Retired LEOs Targeted

[JimC 1]

I received this yesterday from a friend whom I consider a reliable source for such information.

 

 

 

Subject: Retired LEOs targeted

 

Qualified retired LEOs who meet LEOSA's standards can carry concealed without a permit, but “that does not mean they cannot be arrested.” That is what a New Jersey Deputy Attorney General argued in court this week. The State also argued that retired LEOs have no Second Amendment right to carry and therefore it can prohibit anyone from carrying outside the home. The State knows the charges will not stick under LEOSA, but its sending a message to all off-duty and retired LEOs to stay away or be inconvenienced by a night in jail.

 

What the State’s prosecution wing has not done is speak with its civil defense wing, if it had it would know that having a policy of deliberate indifference to the civil rights of anyone can lead to big bucks from a jury. Nonetheless, until then the State is content with its position and is now targeting two retirees who carried on-call 24 x7 as arson investigators for over 15 years each. One was a policeman before becoming an arson investigator and the other a military policemen before becoming an arson investigator.

 

These retired LEOs should be thanked for their service. They are not being targetted because of anything in their backgrounds, but because the State arbitrarily said carrying on-call as an active LEO for 15 years to investigate arson and environmental related crimes was not enough for a retire LEO permit. NJ argued that anyone who did not have "unlimited agency carry authority" and "broad general LE authority for all crimes" should be denied a retired LEO permit. When I informed the Court that this new standard would eliminate many Federal officers, corrections officers, etc... from retired permits in NJ, the State's deputy AG and County prosecutor did not care. The State reasserted its right to deny permits to any group.

 

This attitude of arrogance in the face of the United States Constitution, however, may lead to the judicial abrogation of New Jersey’s Retired LEO Permit Program. We are expecting a decision soon.

 

If the Court rules that the program violates the Equal Protection Clause by excluding “similarly situated” LEOs, there will be no permits for anyone until the program is fixed. The same may happen in MA, IL, and other states that arbitrarily deny permits to one group of qualified LEOs while giving them to other groups.

 

If you know of a friend who wants to know more about this issue and their rights under LEOSA, forward this em

[Vlad G 345]

Honestly .. good. Equal protection and all that. We are either all citizens or we are not. Maybe this will make some of the various LEO groups rethink their position on concealed carry permits.

[e80hydro 120]

Honestly .. good. Equal protection and all that. We are either all citizens or we are not. Maybe this will make some of the various LEO groups rethink their position on concealed carry permits.

 

+1

[Old School 611]

Honestly .. good. Equal protection and all that. We are either all citizens or we are not. Maybe this will make some of the various LEO groups rethink their position on concealed carry permits.

 

I didn't want to be the first to say this but, I'm kind of glad that everyone feels the pain...

 

Remember LEO's are civilians citizens just like anyone else. Contrary to what some think.

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

I didn't want to be the first to say this but, I'm kind of glad that everyone feels the pain...

 

Remember LEO's are civilians citizens just like anyone else. Contrary to what some think.

 

Actually no we are not. Your everyday citizen doesn't have a duty to react to a situation. If I am off duty and see something that constitutes a dangerous or violent crime I must act as if I m on duty. I must confront the situation. Joe citizen cn ignore it or call the police and leave. So no we are not the same in that manner. I still think ccw laws in this state are garbage and me being able to carry all the time does not make me better than you. I just have a different job that requires me to technically act 24/7.

[Vlad G 345]

Is that department policy, state policy, moral obligation? Does it carry weight cross state lines?

[Old School 611]

Actually no we are not. Your everyday citizen doesn't have a duty to react to a situation. If I am off duty and see something that constitutes a dangerous or violent crime I must act as if I m on duty. I must confront the situation. Joe citizen cn ignore it or call the police and leave. So no we are not the same in that manner. I still think ccw laws in this state are garbage and me being able to carry all the time does not make me better than you. I just have a different job that requires me to technically act 24/7.

 

You are a civilian unless you are Military. You may take your 24/7 obligation seriously but that is not always the case.

 

Unless you are like the off duty AH that cut me off while he was on the cell phone then pulled me over and flashed his badge. He was a 24/7 guy....

 

Not bashing just saying...

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Frank, I think he just wanted to get a glance at a license with 0001 on it....

