No Carry Permit Because Applicant's E-Mails to Government Cast Doubt on His "Ability to Engage in Coherent and Rational Thinking"

An excerpt from the long opinion earlier this week in In re Application for a Permit to Carry a Handgun by R.R., by N.J. Appellate Division Judges Joseph Marczyk and James Paganelli:

Detective Berry … testified regarding various emails petitioner sent to the Sayreville clerk referring to the “Blood of Christ” and an affidavit submitted by petitioner to Sayreville regarding “[o]ne’s [e]ntire [z]ygote/[p]ellucid [m]embrane as the [s]ingular ‘[h]istorical & [p]resent, [r]eligious & [s]cientific, [n]ative & [c]ustomary, [t]ruth & [m]atter of [f]act’ [p]roving [o]ne’s [p]ersonal, [p]rivate, and [c]onfidential [p]roperty/[p]aramount [e]quity ‘[f]ound’ within [o]ne’s [o]riginal [b]iological /DNA [b]irthday ‘[c]ake’ a.k.a. [o]ne’s ‘[b]aggage and [e]ffects’ a.k.a. [o]ne’s [p]lacenta.” Detective Berry testified he did not understand what petitioner was discussing, and the communications were “kind of rambling” and had nothing to do with petitioner’s tax issues.

Detective Berry further testified regarding: petitioner’s referencing credit as a “figment of the imagination,” ballot harvesting schemes, the banking system being owned by the “cult,” a Wisconsin election being rigged by dictators in Syria and Korea, a governor’s handling of a teacher shortage, and references to a conservative song writer. Detective Berry stated that in his “training and experience,” he never saw “an individual correspond with a government body” in this manner and that petitioner was “not really addressing any specific issue.”

In one email, petitioner noted the SPD Chief was married and named his wife and his children. Detective Berry testified it appeared petitioner “cut and paste[d]” this information from the Chief’s biography on the SPD’s website. Detective Berry referenced this communication in his denial letter. He testified “the way that [petitioner] was interacting regarding his permit [application]” caused him concern, as petitioner “was demanding answers” and “wasn’t letting the investigative process play out.” He also testified petitioner’s references to the Chief’s family caused him concern.

Detective Berry conceded on cross-examination that Sayreville never told petitioner to stop sending emails. He also acknowledged petitioner was previously approved for a firearms purchaser identification card and had obtained permits to purchase a handgun as recently as 2022. He also testified there was no evidence petitioner had threatened anyone with violence or had any documented mental health issues.

Petitioner testified he is a retired electrician and has owned firearms since 1980. When asked why he sent the numerous emails and documents to Sayreville, petitioner stated they were intended “[t]o notice” Sayreville of “correcting the record,” and that his references to the blood of Christ referred to his “religious and spiritual belief[s].”

Petitioner’s counsel objected to petitioner having to “explain his religious beliefs.” The court overruled the objection. The following colloquy took place between the prosecutor and petitioner:

Q: Why did you reference the blood of Christ in that –

A: Okay. My belief and according to our government bill of rights, I have the right to whatever religion I want. In my case it’s Catholicism …. I’ve gone through all the teachings of the Catholic church.

And in the Catholic church it says that Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, which he gave blood….

… [B]y doing so, by God giving his son, that all mankind is relieved of sin.

… Sin is all debt. Any debt…. [A]ll sin is done away with.

Q: … So you put that into a document that you intended to persuade all these people that were copied on it and it’s directed to. What was the purpose in trying to persuade those people? What were you trying to do?

A: Correct the record.

Q: Correct the record about what? That you overpaid your taxes? ….

A: Overage. To clarify the overage….

Q: Where in this document does it talk about overage and the amounts of money that you went over? And outside of using it to discuss zygotes, placentas, birthday cakes, DNA, where does it say in here the amounts that you … overpaid … and how it could be accounted for? Where does it say that? ….

A: By the affidavit that I sent.

Q: Can you point out to us where in this document you discuss the overage?

A: Not this document, but the [ten] before it.

Q: Then what was the purpose of this document? … Talking about zygotes and things of that nature? Placentas and DNA and birthday cake and the blood of Christ.

A: It was to educate people … in general, along with filing it into the court record ….

Q: Educate people how in terms of your issue that you had? ….

A: To inform these people … of the case … for presenting that document to the court ….

Q: And you think that somehow writing dozens of pages about zygotes and placentas and the blood of Christ would have somehow furthered your cause in terms of getting your money back[?]

A: It’s my religious belief and the ultimate aim is that God, through his son ….

