm to any person." Preis, supra, 118 N.J. at 576-77. "[T]he statutory standard calls for a permit to be issued only to those who can establish an urgent necessity for protection of self or others as for example, in the case of one whose life is in danger as evidenced by serious threats or earlier attacks." Id. at 566. "Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate, and a need to protect property alone does not suffice." Id. at 571.

Mack has been issued a license to carry a firearm as a requirement of his job for the past twenty years. The police chief concurred that a firearms license continues to be necessary. His initial application was rejected only because his letter of need "fail[ed] to describe any incidents or locations that have been the subject of specific acts of violence." The material submitted in his second application may supply this missing documentation. We therefore remand to allow Mack to submit a motion for reconsideration within twenty days of this opinion.

Reversed and remanded to allow Mack to file a motion for reconsideration. We do not retain jurisdiction.