Over the last six + months, the permit to carry statistical data in New Jersey has been looked into extensively. The first jarring story was that more than half the permit to carry application denials were due to an antiquated subjective standard. Applicants in New Jersey are subjected to excessive waits. It was also discovered that Black permit to carry applicants were getting denied more than double their white counterparts, with the same illegal subjective standard being used. Anecdotal information about unjust denials have been trickling in. One story is a bit of a whopper, and includes a gentleman twice denied a permit to carry in N.J. due to a non-criminal driving record.
Advertisement
In June of 2023 Leonard Mirabal from Carlstadt, New Jersey, received a letter telling him his application for a permit to carry had been denied. Previous to Mirabal’s permit to carry application, he had obtained a N.J. firearms identification card as well as pistol purchasers permits. Mirabal had been vetted more than once concerning his eligibility to own and possess a firearm. Has passed all the N.J. background checks, as well as N.J.’s unique NICS check(s).
The letter that Mirabal received was from Carlstadt Chief of Police Thomas Cox. The letter listed off the denial reason:
Pursuant to N.J.S. 2C:58-3c(5), the issuance of a Permit to Carry a Handgun would not be in the interest of public health, safety or welfare. The Applicant has a documented extensive driving history record both with the State of New Jersey as well as out-of-state.
The “extensive driving history” included the revocation of Mirabal’s commercial drivers license, a non-criminal matter.
The subjective standard in question is N.J. 2C:58-3c (5). The law states that an issuing authority can deny the issuance of a permit to carry “To any person where the issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.”
Without proper counsel, Mirabal let the denial sit and did not appeal. He did not have the resources to fight the denial.
Footnote #9 in NYSRPA v. Bruen directly addresses this matter. The footnote states that permitting schemes shall “contain only ‘narrow, objective, and definite standards’ guiding licensing officials,” in order for them to meet Constitutional muster.
Back in April of 2024, a complete list of all the jurisdictions using the subjective standard to deny permits to carry was made. There were 62 jurisdictions at that time – more now – which made it onto that list. The mayors, councils, and issuing authorities of all of those jurisdictions were sent letters asking them for comment on why the standard was still being used. Minimal responses came back.
Advertisement
In correspondence to the police chiefs, mayors and town councils, footnote #9 was brought up supporting why N.J. 2C:58-3c (5) cannot be used as a disqualifying factor. Carlstadt, New Jersey was one such jurisdiction that was reached out to about the practice.
The story of Leonard Mirabal is one that can be hard to track. After reviewing all of his correspondence with the Carlstadt Police Department over the years, a vivid picture can be painted, showing the failings of the New Jersey permitting system. Emails indicate difficulty in getting references, making and having appointments, the former use of money orders, etc. There was a lot of confusion.
Mirabal had further issues applying for permits to purchase subsequent to his denial. He withdrew those applications due to errors he made filling them out. However, it’s important to note that the permitting officer did state the following, “In reference to your handgun purchase permit application (confirmation #23108765736) for (4) permits to purchase a handgun, you CAN be denied based on your Permit to Carry Application Denial.”
Communications were a problem, as English is Mirabal’s second language. In many instances, it appeared that there were misunderstandings. The Carlstadt Police seemed to label them as “falsifications.” There were a whole host of issues. None of which revolved around a criminal background.
The application process does not allow for help to be rendered. People who are legally able to own and possess firearms don’t get help when there are procedural issues with the application process. In New Jersey – obviously some jurisdictions – would rather say someone “falsified” an application and or that they’re a threat to public health, rather than render aid to those applying.
After the review of many of Mirabal’s materials, the officer in charge of permitting, Detective Sergeant Mark Wong, was contacted. On June 4, 2024, the following was sent to Wong:
Attention Detective Sergeant Wong,
I’m a freelance journalist who has been covering firearm permitting in New Jersey. I’ve been following up with a number of leads and one of them directed me to your office.
If you have time to chat about the firearm permitting process with me, it would be appreciated.
I’d be available to chat on the phone tomorrow morning, or if you prefer Thursday morning through early afternoon around 1330.
Thank you kindly for your time. I hope to have a chance to chat with you soon in the near future.
Advertisement
Wong never responded with a comment or to set up time to discuss the matter. The email went ignored.
Mirabal, in need of a permit to carry for employment purposes as an employee of an armored vehicle company, applied for a permit to carry again in 2024.
Like the other applications that Mirabal went through, that permit to carry process was filled with delays and miscommunications. Eventually he queried about what the holdup was all about. Detective Sergeant Mark Wong’s May 28th’s correspondence to him about his application is rather chilling.
We are still conducting your background investigation. As it currently stands, we recognized your driving history appears to have remained unchanged. Were you able to file for the expungement of any of your driving history records?
Mirabal did respond to Wong concerning the driving record.
Good afternoom [sic] !
Yes im doing all i can on my driving record to fix it, but as you know everything is a process and it takes time.
I want you to send me the part of the New Jersey law where it says you have to have a perfect driving record to get a gun permit.
It is illegal and unconstitutional to deny a gun permit using the driving record as an excuse. The law of the state of New Jersey is clear and says that to be descualified [sic] you must have a criminal record with crimes in the first, second or third degree.
Interestingly enough, Mirabal did get an answer to that subsequent May 28th email. In a letter dated May 24th, two days prior to the email exchange with Wong, had the Wong’s response to Mirabal’s challenge of the law. The letter was eventually delivered, and it was a denial of Mirabal’s permit to carry application. The stated reason? N.J. 2C:58-3c (5).
That denial letter did not specifically state it was due to Mirabal’s driving history, however Wong’s urging him to get his record expunged – multiple times – certainly points to that being “the reason.” Or does it? There was no explanation on how an expungement of a non-criminal driving record would make Mirabal any more or less qualified to carry a pistol for self-defense.
