Retired LEOs Targeted

[vladtepes 1,060]

I get why an LEO should be armed active or retired, but there is no real reason a retired leo should be permitted by NJ standards. If he can show a justifiable need then OK. But as far as i'm concerned over a period of 25 years no matter what your profession is you accumulate enemies no matter who you are. The point i would like to make is that everyone should be able to carry, but let's be logical, it's NJ, and no one should be able to bypass the justifiable need based on a previous profession. I for one do not agree with disarming retired LEO but rather argue arming the rest of us.

 

I would like to know in the past 25 years how many gang members... crack heads.. drug dealers.. etc.. you have testified against.. my guess is it will be a number substantially less than typical LEO..

 

listen I get it.. it is messed up that we can not carry in NJ.. but making others suffer in the same way just for the sake of suffering is silly IMO.. these guys at times have dangerous jobs.. and they should be allowed to protect themselves.. government is responsible for the double standard.. NOT LEO..

[MrSurfboard 1]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

[Old School 611]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

 

I don't even know what to say about what you've written.... But YOU are NOT special. And I saw no poison here and no haters only citizens fed up with the system. And from your tone "Mr 24 posts" ask yourself if you are part of the problem.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I would like to know in the past 25 years how many gang members... crack heads.. drug dealers.. etc.. you have testified against.. my guess is it will be a number substantially less than typical LEO..

Does a person have to be a gang member, crack head or drug dealer in order to pursue harm against another? My father has received death threats from former employees he had fired, he's had road range drivers tail him to our house.... the list can go on, and on and on.... All u have to do is set off the wrong person and it will eventually happen whether u even realize it or not. My point was furthest from belittling the inherit danger, as i clearly stated i know why they should be able to carry.

[MrSurfboard 1]

I don't even know what to say about what you've written.... But YOU are NOT special. And I saw no poison here and no haters only citizens fed up with the system. And from your tone "Mr 24 posts" ask yourself if you are part of the problem.

\

Hate the politicians, not us. And I think everyone should carry, but I not going to not because you can't.

[Anselmo 87]

The original topic is not really about retired LEO. It is about the federal gov't telling NJ who can carry in NJ. Sound like a recent recipricity law?? That is what this is all about. 2A says the feds can't make laws against gun ownership. But, can the feds make laws that allow gun "privlidges" above the states wishes?

[PeteF 1,044]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

 

Wow aren't you special.

 

Higher standard my a**. Cop leaves loaded gun on street because he got drunk, slap on the wrist. Us "Normal" folk, in prison. Got a speeding ticket recently? Thought not.

 

It's elitists like you that get people irritated.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Does a person have to be a gang member, crack head or drug dealer in order to pursue harm against another? My father has received death threats from former employees he had fired, he's had road range drivers tail him to our house.... the list can go on, and on and on.... All u have to do is set off the wrong person and it will eventually happen whether u even realize it or not. My point was furthest from belittling the inherit danger, as i clearly stated i know why they should be able to carry.

 

you can not possibly tell me with a straight face it is statistically equally likely that you will encounter as many life threatening criminals as LEO.. it is just not logical...

 

like I said..

I in NO way think that YOU should be not allowed to carry a gun..

I in NO way agree with the double standards government uses across the board.. not just with guns..

 

I am just saying.. cops should without question be allowed to carry guns even after retiring.. just like you should.. infringing on their rights.. does not help US gain more rights..

[vladtepes 1,060]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

 

you are out of your mind.. I am very close with many LEO.. and "higher standard" is a bunch of BS.. special rights.. a bunch of BS..

but you should still be allowed to protect yourself..

[JackDaWack 2,895]

you can not possibly tell me with a straight face it is statistically equally likely that you will encounter as many life threatening criminals as LEO.. it is just not logical...

