SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1149-15T2

IN RE APPLICATION FOR 

PERMIT TO CARRY A HANDGUN 

OF JAMES L. MCFADDEN

Submitted June 7, 2017 – Decided July 24, 2017

Before Judges Alvarez and Accurso.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New 

Jersey, Law Division, Union County.

Roberts & Teeter, attorneys for appellant 

James L. McFadden (Michael B. Roberts, on the 

brief).

Grace H. Park, Acting Union County Prosecutor, 

attorney for respondent, State of New Jersey 

(Milton S. Leibowitz, Special Deputy Attorney 

General/Acting Assistant Prosecutor, of 

counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

James L. McFadden, a licensed security officer, appeals a Law 

Division judge's October 20, 2015 order denying his application 

for a permit to carry a firearm in conjunction with his employment 

with Triple Canopy, a security firm. We affirm.

McFadden's application was approved by the chief of the 

Hillside Police Department. The Law Division judge's denial was 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-1149-15T2

accompanied by a written statement of reasons. He said that the

law "reject[s] the notion that employees of private security firms 

have a 'preferred right' to a permit to carry because of their 

work-related status." The judge also said that N.J.S.A. 2C:58-

4(d) provides that an applicant for a permit to carry a handgun 

must demonstrate a justifiable need. In making the determination, 

a court must decide if the applicant is subject to a substantial 

threat of serious bodily harm, or if carrying a handgun is 

necessary to reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious bodily 

harm to any person. Since the "bare statements" in McFadden's 

application said, in general terms, only that he was "subject to 

a substantial threat of serious bodily harm," the judge found that 

the information did not meet the standard for the issuance of a 

permit to carry.

Included in McFadden's appeal appendix is a barely legible 

form letter. In the letter, the author, presumably an employee 

of Triple Canopy, states that the company contracts to provide

security services for federal buildings, and that because of the 

current climate, the protection of a federal building requires 

that security officers be armed. No specifics are given either 

as to the precise nature of the contract, although examples of 

buildings to be protected are enumerated, nor is McFadden's precise 

role described.
3 A-1149-15T2

On appeal, McFadden states that the letter sufficed to 

demonstrate a justifiable need to carry a handgun, that the law 

of the case applied because McFadden in past years had been issued 

a permit to carry in conjunction with his security work, and that 

collateral estoppel required he be issued such a permit. The 

contentions that prior permits raised issues regarding the law of 

the case as well as collateral estoppel in this scenario are so 

lacking in merit as to not warrant discussion in a written opinion. 

R. 2:11-3(e)(2). McFadden also asserts that he was entitled to a 

hearing in the matter, although it is not certain that the request 

was ever made other than in this appeal. 

It is clear, however, that before a permit to carry a handgun 

will be issued to a security employee, N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(2) 

requires that he or she demonstrate need. This requires a showing 

that in the course of performing statutorily authorized duties,

the applicant is subject to a substantial threat of serious bodily 

harm. Ibid. Issuance of a permit may be appropriate where the 

applicant can demonstrate that carrying a handgun is necessary to 

reduce the threat of unjustifiable serious bodily harm to anyone. 

Ibid. 

The letter was signed by McFadden and a representative of 

Triple Canopy and notarized, but it was not in the form required 

by Rule 1:4-4(a). It is not clear if the attachment was intended 
4 A-1149-15T2

to comply with Rule 1:4-4(b), as although the document states only 

that "[t]he undersigned hereby certify that all statements 

contained in this letter are true." The certification did not 

comply with 1:4-4(b) because it did not include the phrase included 

in the rule regarding the applicant's knowledge regarding the 

consequences for willfully false statements.

We have considered the arguments made by McFadden, and in 

light of our review of the record and the applicable principles 

of law, we simply do not agree that the bare bones letter attached 

sufficed to meet the requirements of N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4(d)(2). 

Generalized statements regarding threats to national security are 

simply not enough. 

We agree with McFadden that the Law Division judge incorrectly 

stated that the court in In re Preis, 118 N.J. 564 (1990), applied 

the standard from Siccardi v. State, 59 N.J. 545 (1971), to 

security agency employees. The Preis Court included the 

proposition from Siccardi merely to explain the Siccardi rule, 

which applies to private citizens. Preis, supra, 118 N.J. at 571. 

Regardless, this misstatement of the law is ultimately 

harmless. The trial court was correct in holding that McFadden 

did not provide the necessary information in order to establish 

that he had a justifiable need to carry a handgun. It is not 

enough for courts to issue handgun permits to carry to an 
5 A-1149-15T2

individual because his or her employer, a security agency, believes 

that there is a generalized urgent need for protection. 

With regard to McFadden's request for a hearing, it is not 

at all clear from our review of the record if that issue was ever 

raised to the trial court. We therefore do not consider this 

request. We deny McFadden's appeal, without prejudice to any 

future right to make a further application correctly supported 

with information that satisfies the regulation. 

Affirmed.