Advertisement
On July 3, 2024, Chief of Police of Carlstadt, Thomas Cox, was contacted via email to discuss the use of N.J. 2C:58-3c (5). The email was in response to a review of all the subjective denials for permits to carry in the entire state for May of 2024. That was one month after all jurisdictions were contacted via post on the same subject.
“I’d like to strike up a dialogue with you concerning permitting in Carlstadt,” The query to Cox stated. “I don’t know what your level of comfort is, but I’d be happy to try to schedule an on the record phone call with you, or if you rather go back and forth answering questions via email, or if you’d like, I’m happy to give you and overview of what I’m writing about and get a statement from you.” Chief Thomas Cox did not respond to this query.
On July 15, 2024, Mayor Robert Zimmermann was contacted via email about the use of subjective denials in his town. “I’m writing concerning a letter I sent you in April about the issuance of handgun permits to carry,” The query opened. “I’ve pasted a copy of that letter below the signature block for you to review, to get you back up to speed.”
Mayor Zimmermann was invited to comment again on the continued use of the illegal standard, “Can I get a comment on the record from your office – or really, I’ll happily talk to you off the record as well – about why the department is using 2C:58-3c(5) in denying permits, still? Your office was notified about the use of this standard, and if you have a comment, I’d appreciate one.”
Mayor Robert Zimmermann of Carlstadt, New Jersey did not respond to any of the requests for comment. Nor did he opt to discuss Chief Thomas Cox’s allowing an illegal standard to be used. A standard that’s been proven to be used disproportionately against other minorities.
Because the issuance of a permit to carry was necessary for occupational purposes for Mirabal, he had another path forward. Mirabal was able to apply directly to a New Jersey State Police Barracks for a permit to carry. That permit would restrict him to just carry as an armored car employee. According to Mirabal, he applied, was approved – without issue, and had his permit emailed to him within four weeks of application. The permit’s issue date was June 2, 2024.
Advertisement
What constitutes a 2C:58-3c(5) denial is very murky. One jurisdiction, earlier this year, unknowingly admitted that the standard is exactly why footnote #9 states eligibility requirements are to be objective.
“You appear to be seeking specific, exacting criteria, which is not all-inclusive and cannot be created to cover every possibility,” The explanation from one police department stated. “Every applicant is different, and this section of denial is not used exclusively, but rather, specific disqualifying information is both covered under its specific subsection, but can also apply to character.”
A request for comment was put out to Attorney General Matthew Platkin’s office about denials based on non-criminal traffic infractions. “Can you please direct me to any guidance that’s given to issuing authorities on non-criminal driving records and the denial of firearm related paperwork?” The request stated. “If there’s a list or some sort of MEMO available, can you please share it with me?”
Platkin’s office has repeatedly “decline[ed] to comment” on most queries asking about the use of the subjective standard.
Platkin was also invited to weigh in on denials due to traffic offenses in any manner he wished. It was explained that “Comments will not be edited or cut down.” Further, it was important to establish that “the topic of denials for traffic offenses is not currently the subject of any litigation,” as litigation has been cited as a reason for not commenting in the past.
The Office of the Attorney General has failed to respond to the request.
What about Leonard Mirabal and his current status? It’s great that he was able to receive a permit to carry for work purposes. However, wasn’t NYSRPA v. Bruen supposed to completely negate such interest balances? Mirabal was never supposed to have to go to the issuing authority with a reason for wanting his permit to carry.
While discussing the issuance of his armored car permit to carry with the state police barracks, Mirabal mentioned wanting an unrestricted permit. The officers at the barracks told him to apply through them. Mirabal did, and 16 days later he was issued his unrestricted permit to carry. That permit – like his other – was signed by Colonel Patrick J. Callahan – the head of the New Jersey State Police.
Advertisement
Mirabal’s story raises a pile of important questions. The obvious, why are subjective standards still being used? The next would be why is one jurisdiction using a driving record to subvert a right while a state agency is saying that shouldn’t be the case? Why hasn’t the Attorney General weighed in on this and issued guidance on subjective standards? How is Chief Thomas Cox from Carlstadt able to justify not putting his signature on a permit that Colonel Callahan had no issue with?
And finally, what’s Officer Wong’s issue with Mirabal? Anecdotally, Mirabal alleges that Wong told him he did not have the right “attitude” to carry a firearm. Mirabal had some issues with the paperwork, and Wong’s advice was to withdraw those applications. And Wong’s final assessment was that Mirabal’s non-criminal driving record – twice – was the burden used to disqualify him from exercising a Constitutional right? But he would have been approved if Mirabal got those driving records expunged – with Wong knowing he did not have the resources for such a thing?
In the end, Mirabal was finally granted his Second Amendment right. It’s not supposed to be like this. It’s supposed to be simple. Non-criminal, you’re good to go. Just because he’s got his permits today, does not mean he’s good tomorrow. What’s going to happen when he applies for another permit to purchase? Is Wong going to justify denying him those now that the State Police has issued him, not one, but two permits to carry? We’ll continue to follow Mirabal’s story as well as as many stories from the disenfranchised in the Garden State.
At the time of publication the following persons failed to respond to requests for comment – some of them ignored multiple requests:
- Detective Sergeant Mark Wong, the permitting officer of the Carlstadt, New Jersey Police Department
- Chief Thomas Cox, chief of police of the Carlstadt, New Jersey Police Department
- Mayor Robert Zimmermann, mayor of Carlstadt, New Jersey
- Attorney General Matthew Platkin, attorney general for the state of New Jersey
Advertisement
