While dozens of New Jersey municipalities are considering actions to remove infringements upon residents’ Second Amendment rights, the Old Tappan town council is doubling down on unconstitutional infringements and ignoring racial disparities, all over $1,400.
On Monday, August 18, the town council heard and voted NO (3-4) on a measure that proposed to refund the $150 municipal portion of the total $200 fee mandated by the state when a resident applies for a permit to carry a concealed firearm.
“I’m very pleased to see so many towns committing to the permitting fee nullification program we’ve been championing with our partners at NRA-ILA and NJFOS. The Borough of Butler passed their resolution on August 18, following Vernon Township’s passage on the 11th,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “I’m tremendously disappointed with Mayor Thomas Gallagher, Council President William Boyce, Councilmember Ronald Binaghi Jr., and Councilmember Jin Yhu from Old Tappan. They voted against liberty in their town to defend a discriminatory and exclusionary policy.”
The resolution was sponsored and introduced by Councilman Juan Marti, who pointed out that the bill would actually reduce the discriminatory nature of the fee, which disproportionately impacts minorities and low-income residents from exercising their civil liberties:
As a Hispanic male, I want to highlight that Black and Hispanic residents in New Jersey experience poverty at more than double the rate of white residents. So, who are we really affecting with these policies? It’s primarily low-income individuals, and according to the New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, Black and Hispanic people are twice as likely to be in poverty. I respect everyone’s comments, but I wanted to emphasize this because it’s important to understand the impact of what we’re voting on.
Joe LoPorto, director of legal operations of the New Jersey Firearm Owners Syndicate, a 501(c)(4) Second Amendment advocacy organization, gave testimony about the fundamental necessity of such a measure, and what it communicates to the community, as he’s done at many other council meetings.
“No constitutional right should be hidden behind an exorbitant pay wall. I acknowledge the previous speaker’s comments,” said LoPorto.
“We appreciate that there are administrative costs involved, but ultimately, no one should be charged for the right to come here and speak to this council or to exercise their religion. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right.”
LoPorto’s comments were in response to a statement from an Old Tappan resident, Mike Azarian, who spoke to oppose the measure stating, “I believe that anyone who owns a handgun, can afford one, and wants a concealed carry permit should be able to cover the fee. I also believe those fees could be used to educate people in our town, especially our children and students, about weapon safety and the dangers they pose in the community.”
Another resident expressed his concerns that the removal of the fee would negatively impact the town, and administrative costs would be shifted into the general budget. He incorrectly implied that fingerprinting was administered under the fee, as that is paid for separately by the applicant directly to IdentGo.
The town council discussion focused almost entirely upon the supposed negative impact that the fee reduction would have on town affairs. According to NJNICS and the Permit to Carry dashboard, there are 19 permits outstanding in the Borough of Old Tappan, accounting for approximately $1,400 a year in affected revenue. A total of 61 have been approved.
Votes and Reasoning
With that background, the council cast their votes, invoking some of the most bizarre arguments imaginable, implying that they either don’t understand constitutional rights, or are simply brazenly opposed to them being exercised without financial infringement.
Councilman Ronald Binaghi (Voted No):
Councilman Binaghi couched his position as a purported supporter of the Second Amendment.
“Let me start by saying that I fully support the Second Amendment of our Constitution,” Binaghi said. “The right to bear arms, whether for hunting or personal protection, remains strong, despite being manipulated over the years to fit various political agendas. I still believe in it.”
He then went on to explain to his residents that the fee isn’t really that expensive compared to gun ownership, completely ignoring arguments about the constitutionality and discriminatory nature of the fee:
As for costs, a firearm itself can range from $200 to $700, with an average of about $300 to $400 based on my research. Ammunition costs around $1 per bullet, according to our police chief. Training and ongoing training can each cost a few hundred dollars. When you add it all up, the total can easily exceed $1,000, though that’s just an estimate—don’t hold me to it. In comparison, a $150 permit fee is one of the lower expenses on this list. Given the other costs, I don’t believe it creates a hardship for a prospective gun owner who can afford the rest.
Councilman Jin Yhu (Voted No):
“In our town, if you own a dog or cat, you pay an annual license fee. This fee supports programs like vaccination clinics, including rabies vaccinations, and other animal control initiatives,” Yhu explained. “Similarly, if you add an extension to your home, you pay a fee to the building department to ensure an inspector verifies that the construction meets code and doesn’t endanger your life or others.’ In my view, these fees don’t infringe on your right to own a pet, build on your property, or own a gun.”
Council President William Boyce (Voted No):
“I don’t think this issue has been fully thought out yet,” Boyce stated. “But, I think there’s more work that needs to be done on this topic.”
Councilman Cort Gwon (Voted Yes):
“Yes,” Gwon said, “with determination if we want our own local fee.”
Councilman Juan Marti (Voted Yes).
Mayor Thomas Gallagher (Not Voting):
Mayor Gallagher, whose vote would only count in the event of a tie, took time to put his own opinion on the record and concluded that the $1,400 per year that Old Tappan collects in permitting fees was needed to defray the cost of other unfunded mandates from Trenton:
Let me be clear that I support our Second Amendment right, but I don’t feel this resolution challenges this right. Many are unhappy that the legislators of the state of New Jersey enacted what some call excessive fees to carry a concealed firearm. Why? I cannot answer that question, as the borough of Old Tappan was not asked to comment nor involved in this decision. As I reported last meeting, there are many unfunded mandates that Old Tappan and our residents must adhere to based on the decisions of our legislators. These fees, these fees collected, although not a lot, are used by Old Tappan to balance our budget for all residents and help pay for a part of many of these unfunded mandates.
He went on to say that Old Tappan will be siding with Trenton.
“Agree or disagree,” Gallagher said, “Old Tappan will follow the lawful enactment of legislation and follow the laws of the state of New Jersey.”
Residents of Old Tappan can presumably expect that their town leadership won’t be standing up to anything Trenton sends their way, whether it is placing financial burdens on core constitutional rights, or forced overdevelopment, or a broken funding formula for state education aid. Republicans in Old Tappan apparently intend on carrying out Trenton’s marching orders without question.