[kenw 293]

Actually no we are not. Your everyday citizen doesn't have a duty to react to a situation. If I am off duty and see something that constitutes a dangerous or violent crime I must act as if I m on duty. I must confront the situation. Joe citizen cn ignore it or call the police and leave. So no we are not the same in that manner. I still think ccw laws in this state are garbage and me being able to carry all the time does not make me better than you. I just have a different job that requires me to technically act 24/7.

If you read the OP, the discussion is about retired LEO having a Federal right to carry, regardless of state laws to the contrary. I'm all good with off duty LEO carrying, but once you retire, you're just another one of us, and it really is an issue of equal treatment under the law. And before you go to the "but we're better trained than the average citizen" place, let's remember that there are all sorts of proficiency levels in any group, and even though I'm not as proficient as many among the members here, I've shot next to cops, both active and retired, whose lack of skill and common sense with a firearm scared the crap out of me.

 

I think that NJ firearm laws are ridiculous and need to be changed, but until that happens, I prefer that everyone be treated the same, and that someone's past job isn't a singular reason to protect a right that is denied to virtually everyone else.

 

YMMV.

[BlueLineFish 615]

It is part of policy policy. We have a duty to act. Personally it is moral too. For others it is not. Ones response and how it is looked upon is different depending on here you are. Technically if something happens in you area of or near it you are a cop of duty. if I am in an area far fom my jurasdiction and act then I don't have police powers by law. I am still allowed to carry and I personally feel morally obligated to act. I am talking about taking action only when there may be a life in danger outside of my jurasdiction. My scope of responsibility increases within my areas of patrol off duty

[BlueLineFish 615]

 

 

You are a civilian unless you are Military. You may take your 24/7 obligation seriously but that is not always the case.

 

Unless you are like the off duty AH that cut me off while he was on the cell phone then pulled me over and flashed his badge. He was a 24/7 guy....

 

Not bashing just saying...

 

No that guy I an AH. I do have a legal responsibility to act when I am off duty in many situations

[hd2000fxdl 422]

It is part of policy policy. We have a duty to act. Personally it is moral too. For others it is not. Ones response and how it is looked upon is different depending on here you are. Technically if something happens in you area of or near it you are a cop of duty. if I am in an area far fom my jurasdiction and act then I don't have police powers by law. I am still allowed to carry and I personally feel morally obligated to act. I am talking about taking action only when there may be a life in danger outside of my jurasdiction. My scope of responsibility increases within my areas of patrol off duty

 

Ok, but how would you view this after you retire??

[Vlad G 345]

I am talking about taking action only when there may be a life in danger outside of my jurasdiction.

 

I'd argue everyone has a moral responability to do that, police officer or not. The difference is that in this state police officers are better armed then the rest of us in that situtation.

 

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't think highly of any man that would sit back and watch someone lose their life while they could do something about it, police officer or not. Saddly odds are that in NJ that would land me in jail.

[Old School 611]

If you read the OP, the discussion is about retired LEO having a Federal right to carry, regardless of state laws to the contrary. I'm all good with off duty LEO carrying, but once you retire, you're just another one of us, and it really is an issue of equal treatment under the law. And before you go to the "but we're better trained than the average citizen" place, let's remember that there are all sorts of proficiency levels in any group, and even though I'm not as proficient as many among the members here, I've shot next to cops, both active and retired, whose lack of skill and common sense with a firearm scared the crap out of me.

 

I think that NJ firearm laws are ridiculous and need to be changed, but until that happens, I prefer that everyone be treated the same, and that someone's past job isn't a singular reason to protect a right that is denied to virtually everyone else.

 

YMMV.

 

Especially for you senior citizens!

[BlueLineFish 615]

To be honest I haven't looked into anything after retirement. I still would act regardless of whether or not I m required to. One would be surprised more often thn not how people do nothing and allow something to happen.

[kenw 293]

Especially for you senior citizens!

We're right up there together, Grampus.

[Tactical Turtle 11]

To be honest I haven't looked into anything after retirement. I still would act regardless of whether or not I m required to. One would be surprised more often thn not how people do nothing and allow something to happen.

 

+1

[blksheep 466]

http://www.nj.gov/csc/seekers/jobs/safety/

 

Take the test. Do not be angry at LEO's for spending time away from their families, or working holidays and weekends and all other kinds of shifts. Dont be angry at LEO's for taking a test and passing then passing an academy. Do be mad at LEO's for working 25 years hopefully not getting hurt or killed then collecting a pension for those years of civil service.