 

 

I can say for sure that is not at all what i was saying. My point is, you don't have to be a cop to piss someone off by doing your job. No one else if afforded the right to protect themselves by doing their job, thats all i was trying to say. I think it's stupid to strip anyone of there 2a rights regardless of profession. And i agree with said above, this has more to do with NJ standing up to the federal government then anything anyone else has had to say in here. I was really trying to stay away from arguing about retired LEO's in general, and my opinion was based on the current state of NJ's laws.

 

If i wanted to laugh and joke about it, i could merely say, let the active cops protect the retired ones just the same as they protect everyone else, just to prove a (selfish) point. But i figure that does more harm then good. I mean if regular joe has an issue he calls 911, why can't a retired LEO's do the same? Of course that is a load of crap.

 

This is something no one should be for, and im surprised how quick people were/are to jump on LEO's. at the same time i'm quite surprised at some of the counter responses. For a topic that should hit home to every gun owner, this is not how we should be acting.

[bulpup 98]

5 pages later and the winner is......

 

Nj anti-gun people. Cuz we're a mess

[Tactical Monkey 51]

What you good sirs fail to see is that we are not "jealous", or "envious" of your chosen profession and the inherent rights that come with it while you perform your duties on and off duty. The original point of this thread was that when you retire.... how are your 2nd Amendment Rights more important than my retired father's, or my widow next door neighbor, or mine?

 

ETA: Please do not take that as a strike against LEO's, because its not. It's a strike against a failed system that we need support with, especially in this state, and especially from the Law Enforcement Community.

 

I think this needed to be said once more.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I can say for sure that is not at all what i was saying. My point is, you don't have to be a cop to piss someone off by doing your job. No one else if afforded the right to protect themselves by doing their job, thats all i was trying to say. I think it's stupid to strip anyone of there 2a rights regardless of profession. And i agree with said above, this has more to do with NJ standing up to the federal government then anything anyone else has had to say in here. I was really trying to stay away from arguing about retired LEO's in general, and my opinion was based on the current state of NJ's laws.

 

If i wanted to laugh and joke about it, i could merely say, let the active cops protect the retired ones just the same as they protect everyone else, just to prove a (selfish) point. But i figure that does more harm then good. I mean if regular joe has an issue he calls 911, why can't a retired LEO's do the same? Of course that is a load of crap.

 

This is something no one should be for, and im surprised how quick people were/are to jump on LEO's. at the same time i'm quite surprised at some of the counter responses. For a topic that should hit home to every gun owner, this is not how we should be acting.

 

I stated about the same as you are here..

 

NJ will continue to fail.. because as pointed out.. the NJ gun community is a "mess"

 

you would cut each others throat for equality.. and then there are those in the shooting community who are happy that they can shoot skeet.. and they don't have the slightest clue or care as to why you would want a commie military gun..

 

until there is some sense of unity.. where EVERYONE is fighting for a common good (expansion of rights) there will continue to be fail..

to be clear I am NOT picking on a single individual.. I just think the lack of unity is a little disturbing..

[vladtepes 1,060]

I think this needed to be said once more.

 

I explained it in detail..

my retired father is not very likely to run into a violent gang member that he helped put away for 20 years..

my retired father is not likely to run into that drug dealer who lost his entire empire due to my fathers actions..

 

it is VERY logical that grudges will not just disappear once the LEO retires.. thus to be safe it is logical that he needs to be armed..

to have CCW license in NJ in its current form.. you need a credible reasonable need.. I am sure that ANY LEO has been told on numerous occasions that he would "get his".. I am sure that most LEOs have been in violent scuffles at one time or another..

 

does that mean YOU should not be allowed to carry? NO

but that is the illogical conclusion I see in this thread..

"I can not carry so retired LEO should not be able to either" and that IS a BS selfish stance.. the statement SHOULD read.. "a LEO life is just as valuable as mine.. I should be allowed to carry also"

 

the desire to limit another mans freedom so it equals your limited freedom IS jealousy.. the desire to increase your rights to match another mans freedom is fairness..

