Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops from carrying concealed weapon

[1LtCAP 4,264]

Its what we have already been told to do

then yes? for retired of course.

 

 i've already had this type of conversation with a local leo friend/customer. it started off with me talking about wanting a riot mask, and him explaining why i couldn't wear one during "times", and wanted to know why i'd want one anyway. when i explained it to him, he understood. he also knows my ass will be right there with him, should the ruskies invade either of our towns.

[Zeke 5,504]

It's not the "ruskies" now. It's so called " American 's".

[NickySantoro 211]

At the risk of getting flamed - screw them.  There should be not special treatment based on their former job.  Let them show justifiable need just like any other screwed citizen in New Jermany.  Maybe then they would help fight against justifiable need BS.  If them then why not retired military who actually get trained on using guns.  While there are many in law enforcement that are excellent marksmen, many suck beyond belief and should not be able to carry a gun.

Exactly! Same crowd that would have arrested someone for having the sack to carry in violation of an unconstitutional "law", that law being mere political flatulence that some partisan a**wipes wrote down then voted on.

[tattooo 220]

Avatar- Tatoo made me do it.

It's true we have a few.

 

You don't have this privilege view in other states. As you said, misguided, but not incorrect.

 

My people post was directed towards Mipa's wife/ partner

How did i make you pick that avatar ? lol

[1LtCAP 4,264]

It's not the "ruskies" now. It's so called " American 's".

i truly believe(hopefully correctly) that a goodly 90+% of leo's and military will not go against americans so long as the orders are illegal........

[Zeke 5,504]

How did i make you pick that avatar ? lol

you said it was better

[Zeke 5,504]

i truly believe(hopefully correctly) that a goodly 90+% of leo's and military will not go against americans so long as the orders are illegal........

Truly depends on the speed of change. Boil a frog slowly

[Shane45 807]

I like to look at Katrina/LA as a case study. Some mil and le refused to perform confiscations. Ones from anti 2A states, not so much

[siderman 1,140]

i truly believe(hopefully correctly) that a goodly 90+% of leo's and military will not go against americans so long as the orders are illegal........

thers's illegal, and then there'wrong. For example, and using a little drama, with a swipe of the pen NJ outlaws sa rifles....NJSP & County goon squads are formed and set up "legal give backs"at the local church.....you think that 90+% of assigned leo/military will be sick for the duration of that program?

[Spartiati 63]

To me its simple, the states position is someone in LE is far more likely to be at greater risk of retribution do to the excessive exposure to the criminal element. CO's come to mind specifically as an example. This is, in the states mind, justifiable need. It is irrelevant that we all agree that justifiable need is wrong. We should all have the ability to protect ourselves. But this does not diminish the greater exposure some LE face. I absolutely agree they should have the right to carry post retirement. I hold no ill will towards former LE that want that right. Us civilians being denied that right is an issue with our government, not LE. The only thing I will say, is that some LE I have had decades of RTKBA discussions with, had their eyes opened wide about the civilian plight on the topic when they retired and started having to jump through some hoops. Particularly ones in NY!!! They tell me now they understand what I have been talking about all these years.

Not very often though that we hear of a retired cop being attacked once retired. We need to have a clear argument for justified need which basically equates to almost having been killed and even then it's low probability of getting it. So it should be for them as well. I have yet to see any data proving that retired cops are so much more likely to have acts of retribution taken on them that they would be justified in carrying.

 

Right now they are just super citizens, plain and simple.

[1LtCAP 4,264]

thers's illegal, and then there'wrong. For example, and using a little drama, with a swipe of the pen NJ outlaws sa rifles....NJSP & County goon squads are formed and set up "legal give backs"at the local church.....you think that 90+% of assigned leo/military will be sick for the duration of that program?

no, but i think there'll suddenly be a lot of boating accidents.

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

Shouldn't the title of the thread be "

Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops residents from carrying concealed weapon

[Arthur Kill 0]

Not very often though that we hear of a retired cop being attacked once retired. We need to have a clear argument for justified need which basically equates to almost having been killed and even then it's low probability of getting it. So it should be for them as well. I have yet to see any data proving that retired cops are so much more likely to have acts of retribution taken on them that they would be justified in carrying.

 

Right now they are just super citizens, plain and simple.

 

Except, the standard for contemplative legislation is not what "you hear" or what you have "yet to see."  And I think we should all be thankful for that.

 

You're also unknowingly killing your own cause -- if someone that defends the public over a 25-year career has a low chance of needing a firearm in a retribution/self-defense situation, what does that say about the general public's odds?

 

[Spartiati 63]

 

Except, the standard for contemplative legislation is not what "you hear" or what you have "yet to see."  And I think we should all be thankful for that.

 

You're also unknowingly killing your own cause -- if someone that defends the public over a 25-year career has a low chance of needing a firearm in a retribution/self-defense situation, what does that say about the general public's odds?

 

You can face palm me all you want but my point is the other side makes stuff up calling it common sense and then we says things like retired cops are more likely to be attacked which makes them more at risk than the general public so they should get to carry without any data to support the assertion other than it makes sense... If we have a law that says you need justifiable need why do retired cops get a pass? If they truly are in danger they can explain it to a judge just like us. I'm not saying we should have justifiable need just that it should be applied consistently which is not.

 

Unknowingly killing my own cause? Really? What cause is that? My argument has always been we should be allowed to bear arms because it is an enumerated right. This whole nonsense of justifying it based on levels of danger is what creates special classes of citizens that we have here in NJ.