 

Don't be mad at LEO's because we have to carry a weapon in performance of our duties or in the case of off-duty to protect their families against harm from some person they locked up or spent years with in prison that holds a grudge. They arent mad at you because you make x amount of dollars a year and have weekend and holidays off to spend with your families. They arent mad at you because you sit in an office or warehouse or wherever and enjoy the comforts of air conditioning or being able to talk to your families on your cell phone whenever your heart desires. LEO's whether they are State Troopers, Local Police, Corrections, Park Police or whatever give up alot of their lives to the jobs and for the most dont complain about how non-LEO's live. If it seems like we stick together, of course we do no matter where we work or for what department. People do not understand about the job or the sacrifices.

I dont agree about CCW policies regarding civilians, but it is what it is. Either put more money into groups that get it changed or move out. As harsh as it sounds thats the reality.

Take the test if you want. I think it comes out again in a little while.

[Socom 19]

all i have to say is i have 4 fam members that are cops 3 in hoboken and 1 in jersey city; i do get jealous of them haha but i do care they do a great job on a daily basis regardless

[blksheep 466]

I dont think I am better than anyone else, I just chose a different profession. There are always exceptions to the rule of people who abouse power but dont lump everyone into the same category. Thats not fair.

[blksheep 466]

If you think some people have a bad taste in their mouth about non-LEO's just read some posts and you see why.

[Tactical Turtle 11]

http://www.nj.gov/csc/seekers/jobs/safety/

 

Take the test. Do not be angry at LEO's for spending time away from their families, or working holidays and weekends and all other kinds of shifts. Dont be angry at LEO's for taking a test and passing then passing an academy. Do be mad at LEO's for working 25 years hopefully not getting hurt or killed then collecting a pension for those years of civil service.

 

Don't be mad at LEO's because we have to carry a weapon in performance of our duties or in the case of off-duty to protect their families against harm from some person they locked up or spent years with in prison that holds a grudge. They arent mad at you because you make x amount of dollars a year and have weekend and holidays off to spend with your families. They arent mad at you because you sit in an office or warehouse or wherever and enjoy the comforts of air conditioning or being able to talk to your families on your cell phone whenever your heart desires. LEO's whether they are State Troopers, Local Police, Corrections, Park Police or whatever give up alot of their lives to the jobs and for the most dont complain about how non-LEO's live. If it seems like we stick together, of course we do no matter where we work or for what department. People do not understand about the job or the sacrifices.

I dont agree about CCW policies regarding civilians, but it is what it is. Either put more money into groups that get it changed or move out. As harsh as it sounds thats the reality.

Take the test if you want. I think it comes out again in a little while.

 

Couldn't put it better myself. +1

[Qel Hoth 33]

Regardless of how long one has been a LEO, once you retire, you are just another citizen,.no more, no less. You no longer have a duty to do anything, and your "moral" obligations are irrelevant.

 

If you want to claim the right to ccw under 2a and 14a, you must grant the same right to every other citizen, and accepting anything less cannot be tolerated.

[Jon 264]

Regardless of how long one has been a LEO, once you retire, you are just another citizen,.no more, no less. You no longer have a duty to do anything, and your "moral" obligations are irrelevant.

 

If you want to claim the right to ccw under 2a and 14a, you must grant the same right to every other citizen, and accepting anything less cannot be tolerated.

 

If somehow the planets aligned and you were granted a NJ CCW, would you choose not to carry because no one else could get that permit?

[deadeye74 5]

Something is kind of strange when you tell someone for 25 years or so, they have a duty to act then one day just turn it off. Cops, firefighters, EMT's spend their careers reacting to things that go bad. When you do that every day for several years, duty to act becomes embedded into you. Even though you retire, nothing says you throw out the oath you took to protect and serve in your respective discipline.

 

When a LEO retires they do become a regular citizen but the bonds of the brotherhood they belong to don't just evaporate!

 

I am curious though as to how on duty LEO would respond if he/she was suddenly caught in a shoot out, alone, and either a citizen with CCW or a retired LEO with CCW stopped and offered to help. Would they be charged if they exchanged gunfire with the criminal? Would the on duty LEO tell them no thanks, my back up will be here soon?

[blksheep 466]

Something is kind of strange when you tell someone for 25 years or so, they have a duty to act then one day just turn it off. Cops, firefighters, EMT's spend their careers reacting to things that go bad. When you do that every day for several years, duty to act becomes embedded into you. Even though you retire, nothing says you throw out the oath you took to protect and serve in your respective discipline.