[Nikos 31]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

 

It's not jealousy, but you're obviously missing the point of the main argument. Judging by the content of your post, it seems your job simply provides you with the loopholes and tools necessary to make you feel like the big fish in the little pond.

 

You should read KpdPipes post in the previous page, maybe you can learn a thing or two.

[Underdog 1,593]

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.

 

There are others that might have enemies as well. Let the retired cops call the police if they need assistance, just like everyone else. If they feel that they are in danger, let them move.

 

The police (and politicians and lawyers, judges included) are citizens and should not have ANY benefits that the average citizen doesn't have, unless it is proscribed in them doing their job. And, that said, they should have NO responsibility when off duty, unless they are being paid to be on call. I have a respect for police and the job and sacrifices that they go through, but that was something they chose. If I was in retail, I would have to work when the stores are open, etc. Working on building a skyscraper, well, I could fall, etc. And, currently police get paid plenty for their service with health benefits, etc. after they retire. Do those in uniform risk their lives? Yes. Are many exemplorary humans and citizens, you bet. Does the average citizen waiting for an officer risk his, you bet. Personally, I don't even think current LEOs should be able to carry off duty. And, while we are at it, I don't think they should have vests to wear, either, unless I am allowed.

 

The "US" and "Them" attitude has little place in being a peace officer.

 

I should be able to have access with whatever unclassified weapons the military or police have. I should be able to own a select fire M1A if I want to. And I should be able to carry concealed, or openly. As citizens, if the LEOs don't like that, then let them be part of changing the laws.

 

And, I would start with the anti-gun, politically appointed leaders.

[GRIZ 3,369]

The point of the OP is NJ is doing this to protest Federal laws (like LEOSA and the reciprocity for CCW permits throughout all states) that are contrary to state laws. It has nothing to do with the 2A and 14A. It is about a Federal law vs a state law. It has to do with what LEOs NJ wants to give a carry permit which can be different than what LEOSA says. The fact is the Federal law will prevail as was stated in the OP. This has degraded to cops "feel like they're better than the rest of us" and no mention of the fact that LEOSA expanded gun rights and has helped bring national reciprocity to the floor of Congress. LEOs were the first class of people to give national reciprocity to as it made sense vs Joe and Bubba who go down to the sheriff's office, pay their $10 and get their permit as is done in some states.

 

The post about dangerous occupations with death rates is interesting but how many fisherman or loggers get shot at? watch some of the stupid things these guys do on "Dangerous Catch" or "Ax Men" and a lot of the injuries are most certainly to a a lackadasical attitude not getting shot at.

 

The cop bashing here has not taken any new forms. All the I shoot better than most cops, I'm smarter, and I make more money comments are laughable and all display a lack of maturity and understanding.

 

I've sent more years educating people (and a lot of lEOs) on 2A issues than many of the dissenters here have been on earth. I don't feel "special" because I spent over 30 years as a LEO. I will continue to carry under LEOSA and with my NJ Retired LEO permit. I find it difficult to believe so many so called pro 2A people argue against a law than expands gun rights because it doesn't benefit them.

[MrSurfboard 1]

There are others that might have enemies as well. Let the retired cops call the police if they need assistance, just like everyone else.

 

The police (and politicians and lawyers, judges included) are citizens and should not have ANY benefits that the average citizen doesn't have, unless it is proscribed in them doing their job. And, that said, they should have NO responsibility when off duty, unless they are being paid to be on call. I have a respect for police and the job and sacrifices that they go through, but that was something they chose. If I was in retail, I would have to work when the stores are open, etc. Do those in uniform risk their lives? Yes. Does the average citizen waiting for an officer risk his, you bet. Personally, I don't even think current LEOs should be able to carry off duty. And, while we are at it, I don't think they should have vests to wear, either, unless I am allowed.

