Arcane NJ law prevents retired cops from carrying concealed weapon

[EX Carnival man 223]

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?

 

OHH come on. Steve Sweeney and the rest of the Dem party are SO pro union for the vote.  Why do you think NJ is in the shape its in? 

[Newtonian 453]

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.

Please demonstrate, by citing news stories, that cops/prosecutors face an unusual risk of retribution from criminals with IQs of 73 who don't even remember their mothers' faces. Yeah maybe it happens once in a while but I would guess this is mostly a fiction.

 

When ex-LEOs support my right to "keep and bear" then I'll support theirs. Until then they can suck wind.

[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.

 

You've articulated your position much better, I understand now.  You're not an idiot, certainly you realize that the term "bear arms" is interpreted to mean a variety things -- and the second amendment, as a whole, means different things to different people.

 

Something to remember though for others that are taking this "us vs. them" or "equal treatment" approach:

 

John Q. Citizen is not equal in the eyes of the law to a trained police officer when it comes to the use of firearms -- and never has been:

 

A sworn/appointed police officer in NJ is initially and continually trained by the state in the use of firearms in the course of his duties; legislated by the state as justified to use deadly force to ensure public safety; and indemnified by the state during the commission of his responsibilities.

 

John Q. is not.

 

If John Q. is willing to receive and pass the same initial training AND the same continuing in-service training that is required by police officers AND indemnify himself with a substantial insurance policy, all at no expense to the state, then I see no reason what he/she should not be allowed to carry a gun in NJ.

 

Fair enough?

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

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.

 

 

Why do you believe that carrying a gun it is more necessary today?  I mean, crime is down, that should be the determining factor, no?

 

Clearly, propaganda rules the psyche of "less-sophisticated" Americans -- and that is unfortunate.  The NRA and the radical right-wing media has them convinced that somehow a gun is more necessary today, than at any time before in history.

 

That's just stupid.

 

 

My first several NJ permits were due to employment requirements. My last permit was my decision to get on my own.

 

...its your decision if you do. Hope that made sense.

 

 

 

It actually makes NO sense.  Please explain exactly how a judge in NJ approved a Carry Permit for you with your stated cause being "my decision to get on my own" -- and/or without a letter-of-intent from the employer of your job as a security guard.

 

This should be good.

 

[diamondd817 827]

You've articulated you position better, I understand. You're not an idiot, certainly you realize that the term "bear arms" is interpreted to mean a variety things -- and the second amendment, as a whole, means different things to different people.

 

Something to remember though for others that are taking this "us vs. them" or "equal treatment" approach:

 

John Q. Citizen is not equal in the eyes of the law to a trained police officer when it comes to the use of firearms -- and never has been:

 

A sworn/appointed police officer in NJ is initially and continually trained by the state in the use of firearms in the course of his duties; legislated by the state as justified to use deadly force to ensure public safety; and indemnified by the state during the commission of his responsibilities.

 

John Q. is not.

 

If John Q. is willing to receive and pass the same initial training AND the same continuing in-service training that is required by police officers AND indemnify himself with a substantial insurance policy, all at no expense to the state, then I see no reason what he/she should not be allowed to carry a gun in NJ.

 

Fair enough?

 

There are 6x's as many John q public citizens carrying guns in the USA then there are sworn police officers. 95% of stories I read of people getting in trouble because of their gun, is some kind of officer. It's all about the training....

 

BTW, J.Q. Public doesn't carry a gun to ensure public safety, stop crime, or go after gangs. It's only a tool for that person's (and family's) self defense.

 

As in typical NJ cop fashion, you can't distinguish between law abiding citizens and criminals carrying guns. As someone previously posted, you must be completely terrified if you have to visit one of the 47 States where law abiding citizens can carry a gun.

[Shane45 807]

Why do you believe that carrying a gun it is more necessary today?  I mean, crime is down, that should be the determining factor, no?

 

Clearly, propaganda rules the psyche of "less-sophisticated" Americans -- and that is unfortunate.  The NRA and the radical right-wing media has them convinced that somehow a gun is more necessary today, than at any time before in history.

 

That's just stupid.

 

 

 

 

It actually makes NO sense.  Please explain exactly how a judge in NJ approved a Carry Permit for you with your stated cause being "my decision to get on my own" -- and/or without a letter-of-intent from the employer of your job as a security guard.