 

When a LEO retires they do become a regular citizen but the bonds of the brotherhood they belong to don't just evaporate!

 

I am curious though as to how on duty LEO would respond if he/she was suddenly caught in a shoot out, alone, and either a citizen with CCW or a retired LEO with CCW stopped and offered to help. Would they be charged if they exchanged gunfire with the criminal? Would the on duty LEO tell them no thanks, my back up will be here soon?

 

Good question. Help is help I guess, but you are right there is a bond that people dont understand that dont do the job. Shift work, Holidays, under appreciation, which is all well and fine. I signed up for the job I have no complaints. Apprecitation is nice but not required, all that we ask is to be left alone, do our jobs and hopefully live long enough to collect some pension payments.

[Smokin .50 1,907]

Honestly .. good. Equal protection and all that. We are either all citizens or we are not. Maybe this will make some of the various LEO groups rethink their position on concealed carry permits.

Vlad I couldn't have said it better!

 

The OP didn't say where these two guys were arson investigators and WHY they were walking around NJ without the NJ carry permit available in NJ to retirees. Or why the Co. Prosecutor's Office (if in NJ) didn't task them with carrying as part of their jobs.

 

So IF someone hires me to do my job in an unsafe area, I can just slap-on a piece concealed? NOT!

 

Seems like there's a little more to the story than what is printed here.

[Gorilla800lbs 12]

I think the historical origins of retired LEOs being allowed to carry have to do with the fact that over the lifetime of service, the policemen accumulate a lot of enemies who might be inclined to settle their score once the cop isn't wearing a badge anymore. Honorable as the LEOs sacrifices during their service may be, their CCW is NOT a retirement perk in recognition of their years. It's their protection. Now, I admit I may mother fully informed, but it does seem that being an arson investigator for 15 years is NOT the same thing as, say, being a beat cop for 15.

[Qel Hoth 33]

If somehow the planets aligned and you were granted a NJ CCW, would you choose not to carry because no one else could get that permit?

 

No, I would still carry because I have a obligation to protect my myself and my family.

 

I would not, however, use my former career as evidence of my right or justification to carry.

 

 

I think the historical origins of retired LEOs being allowed to carry have to do with the fact that over the lifetime off service, the policemen accumulate a lot of enemies who might be inclined to settle their score once the cop isn't wearing a badge anymore. Honorable as the LEOs sacrifices during their service may be, their CCW is NOT a retirement perk in recognition of their years. It's their protection. Now, I admit I may mother fully informed, but it does seem that being an arson investigator for 15 years is NOT the same thing as, say, being a beat cop for 15.

 

CCW for any person isn't a "perk" of anything. CCW is because, as citizens, we all have the right to defend ourselves against those that wish to do us harm.

 

Using that logic, we should all have to make enemies or be victims of some crime before we should be allowed to get a CCW.

[Shane45 807]

I think that there is a muddied argument being made here. Duty to act is not relevant to a fed law allowing retired LE to carry. But this convo ties in to some statements I had made previously on this forum and that was the disiparity of the human right to protect ones self. Retired LE, like corrections officers are afforded the right to self protection presumably because they may be targeted or run into someone that harbors bad intentions toward them for actions performed during their active service. This, for me, sparks MANY questions!!!! Why are rights different for groups of people. I believe this to be pattently wrong!!!!!

 

Why cant an individual that has served in the military in Delta force, recieved more firearms training than entire police departments recieve in a decade, fought evil worldwide get a permit to protect themself?

 

Why cant a retired LE who worked a supermax prison for 30 years and come into contact with the baddest of the bad get a carry permit without jumping through yearly hoops and expence of certification?

 

Why cant a person that has been abducted in error by a biker gang who testified against them and put them behind bars have the right to protect themself.

 

Why CAN any non leo non with zero training that gets a ccw because they are friends with a judge or politician have one with NO requirements whatsovere, yearly or otherwise?

 

WHY AS CITISENS OF THE UNITED STATES DO WE TOLERATE THESE DESPARITIES IN HUMAN RIGHTS??????? We might as well bring back segregation, repeal womans right to vote, deny employemnt on race, religion or sexual oreintation if we are going to continue to grant or deny rights based on the group they belong to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Shane