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.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5514-17T4

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, 
3

A-5514-17T4

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
4

A-5514-17T4

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. 
5

A-5514-17T4

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.