IN THE MATTER OF ADEL MIKHAEIL'S APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3467-05t33467-05T3

IN THE MATTER OF ADEL MIKHAEIL'S

APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT TO CARRY

A HANDGUN

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted November 9, 2006 - Decided December 4, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Parrillo.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County.

Evan F. Nappen, attorney for appellant,

Adel Mikhaeil (Richard V. Gilbert,

on the brief).

Edward J. DeFazio, Hudson County

Prosecutor, attorney for respondent,

State of New Jersey (Barbara L.

Turso-Dembowski, Assistant Prosecutor,

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Adel Mikhaeil, a fugitive recovery agent, otherwise known as a bounty hunter, applied for a permit to carry a concealed weapon from the Jersey City Police Department. The Chief of Police denied the application for failure to show "justifiable need," and insufficient training. Judge Theemling sustained the Chief's denial on the basis of "justifiable need," and Mikhaeil appealed. We affirm.

A permit to carry a gun is "the most closely-regulated aspect of New Jersey gun-control laws." In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564, 568 (1990). An applicant must first submit an application to "the chief police officer of the municipality in which the applicant resides." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c). If approved, the application is then presented to the Superior Court. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d). Upon review by both the Chief of Police and the Superior Court, the permit is issued only if the applicant shows he is "a person of good character who is not subject to any of the disabilities set forth in section 2C:58-3(c), that he is thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns, and that he has a justifiable need to carry a handgun." N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d) (emphasis added). See also N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(c); N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.3.

In this case, the primary dispute relates to Mikhaeil's showing of "justifiable need," which, according to the pertinent regulation, constitutes an "urgent necessity for self-protection, as evidenced by specific threats or previous attacks which demonstrate a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by means other than by issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(1).

Mikhaeil attempted to meet this standard by demonstrating numerous instances where he was injured, threatened, or otherwise put in some degree of danger. While Judge Theemling recognized that Mikhaeil's line of work and the methods he chose to employ in that work did place him in considerable danger, the judge further concluded that Mikhaeil could avoid these inherent dangers by changing jobs or involving the police to a greater degree in apprehending fugitives. Therefore, any special dangers could be "avoided by means other than the issuance of a permit to carry a handgun." N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(1). We cannot quarrel with this conclusion. Furthermore, if we were to reverse the denial of Mikhaeil's application, we could not distinguish between his case and those of all other aggressive bounty hunters.

 
Although Mikhaeil further argues that he has a constitutional right to bear arms in the defense of "life and liberty and . . . obtaining safety," N.J. Const., art. I, 1, the licensing requirement for purchase permits has been upheld as constitutional under both the Federal and State constitutions. See Burton v. Sills, 99 N.J. Super. 459, 561-62 (App. Div. 1968), aff'd, 53 N.J. 86 (1986) (finding that "the common good takes precedence over private rights").

Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

3

A-3467-05T3

December 4, 2006