 

I should be able to have access with whatever unclassified weapons the military or police have. I should be able to own a select fire M1A if I want to. And I should be able to carry concealed. As citizens, if the LEOs don't like that, then let them be part of changing the laws.

Thank God you aren't in charge.

[Qel Hoth 33]

 

 

it is VERY logical that grudges will not just disappear once the LEO retires.. thus to be safe it is logical that he needs to be armed..

to have CCW license in NJ in its current form.. you need a credible reasonable need.. I am sure that ANY LEO has been told on numerous occasions that he would "get his".. I am sure that most LEOs have been in violent scuffles at one time or another..

 

 

 

According to a NJ Superior Court Judge that is not good enough reason for a CCW (Muller v. Maenza et. al.).

 

The only reason Muller has his CCW is so NJ could take one of the prime plaintiffs out of the case.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Thank God you aren't in charge.

Why is that? In fact, if he moved to a different state, he could accomplish all of what he posted and more!

[Underdog 1,593]

Thank God you aren't in charge.

 

I exaggerated a little, and I like 70-80% of the police officers I come in contact with, perhaps even more. And, I recognize the difficulty job that they have and the BS they put up with. But, the truth is that ALL citizens should be treated even-handedly and fairly, and we ALL should have the means and right to self-defense. Where do the police stand on my right to carry, and when has an official made a statement on my behalf?

[Underdog 1,593]

You know, I had jury duty and I forgot to remove a tiny little, essentially nail clipper with about a 1/2" blade on it from my key chain. I had to return to my car with it and leave it there before I fulfilled my duty as a citizen, and it was quite a walk. Well, on returning, I watched the security officer allow a man with an open brief case and full-size leatherman go through security. I then called him on it and asked why he should be allowed when I am not allowed. The officer of the court said, well, he's a prominant attorney. I said, I don't care who he is. If I cannot bring my keychain in, then he shouldn't be allowed. Well, the guard "checked" in his stainless tool. I am sure that once I walked away, he just passed it back to him. That has not sat well with me. I know, I know. There is a difference between a beat cop and a esquire.

[Underdog 1,593]

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

 

Thank you for putting so clearly.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

\

Hate the politicians, not us. And I think everyone should carry, but I not going to not because you can't.

 

 

^{Huh? English pwease..................}

[TCinJ 7]

I've got nothing against LEO's but I do believe they should live under the rules that they enforce.

 

In other words - carry in NJ? Foggetaboutit! I hope they get traffic tickets for seat belt violations the next "click it or ticket" campaign or get a ticket for "speeding" 4 mph over the next "obey the signs or pay the fines" zero tolerance campaign.

 

The people that make and enforce the rules generally don't obey them themselves. The rules are for "the little people".

Remember Governor "wear your seatbelt" Corzine getting busted up in an accident because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt? His "highly trained" state police driver was doing over 90 mph and texting. Hmmmmmmmm..........................

[hd2000fxdl 422]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

 

WOW Really, this is really how your thought process works???? Seriously??? Just don't know what to say...

[Duppie 73]

I appreciate the OP post. Too bad jealousy and anti LE types have invaded this thread with their poison. You say LEOs are the same as regular Joes. I disagree. We have had live our life by higher standard then the regular Joe. Activities that would do little to harm the lively hood of the Joe, would end our careers forever. We face danger on a daily basis. We see things that make the average Joe cry for his mommy. So yes, we should be afforded certain rights. If you don't like, too bad. As one other said, you could always pick up an application.

Apparently when your profession has exhausted a reasonable and intelligent discourse we're supposed to pick up an application...One does not have to look too far to discern the few who sully the reputations and integrity of the many. We hear you ..Loud and Clear.