 

This should be good.

 

Crime is down because more people are carrying today. It is easily extrapolated from data. When the CCW trend was occurring it was easy to see violent crime go down. But if there was a border state without CCW they observed their crime go up along the border as criminals picked their targets. As for being needed more now than ever, I would agree with that statement. I have been a keen observer of RTKBA for about 35 years. The situation upon us these days is a significant upswing of seriously random acts of violence. These incidents don't move the needle statistically but they are the very ones that drive the concern of most people seeking CCW I think.

[Arthur Kill 0]

Crime is down because more people are carrying today. It is easily extrapolated from data. When the CCW trend was occurring it was easy to see violent crime go down. But if there was a border state without CCW they observed their crime go up along the border as criminals picked their targets. As for being needed more now than ever, I would agree with that statement. I have been a keen observer of RTKBA for about 35 years. The situation upon us these days is a significant upswing of seriously random acts of violence. These incidents don't move the needle statistically but they are the very ones that drive the concern of most people seeking CCW I think.

 

Absolutely false. 

 

Crime is down because more people are eating jelly donuts today.  It is easily extrapolated from data.

 

You cannot prove that your assertion is any more valid than mine and every single crime expert agrees.

 

And I could easily cite evidence contrary to your claim and insist that it is the end-all truth -- but I won't..

 

Arrests of CPL holders spike as permits in Michigan hit record high

 

 

[bhunted 887]

- You misunderstood me. Not just in the sense of crime. More in the necessity that people should have it because it's their right. Nothing more than that. The Pro2A events over the past couple years have lit a fire under everyone's butt. I hope you get what I mean.

 

- I had a letter of intent. It was not for personal reasons because I just wanted one. It was my choice to get one for the position I filled, but I didn't have to.

Let's just say I was self employed and did some dangerous chit. Leave it at that.

 

- BTW, stop with the arrogance that last remark, (this should be good), was not needed. I have not busted your balls...................yet. You want good conversation, stop being a dick!

 

Why do you believe that carrying a gun it is more necessary today?  I mean, crime is down, that should be the determining factor, no?

 

Clearly, propaganda rules the psyche of "less-sophisticated" Americans -- and that is unfortunate.  The NRA and the radical right-wing media has them convinced that somehow a gun is more necessary today, than at any time before in history.

 

That's just stupid.

 

 

 

 

It actually makes NO sense.  Please explain exactly how a judge in NJ approved a Carry Permit for you with your stated cause being "my decision to get on my own" -- and/or without a letter-of-intent from the employer of your job as a security guard.

 

This should be good.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

- You misunderstood me. Not just in the sense of crime. More in the necessity that people should have it because it's their right. Nothing more than that. The Pro2A events over the past couple years have lit a fire under everyone's butt. I hope you get what I mean.

 

- I had a letter of intent. It was not for personal reasons because I just wanted one. It was my choice to get one for the position I filled, but I didn't have to.

Let's just say I was self employed and did some dangerous chit. Leave it at that.

 

- BTW, stop with the arrogance that last remark, (this should be good), was not needed. I have not busted your balls...................yet. You want good conversation, stop being a dick!

 

Okay, I'll try not to be a dick, sorry.

 

But I need you to elaborate on this "I just wanted one. It was my choice...I was self employed and did some dangerous chit."

 

I'm not clear?  Did you own a state-certified security agency?  You say you had a letter-of-intent from an employer...then you imply you got it on your own?

 

If you were issued a NJ Carry Permit just because you "wanted one" then you have broken ground never broken before and you are a historical character and your experience should be shared with the group.

 

Howd-cha do it?  Do tell, please.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

There are 6x's as many John q public citizens carrying guns in the USA then there are sworn police officers. 95% of stories I read of people getting in trouble because of their gun, is some kind of officer. It's all about the training....

 

BTW, J.Q. Public doesn't carry a gun to ensure public safety, stop crime, or go after gangs. It's only a tool for that person's (and family's) self defense.

 

As in typical NJ cop fashion, you can't distinguish between law abiding citizens and criminals carrying guns. As someone previously posted, you must be completely terrified if you have to visit one of the 47 States where law abiding citizens can carry a gun.

 

As has been stated previously, the standard for contemplative legislation is not based on "the stories you read" or any other erroneous perception you may hold.  And I think we should all be thankful for that.