[EX Carnival man 223]

The problem you have in NJ is UNIONS.  The politicians have set it up where only retired police have the X on carrying guns.  That opens them up to security work,  In time retired armed cops in schools, buses trains.  I own a business.. They don't want me to carry a gun.  They want me to hire a cop to escort me to the bank or home at night or an armored car service.  

[tattooo 220]

If retired LEO s truly have " justifiable need " just because of a 25 year career, they should have no problem getting approved when applying like the rest of us " regular " citizens :facepalm

[Shane45 807]

I could be wrong on this, but I could swear that if memory serves, retired LE, dependent on dept, county, etc etc did in fact run into the same difficulties we all do acquiring CCW. It wasn't until fed law that state law changed.

[bhunted 887]

Don't know when they fixed it, but last time I had a NJ CCW was about '96 or so. My buddy and I both applied and went to court as references to each other and just because we got the same hearing date. He was a retired Detective Captain. He was denied and I was approved. What has changed since then. He was pissed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Arthur Kill 0]

The problem you have in NJ is UNIONS.  The politicians have set it up where only retired police have the X on carrying guns.  That opens them up to security work,  In time retired armed cops in schools, buses trains.  I own a business.. They don't want me to carry a gun.  They want me to hire a cop to escort me to the bank or home at night or an armored car service.  

 

Most armed security in NJ, with conditional NJ permits are NOT retired police officers.

 

And what the hell does "UNIONS" have to do with any of your erroneous supposition?

 

[xXxplosive 827]

So the story about the fella that dropped off his uncle on his way back from the range was .......BS ?

[Arthur Kill 0]

You can face palm me all you want but my point is the other side makes stuff up calling it common sense and then we says things like retired cops are more likely to be attacked which makes them more at risk than the general public so they should get to carry without any data to support the assertion other than it makes sense... If we have a law that says you need justifiable need why do retired cops get a pass? If they truly are in danger they can explain it to a judge just like us. I'm not saying we should have justifiable need just that it should be applied consistently which is not.

 

Unknowingly killing my own cause? Really? What cause is that? My argument has always been we should be allowed to bear arms because it is an enumerated right. This whole nonsense of justifying it based on levels of danger is what creates special classes of citizens that we have here in NJ.

 

Your imagination is lively.

 

This isn't an "us vs. them" scenario.  I'm not sure how is has become that in your mind and in the mind of many here.

 

It is, by the claims of the "pro-carry" faction, to be just the opposite.  The truth that is revealed here appears to tell a very different tale.

[tattooo 220]

Don't know when they fixed it, but last time I had a NJ CCW was about '96 or so. My buddy and I both applied and went to court as references to each other and just because we got the same hearing date. He was a retired Detective Captain. He was denied and I was approved. What has changed since then. He was pissed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Why did you let your CCW go ?

[Shane45 807]

bhunted, LEOSA-HR218 is basically what changed.

[Zeke 5,504]

So the story about the fella that dropped off his uncle on his way back from the range was .......BS ?

totally different topic

[Arthur Kill 0]

Why did you let your CCW go ?

 

NJ Carry permits are good for 2 years -- or until the conditions for which they were granted changes.  In 99.99 percent of circumstances, judges in NJ will only grant a carry permit as a condition of employment and even then, the scope is very limited. 

 

The intent of the permit is paramount.

 

Basically, a letter-of-intent comes from an employer (who is registered/certified by the state as an investigative/security agency) that basically states, "this individual is out of a job unless he can carry a gun while at work."  Politically, employment trumps all else.

 

I've heard rumors that a few permits have been issued to VIP's under a different scenario but realistically, there is no other way to get a NJ carry permit.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

For some of you that are not afraid. I've dealt with this kinda thing before with the PPA. Its funny. It's a whole group that responds. Something has made that group nervous.

 

A sucker is born everyday

[Arthur Kill 0]

bhunted, LEOSA-HR218 is basically what changed.

 

...and according to the experts, even 218 is full of holes.

[redwings9 5]

The only holes that really exist are...... States can still control mag restrictions, school zones, (because they were not addressed by the law) and the biggest obstacle is some agencies refusal to provide a retired ID. The state can kick and scream all they want federal law trumps state law. And for those interested it took the better part of twenty years, national pressurer from police unions mainly the federal lodge in DC to move this to law. No one especially NJ will line up to give us anything without a concerted effort. JMOP

[bhunted 887]

Why did you let your CCW go ?

Just didn't want it anymore. I carried for years and it was just a pain. Over the decades, carrying was not a big thing.

I carried because I had to. Nobody thought of it as a necessity to the point we do today.

 

Now that the 2A world is under fire, people want it more than ever. Would I want it again if things change? Probably. Would I carry if I did all the time? Who knows. Maybe if I had better options then, it would be different.

 

My first several NJ permits were due to employment requirements. My last permit was my decision to get on my own. When I retired doing what I was doing, I dropped it. I could have renewed, but as I said. My fascination to carry was not like you guys. While it should be your right, its your decision if you do. Hope that made sense.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spartiati 63]

Your imagination is lively.

 

This isn't an "us vs. them" scenario.  I'm not sure how is has become that in your mind and in the mind of many here.

 

It is, by the claims of the "pro-carry" faction, to be just the opposite.  The truth that is revealed here appears to tell a very different tale.

Why are you putting words in my mouth. It is not an us versus them mentality. It is a fair an uniform application of the law mentality. I have nothing against police officers. I have many many friends who are cops. I have a problem with the government creating a separate set of rules for a certain group. We don't have to agree on this, if your fine with that it is your right to be. I am not.