A trial court's findings regarding the denial of an application to carry a handgun in public are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23 (App. Div. 2003). Our review of the trial court's legal conclusions, of course, is plenary.

Findings by the trial court reviewing the denial of an application to carry a handgun in public are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23 (App. Div. 2003). However, we are not bound by the court's interpretation of the Constitution, State v. Wheeler, 433 N.J. Super. 560, 572 (App.

"We are not bound [] by the rule-of-law bases undergirding the trial judges' evaluations whether applicants had met the third standard of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4c, 'justifiable need to carry a handgun.'" In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23-24 (App. Div. 2003) (citing Manalapan Realty v. Manalapan Twp. Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995)). Thus, we review the trial court's decision de novo.

Findings by the trial court are binding on appeal when supported by adequate, substantial, credible evidence. In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23 (App. Div. 2003). However, we are not bound by the court's interpretation of the Constitution, Wheeler, supra, 433 N.J. Super. at 572, or the court's evaluation of whether an applicant met the "justifiable need to carry a handgun" standard of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4, which we review de novo.

The requirement is of specific threats or previous attacks demonstrating a special danger to the applicant's life that cannot be avoided by other means. Generalized fears for personal safety are inadequate....”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); In re Pantano, 429 N.J.Super. 478, 60 A.3d 507, 510 (App.Div.2013) (discussing and applying “justifiable need” standard); In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J.Super. 10, 830 A.2d 507 (App.Div.2003) (same). Next, if the chief police officer or superintendent determines that the applicant has met all the requirements, including demonstration of a “justifiable need,” the application is approved and sent to a superior court judge, who:

In In re Application of Borinsky, for example, the New Jersey Appellate Division considered an appeal of the lower courts' orders granting or denying bail enforcement agents' applications to carry firearms. 363 N.J. Super. 10 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2003). In dicta, the Appellate Division discussed the relationship between municipal police officers and "fugitive recovery agents"—i.e., bail bondspersons—stating that "it is not appropriate, as a general matter, that [agents] should be discouraged from their private pursuit of armed and dangerous fugitives and relegated to the need to seek police assistance in such instances."

Id. § 2C:58–4(e). See In re Preis, 573 A.2d at 150;In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J.Super. 10, 830 A.2d 507, 508 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2003). On November 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed the complaint in the current action as a facial constitutional challenge to the Handgun Permit Law. Individual plaintiffs Daniel J. Piszczatoski, John M. Drake, Gregory C. Gallaher, Lenny S. Salerno, and Finley Fenton are each a New Jersey resident who asserts that his application for a handgun permit was denied under the challenged law solely on the grounds that he lacked a justifiable need to carry a handgun.

Div. 2013), certif. granted, 214 N.J. 234 (2013), appeal dismissed as improvidently granted, 2014 N.J. LEXIS 904 (2014); In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 23-24 (App. Div. 2003). We affirm the trial court's order substantially for the reasons set forth in Judge Scott Moynihan's written decision.

Accordingly, the prosecutor submits that the applicant shows only an unsubstantiated generalized fear, insufficient to justify the permit and that the applicant did not competently demonstrate "justifiable need to carry a handgun." In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J. Super. 10, 24 (App. Div. 2003); N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d). On appeal, for the first time, the applicant asserts that the statutory requirement of "justifiable need to carry a handgun" violates his Second Amendment right. N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4(d).

We discern no grounds to disturb Judge DeStefano's finding that Pantano failed to show justifiable need. Pantano attempts to distinguish his situation from those found insufficient in Siccardi, supra;In re Application of “ X”, 59 N.J. 533, 284 A.2d 530 (1971); In re Application of Borinsky, 363 N.J.Super. 10, 830 A.2d 507 (App.Div.2003); and Doe v. Dover Twp., 216 N.J.Super. 539, 524 A.2d 469 (App.Div.1987). Pantano argues that in those cases, the applicant had available an alternative to carrying a handgun for self-protection, by obtaining a police escort as in Siccardi and Application of “ X”, or altering the applicant's activities as in Borinsky, or the applicant, as in Doe, simply did not face the same level of threat as did Pantano.