 

An untrained John Q. walking the streets with a loaded gun may give John Q. the false perception that he is safer but IMO it is a direct threat to everyone else and public safety as a whole, which I believe trumps John Q's desire.

 

[bhunted 887]

Okay, I'll try not to be a dick, sorry.

 

But I need you to elaborate on this "I just wanted one. It was my choice...I was self employed and did some dangerous chit." Nothing to elaborate on. It was a private business that I will not discuss. No different than you not disclosing yours.

 

I'm not clear?  Did you own a state-certified security agency?  You say you had a letter-of-intent from an employer...then you imply you got it on your own? Never said I had a letter of intent from an employer. Stop inserting words where there were none. But you need one even if you are the only employee/owner.

 

If you were issued a NJ Carry Permit just because you "wanted one" then you have broken ground never broken before and you are a historical character and your experience should be shared with the group. Again, you are not reading into it correctly. If you recall, I mentioned many of the years I carried, I hated it. Just didn't want to if I didn't have to. This was years ago. My last permit was in '96... My 1st permit was in '78 so I carried many years. I decided to get it the last time because what I was doing was getting more dangerous. Just leave it at that. In '96 I also had to have a million dollar bond to get it.  I don't disclose my personal life in public. Just rest assure, I'm not lying.

 

Howd-cha do it?  Do tell, please.

 

[diamondd817 827]

 

An untrained John Q. walking the streets with a loaded gun may give John Q. the false perception that he is safer but IMO it is a direct threat to everyone else and public safety as a whole, which I believe trumps John Q's desire.

 

"A direct threat to public safety". Really? Then I don't know how we get through one day with the 3-4 MILLION John q public people carrying their guns. We should have at least a half a million shootings per day.

[tattooo 220]

You've articulated you position better, I understand. You're not an idiot, certainly you realize that the term "bear arms" is interpreted to mean a variety things -- and the second amendment, as a whole, means different things to different people.

 

Something to remember though for others that are taking this "us vs. them" or "equal treatment" approach:

 

John Q. Citizen is not equal in the eyes of the law to a trained police officer when it comes to the use of firearms -- and never has been:

 

A sworn/appointed police officer in NJ is initially and continually trained by the state in the use of firearms in the course of his duties; legislated by the state as justified to use deadly force to ensure public safety; and indemnified by the state during the commission of his responsibilities.

 

John Q. is not.

 

If John Q. is willing to receive and pass the same initial training AND the same continuing in-service training that is required by police officers AND indemnify himself with a substantial insurance policy, all at no expense to the state, then I see no reason what he/she should not be allowed to carry a gun in NJ.

 

Fair enough?

 

To dispell your notion that if we citizens had the same training that a LEO had once 25 years ago in the academy....most LEO's that I know from NYC & NJ qualify once or twice a year and just look at their weapon as a tool like a carpenter looks at his hammer. They certainly are not even a quarter as proficient as 95 % of citizens that I shoot with at the range or at matches. On that note all of my military friends are highly trained in firearms & have shot a shit ton of rounds but they cannot carry ? When you retire your just like the rest of us including the military community.

[Arthur Kill 0]

To dispell your notion....most LEO's that I know from NYC & NJ qualify once or twice a year and just look at their weapon as a tool like a carpenter looks at his hammer. They certainly are not even a quarter as proficient as 95 % of citizens that I shoot with at the range or at matches. On that note all of my military friends are highly trained in firearms & have shot a shit ton of rounds but they cannot carry ?

 

You're not dispelling any notion -- you're just providing your perception based on your experience.

 

Most LEO's that I know (that qualify 2-4 times per year and are constantly engaged in various continuing use-of-force training) who "just look at their weapon as a tool like a carpenter" are 1000 times more proficient than the yahoo's I shoot with at the range.  And well they should be -- they LIVE every-fucking-day by the dirty, un-glamourous reality of the gun -- not the clean, glamorous, movie-star induced, perception of the hobbiest.

 

And I have friends that were military SO guys that have a ton of firearms training -- and conversely, some that may have fired none or only a few rounds in their entire military career.

 

Point is, your perception is not always reality -- and it certainly doesn't justify putting loaded guns in the hands of untrained citizens.

