On August 18, 2025, the all-Republican Old Tappan Borough Council in New Jersey voted against a measure that would have refunded the $150 municipal portion of the state’s $200 concealed carry permit fee. The resolution, introduced by Councilman Juan Marti, aimed to reduce the financial barrier for residents seeking to exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm.
Despite the proposal’s modest scope, the measure failed by a 4–3 vote. Mayor Thomas Gallagher, Council President William Boyce, and Councilmembers Ronald Binaghi Jr. and Jin Yhu voted against the rebate, while Marti and two others voted in favor.
Supporters’ Case: Rights Shouldn’t Have a Price Tag
Marti and several Second Amendment organizations—including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS), and the NRA-ILA—argued that government should not put a price tag on the exercise of a fundamental right.
Marti noted that Black and Hispanic New Jerseyans are twice as likely as white residents to live in poverty, making the fees disproportionately burdensome. Advocates echoed the concern, pointing out that “no constitutional right should be hidden behind a pay wall.”
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb sharply criticized the council’s decision, saying Old Tappan’s leaders “voted against liberty in their town” and calling the vote a missed opportunity to stand for freedom.
Opponents’ Arguments: Modest Cost, Municipal Needs
Council opponents framed the issue differently:
- Councilman Binaghi argued that compared to the overall expense of gun ownership—firearms, training, ammunition—the $150 fee was minor and unlikely to pose a serious financial hardship.
- Councilmember Yhu compared the permit fee to other municipal charges, such as building permits or pet licenses, saying it was not an infringement but a regulatory necessity.
- Council President Boyce claimed the idea “wasn’t fully thought out,” while Mayor Gallagher insisted the fee helps cover unfunded mandates from Trenton and provides needed revenue for the borough.
The Larger Lesson: Freedom Over Party
The Old Tappan vote is a sharp reminder that political party labels do not guarantee principle. Even in a borough where every council seat is held by Republicans, elected officials chose bureaucracy and budget padding over protecting a fundamental right.
For many, this decision highlights the danger of blind party loyalty. Too often, voters assume one party will consistently defend freedom while the other will oppose it. In practice, the truth is more complicated. Politicians of all stripes are capable of betraying liberty when it suits convenience, revenue, or political calculation.
Guns For Everyone National’s Stance
At Guns For Everyone National (GFEN), we have never claimed allegiance to a political party. This Old Tappan episode shows exactly why. Parties are fallible, partisan interests shift, and politicians—regardless of their affiliation—can and do compromise on principle.
We don’t align with Republicans or Democrats. We align with freedom. Our mission is simple: to make responsible gun ownership, training, and the exercise of constitutional rights accessible to as many people as possible. That commitment doesn’t depend on party platforms, political donations, or campaign rhetoric—it depends on principle.
Freedom is not a partisan value. It is an American value. And as Old Tappan demonstrated, the fight for it must transcend party lines.
Closing Thought
The question isn’t whether Republicans or Democrats will stand up for liberty in any given moment—it’s whether we the people will demand it. GFEN exists to remind Americans that the right to keep and bear arms is not a bargaining chip. It is a birthright. And protecting it means choosing freedom over party, every single time.