Q: Okay. I’m not asking you about your religious beliefs. I’m asking you how … did this address the specific issue that you had? ….

Q: What does a zygote have to do with your tax issue?

A: It has to do with the blood of Christ and the soul and my religious belief, which you’re protesting against it when I applied it.

Q: I’m not protesting anything against your religious belief. I’m asking you how you apply your religious beliefs …. How does this document further your argument?

A: This document relates to the affidavit which relates to the zygote which God ….

… My interpretation of God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ and the transactions they acquired through Pontius Pilate rubbing his hands of the authority that he had over Jesus Christ ….

Two people, hopefully married, sleep together. Each one supplies 23 chromosomes each. When the chromosomes meet, this is an event that may start life. Until God comes along and breathes the breath of life or the soul into the zygote or the chromosomes, it becomes a zygotes and attaches to the womb. Am I correct? …

So eventually, … this zygote becomes a baby, a child with a soul. And in the case with Jesus Christ, same thing happened. God gave his son to take away all the sins of humanity, including debt. Debt is a sin.

Q: Okay. You look at this document and … [w]ere you trying to get out of the foreclosure, or were you trying to get your money back with this document?

A: No, we were addressing the issue of … [o]verage…. We were trying to get the end result of what was owed and not owed, okay? And this was an education, along with filing it in the court … to correct the record….

Q: I mean, I guess … I don’t understand your response ….

A: It’s commonsense…. Commonsense and religion.

Petitioner was questioned about a July 29, 2023 fitness for firearms psychiatric evaluation conducted by Jeffrey Ilardi, M.D., a licensed psychiatrist. He noted that Dr. Ilardi performed a psychiatric evaluation and opined petitioner was “very stable, reliable, intelligent and pleasant.” Dr. Ilardi further noted petitioner was “psychiatrically cleared,” and he was an “appropriate” candidate for a “concealed carry permit.” …

The State argued it was:

not here because [petitioner] was exercising his rights … to express himself in this way…. The issue is whether giving him a permit to carry would be contrary to the public’s safety, health and welfare.

If you go through these documents, … they make little or no sense without any context. And even when [petitioner] was … trying to give context, it didn’t make sense in terms of what he was trying to get across to [Sayreville]. It’s easy to see how people reviewing his permit application would think that he had some mental health stability issues….

And … looking at [the email discussing] … zygotes and placentas and birthday cake …, it makes no sense … in terms of what he was trying to get across. And it speaks … to his … mental stability.

And I understand that he has a permit to purchase and he’s got a firearms ID card. But there’s a difference when someone has a gun in their house to protect themselves and … going out and interacting with the public, with members of the government, with people that he had disputes with.

We affirm substantially for the reasons expressed by the trial court…. The trial court deemed petitioner’s email correspondence with Sayreville “concerning,” “incomprehensible[,] and incoherent.” {We observe petitioner’s emails also contained references to: the “Use of the Period After the ‘S’ in Harry S. Truman’s Name”; excerpts from Charles Dickens’ novel David Copperfield; the Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on Capital and Labor; and an article noting the “[t]he CIA ha[d] been taken over by [the] NSA. Basically, everything created by the UK Royals/Crown/Rothschilds was now null [and] void.”} It was unconvinced based on those communications—coupled with petitioner’s testimony—that petitioner “could formulate the kind of rational thinking expected of individuals permitted to publicly carry firearms.” It further held petitioner’s “ability to engage in coherent and rational[ ] thinking” had “lessened or been compromised to the extent that his ability to publicly carry a firearm is rightfully a health and safety concern for both [petitioner] and the public.”

We conclude the court appropriately analyzed petitioner’s communications and testimony, and it did not err in finding that granting petitioner’s application was not in the best interest of the public health, safety, and welfare under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5)….

Although petitioner presented a report from Dr. Ilardi, who opined petitioner was “psychiatrically stable” and “an appropriate candidate” for a concealed carry permit, the court was not compelled to follow the conclusions of petitioner’s expert…. Despite Dr. Ilardi’s conclusions, the court observed the illogical, convoluted emails—containing references to irrelevant historical, biological, and literary topics—together with petitioner’s testimony, demonstrated petitioner was unable to “engage in coherent and rational[ ] thinking.” These emails were not addressed in Dr. Ilardi’s report….

Assistant Prosecutor Nancy A. Hulett represents the government.

The post No Carry Permit Because Applicant’s E-Mails to Government Cast Doubt on His “Ability to Engage in Coherent and Rational Thinking” appeared first on Reason.com.