 

[Arthur Kill 0]

 

Okay, I'll try not to be a dick, sorry.

 

But I need you to elaborate on this "I just wanted one. It was my choice...I was self employed and did some dangerous chit." Nothing to elaborate on. It was a private business that I will not discuss. No different than you not disclosing yours.

 

I'm not clear?  Did you own a state-certified security agency?  You say you had a letter-of-intent from an employer...then you imply you got it on your own? Never said I had a letter of intent from an employer. Stop inserting words where there were none. But you need one even if you are the only employee/owner.

 

If you were issued a NJ Carry Permit just because you "wanted one" then you have broken ground never broken before and you are a historical character and your experience should be shared with the group. Again, you are not reading into it correctly. If you recall, I mentioned many of the years I carried, I hated it. Just didn't want to if I didn't have to. This was years ago. My last permit was in '96... My 1st permit was in '78 so I carried many years. I decided to get it the last time because what I was doing was getting more dangerous. Just leave it at that. In '96 I also had to have a million dollar bond to get it.  I don't disclose my personal life in public. Just rest assure, I'm not lying.

 

Howd-cha do it?  Do tell, please.

 

 

 

A lot of what you're typing is illegible, I'm not sure if that's intentional or not?

 

But you wouldn't have to cut and paste your personal resume here to rationally explain how you obtained a NJ Carry Permit without a letter-of-intent from an employer.  The whole "my job got more dangerous" is not a legal standard -- and is not regarded as a consideration factored by ANY judge in NJ -- no offense but I'm still calling BS.

 

Thanks anyway.

 

[Zeke 5,504]

The funny part is. Firearms competence is already a qualifier for ccw in jersey.

Lol

 

The point is justifiable need.

If one retired officer doesn't have a need justified, do any? For that matter, do any off duty?

[tattooo 220]

You're not dispelling any notion -- you're just providing your perception based on your experience.

 

Most LEO's that I know (that qualify 2-4 times per year and are constantly engaged in various continuing use-of-force training) who "just look at their weapon as a tool like a carpenter" are 1000 times more proficient than the yahoo's I shoot with at the range. And well they should be -- they LIVE every-fucking-day by the dirty, un-glamourous reality of the gun -- not the clean, glamorous, movie-star induced, perception of the hobbiest.

 

And I have friends that were military SO guys that have a ton of firearms training -- and conversely, some that may have fired none or only a few rounds in their entire military career.

 

Point is, you perception is not always reality -- and it certainly doesn't justify putting loaded guns in the hands of untrained citizens.

 

The same goes for you......your perception due to your experience is not always reality either and pretty much 46 other free states put weapons " in untrained citizens " hands because it is their God given right to protect themselves without needing special operator or LEO training and not because of their profession.

[bhunted 887]

A lot of what you're typing is illegible, I'm not sure if that's intentional or not?

 

But you wouldn't have to cut and paste your personal resume here to rationally explain how you obtained a NJ Carry Permit without a letter-of-intent from an employer. The whole "my job got more dangerous" is not a legal standard -- and is not regarded as a consideration factored by ANY judge in NJ -- no offense but I'm still calling BS.

 

Thanks anyway.

 

Whatever floats your boat. Had a ccw, gave it up, that's that.

We are done. No need to respond.

Everything else is none of your fooking business.

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Shane45 807]

Absolutely false. 

 

Crime is down because more people are eating jelly donuts today.  It is easily extrapolated from data.

 

You cannot prove that you assertion is any more valid than mine and every single crime expert agrees.

 

And I could easily cite evidence contrary to your claim and insist that it is the end-all truth -- but I won't..

 

Arrests of CPL holders spike as permits in Michigan hit record high

 

 

Im not interested in throwing statistics around till I puke. Im sure if I looked hard enough I can find why statistically im more likely to die from rabbit hamsters. Reports from legitimate sources back up logical conclusions. You may just be hard wired to come from a place of emotion and anxiety, I am not. Interviews with the bad people of this world about what they fear most is armed people. All your talk about competency, your hand wringing fearful position, none of it means anything to me. It is my right to protect myself and my family no matter how you feel. The totality of context makes it VERY clear this was our forefathers intentions. NJ has an issue, a legal one, because they don't see it that way. Unfortunately there are too many like you here that unlawfully cause an infringement on my rights. So in the end I will vote with my wallet and move my family and my employees out of here to a state that sees more clearly. Oddly enough it will be a statistically safer state too!