[kenw 293]

In every single thread where Cops are mentioned....Ive fought against these stupid laws, vocally, and paid for it throughout my career.and i;m at the point now that IF being a cop makes me unwelcome here..That's cool too....I survived before NJGF< I'll survive without it. We're allowed to carry retired ONLY because a retired chief was shot and killed in Newark a while back..up until then we only got a permit if we had a PI License or Armed Security gig. IIRC the bill to allow it passed by only 1 vote. So When I retire am i Going to carry Yea..Do i Feel BADLY that the rest of you Cannot? Yes i do, and i'll continue to vote, make calls and write letters to change that until i shake the Dust of NJ off my boots for good.

Pipes,

 

Don't take a few inflammatory posts and build it into a reason for dropping off the boards. You've always been a level headed and sensible voice here, and we need as many of those as we can get (on both sides of the conversation) to keep the facts coming and the useful and practical ideas for change to keep flowing.

 

And for the LEO here who think that the rest of us don't appreciate the sacrifices you make, and don't understand that on any day, you may not get home, you're wrong. We do. Let's not let a small and virtually meaningless debate even further divide us as a community.

 

<soapbox>

There are a few among you who feel a level of entitlement, who feel that if you're not LE, then you're "little people", deserving only of the rights that you deign to grant them, and who, by virtue of their chosen profession only, deserve to be treated as an exclusive class, unburdened by the petty rules and politics that are the annoyances of daily life. The whole "let them try to do what we do" argument is a trembling house of cards. Let you try open heart surgery, or flying a passenger jet, or teaching kindergarten, or any of the thousands of other jobs that keep civilization running. You are not the ones keeping the barbarians at the gate from getting in. Everyone does their part, and the arrogance of thinking that without you, society would crumble into anarchy is comical. We would get along just fine, and that may be the problem.

</soapbox>

 

That said, I have a question for the LEOs

If an executive order were handed down and you were given instructions to come down hard and arrest any retired LEO that you were aware was carrying legally under Federal law, but in violation of NJ law, what would you do? Where would your loyalties lie? What would be your rationalization for your decision?

[Tactical Monkey 51]

I explained it in detail..

....

 

Re-read my post. It was already explained in detail. At no point did I say or mention to take away the right to carry by retired LEO's. What I DID say, was the justification behind assigning that right is flawed.

 

ETA: A criminal is a criminal - their first action was not assaulting a retired LEO, their first action was assaulting/robbing/car jacking/mudering/raping/stabbing an unarmed, easy target, in the state of NJ. Whether he is seeking revenge on retired LEO, or attempting to rape a 20yo female, I'd say the odds of either action taking place would be similiar. What if the 20yo was the daughter of a retired LEO? Shouldn't she have the same rights as her father to protect herself? My point is not about jealousy, it's about equality.

[mikelets456 78]

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

 

I feel it is a moral duty of mine to protect a woman getting the crap beat out of her as well...and I did. I had no gun, no protection just my conscience that told me to do so. I put my life at risk because I don't want to wait 5 minutes for a LEO to get there and live with the possibility that this woman is killed. I don't care about lawsuits and consequences... the thought of that woman being killed would be on my conscience for the rest of my life. If that were my daughter or wife I hope others would do the same.

 

The thing that bothers me is when I got my FID and permits I spoke to the Chief of police in my area. He was very pro-gun and very supportive until I mentioned carrying. At that point his attitude changed [completely] to arrogant. He even stated that most/all citizens are too stupid to carry and to rely on LEOs. "What"? I said. "I am not allowed to defend myself outside of the home"? That really ticked me off, because in reality me walking around without a firearm is in more dangerous or the same as an off duty LEO walking around without one as well.I encounter the same people that you do, I go to the same places and I have my family. What gives an off duty LEO a special right to protect your family when off duty? I have the right to protect my wife and three children just as you do. I would to like hear why you don't think I should have the Constitutional right to defend my family but you can.

 

BTW, my Grandfather and two uncles were Philadelphia cops for their entire lives so I am well aware and respect what you do. I am simply trying to understand why NJ LEOs have the mentality that honest citizens don't need to carry or should not be allowed to. Please, I mean no disrespect and apologize in advance if I seem so.