[njpilot 671]

 

 

Most LEO's that I know (that qualify 2-4 times per year and are constantly engaged in various continuing use-of-force training) who "just look at their weapon as a tool like a carpenter" are 1000 times more proficient than the yahoo's I shoot with at the range.  And well they should be -- they LIVE every-fucking-day by the dirty, un-glamourous reality of the gun -- not the clean, glamorous, movie-star induced, perception of the hobbiest.

 

 

 

Well, considering where you state your range is in your profile, says a lot, huh?

[tattooo 220]

Well, considering where you state your range is in your profile, says a lot, huh?

Exactly !

[Zeke 5,504]

Exactly !

I'm free range( don't shoot enough)

Could you decipher this for me, I can't see it. Only use mobile

[1LtCAP 4,264]

You're not dispelling any notion -- you're just providing your perception based on your experience.

 

Most LEO's that I know (that qualify 2-4 times per year and are constantly engaged in various continuing use-of-force training) who "just look at their weapon as a tool like a carpenter" are 1000 times more proficient than the yahoo's I shoot with at the range.  And well they should be -- they LIVE every-fucking-day by the dirty, un-glamourous reality of the gun -- not the clean, glamorous, movie-star induced, perception of the hobbiest.

 

And I have friends that were military SO guys that have a ton of firearms training -- and conversely, some that may have fired none or only a few rounds in their entire military career.

 

Point is, your perception is not always reality -- and it certainly doesn't justify putting loaded guns in the hands of untrained citizens.

 

ya know who i see shoot the cables the most at the range? leo's. know who i see shoot the floor the most? leo's.

 

 that said, i still respect the shit outta them.

[tattooo 220]

I'm free range( don't shoot enough)

Could you decipher this for me, I can't see it. Only use mobile

Says " my basement "

[Zeke 5,504]

Says " my basement "

That's pretty muscle!

[Zeke 5,504]

The funny part is. Firearms competence is already a qualifier for ccw in jersey.

Lol

 

The point is justifiable need.

If one retired officer doesn't have a need justified, do any? For that matter, do any off duty?

Any osifer should be familiar with 2ac

[JC_68Westy 1,024]

You've articulated you position better, I understand.  You're not an idiot, certainly you realize that the term "bear arms" is interpreted to mean a variety things -- and the second amendment, as a whole, means different things to different people.

 

Something to remember though for others that are taking this "us vs. them" or "equal treatment" approach:

 

John Q. Citizen is not equal in the eyes of the law to a trained police officer when it comes to the use of firearms -- and never has been:

 

A sworn/appointed police officer in NJ is initially and continually trained by the state in the use of firearms in the course of his duties; legislated by the state as justified to use deadly force to ensure public safety; and indemnified by the state during the commission of his responsibilities.

 

John Q. is not.

 

If John Q. is willing to receive and pass the same initial training AND the same continuing in-service training that is required by police officers AND indemnify himself with a substantial insurance policy, all at no expense to the state, then I see no reason what he/she should not be allowed to carry a gun in NJ.

 

Fair enough?

 

Your argument is flawed. People wanting the ability to legally carry a gun for personal protection are not asking to be able to "use deadly force to ensure public safety; and indemnified by the state during the commission of his responsibilities". They simply want to be able to carry for personal protection.  Should a person that "s willing to receive and pass the same initial training AND the same continuing in-service training that is required by police officers AND indemnify himself with a substantial insurance policy, all at no expense to the state" also have the power to arrest?  I think not, nobody is asking for that.  They are only asking to be able to protect themselves and their families.

[Zeke 5,504]

I'm not gonna lie,^^^^^^ this guy is

Pretty muscle

[Barms 98]

The dichotomy of the hubris and the extensive use of emojis has me fascinated.

 

It's like Bill Oreilly wrapped in a Kardashian

 

A blitzkrieg followed by a parade of unicorns.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

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?

 

Do me a favor, take all your PBA cards and tear them up. Better yet, never distribute another one.... To what purpose do they serve?   Don't worry, I wont hold my breath.

 

It is funny, the second we talk about having a level field its like were Anti-cop....pretty pissy attitude, were not talking about extravagant investigative and arresting powers...lol