Jump to content
Indianajonze

Bergen County Prosecutor Says LEOs Not exempt

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, 70gto said:

At the pd if our off duty guns were similair we wouldnt have to qual with those, say you carry glock 23 and had a 27 for off duty carry, but retired its specific to serial number , every gun you intend to carry, on other news, njsp aknowledges the State Ag wont weigh in or agree with leosha or hr318 which is federal law, you can look it up yourself on NJSP website, they have no opinion nor refuse to give one, which means you roll the dice, and spend 10k for attorney fees and be the test case, which im sure you would ultimately win. 

 

Quote

Is it acceptable to carry a similar type of firearm as the one the RLEO used to qualify? No. RLEOs must qualify with each firearm he or she wishes to carry pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(L). The model and serial number of each firearm must be set forth on the RPO Firearms Record pursuant to the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Semi-Annual Firearms Qualification and Requalification Standards for New Jersey Law Enforcement (Definition of “Firearms Record”).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under the new law only those carrying under (RPO) can carry 15..  LEOSHA would be 10..  

    2.    (New section)  Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection j. of N.J.S.2C:39-3, a retired law enforcement officer who is authorized to possess and carry a handgun pursuant to subsection l. of N.J.S.2C:39-6 may possess and carry a large capacity ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic handgun.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PK90 said:

Just found this new letter from NJSP. I don't agree with some things in it. Asses.

https://www.njsp.org/firearms/pdf/FAQs_on_RLEO_LEOSA.pdf

I’ve been in touch with members of the NJSP FAU and other officers involved in LE Firearms stuff regarding that letter. They are on the same page as you - as am I. But as you are aware, that doesn’t change anything currently.

Unfortunately, this came from the AG’s office and the NJSP doesn’t make the law.

I imagine if push came to shove, it wouldn’t stand, but no one wants to be the test case:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Kawi7 said:

Under the new law only those carrying under (RPO) can carry 15..  LEOSHA would be 10..  

    2.    (New section)  Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection j. of N.J.S.2C:39-3, a retired law enforcement officer who is authorized to possess and carry a handgun pursuant to subsection l. of N.J.S.2C:39-6 may possess and carry a large capacity ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic handgun.

 

Side note - LEOSA covers the actual firearm and ammunition. It does not cover magazines. If you are carrying under the LEOSA umbrella, you still have to abide by local magazine restrictions - unless you fall under FOPA -  which covers everyone, LE or not - while traveling through.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 70gto said:

At the pd if our off duty guns were similair we wouldnt have to qual with those, say you carry glock 23 and had a 27 for off duty carry, but retired its specific to serial number , every gun you intend to carry, on other news, njsp aknowledges the State Ag wont weigh in or agree with leosha or hr318 which is federal law, you can look it up yourself on NJSP website, they have no opinion nor refuse to give one, which means you roll the dice, and spend 10k for attorney fees and be the test case, which im sure you would ultimately win. Funny they trusted me with hollow point rounds for my career on duty, but now resticted to fmj or hornandy critical defense. I also read this law to not exempt retired leo to be exempt from more than 10 rounds in your rifle either, as there is no need to have one of those if your retired

When I started on the PD  in the 70s we only qualified with our duty gun.  That's because the chief was cheap.  When I went to the Federal government you had to qualify with every gun you carried. Handgun or long gun.  For a short time I could only carry an issued gun which meant a G17,19, or 26 or a J frame.

The NJ AG won't agree with LEOSA and remain 's fairly silent on it as he knows he'd lose.

I've said this before but I'll repeat it here. LEOSA starts out with "Notwithstanding".  That means in spite of any state or local law.  The only reference to state and local laws in LEOSA  is they can limit or forbid carry on state or local property.

LEOSA allows you to carry hollowpoints.

LEOSA covers a lot more former LEOs than the NJ RPO permit covers.  10 years as an MP in the Army you're covered under LEOSA.  NJ won't give you a RPO permit though.

IANAL but it would seem to me that starting out with notwithstanding in regard to state and local laws notwithstanding would cover magazines too.

I only know of 3 cases where people carrying under LEOSA were arrested.  One in SD and 2 in NY.

The SD case involved out of state LEOs who shot a guy in a bar.  They didn't have any problem with the shooting.  They had a problem with them carrying in a bar.  It was thrown out because the state didn't own the bar.

Two cases in NY involved a PA Constable and a Coast Guardsman.  The question was if they were qualified LEOs under LEOSA.  Turned out they were.

I have never heard of anyone carrying under LEOSA in NJ having any kind of problem.

 If there's any out, someone let me know.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The last two lines of that letter: "There is legislation pending to amend the statute to permit law enforcement possession of LCM......."

Wait, aren't LEO just plain ole state citizens, just like us???  Protected class??? Special privilege???

WTF!

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Sniper said:

The last two lines of that letter: "There is legislation pending to amend the statute to permit law enforcement possession of LCM......."

Wait, aren't LEO just plain ole state citizens, just like us???  Protected class??? Special privilege???

WTF!

 

Grounds for a discrimination case... no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Grounds for a discrimination case... no?

Well, you might think that, but the 3rd circuit disagrees:

"Finally, because retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens, the law’s exemption that permits them to possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause."

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183170p.pdf

Someday a LEO will explain this "training and experience" that a civilian who used (gasp) 15 round mags for years does not have.

Of course, you could use that same reasoning to only allow motor vehicles to be driven by  emergency services.

Then again, I'm not sure the judge who wrote that opinion knows which end the bullet comes out of..

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, b47356 said:

Well, you might think that, but the 3rd circuit disagrees:

"Finally, because retired law enforcement officers have training and experience that makes them different from ordinary citizens, the law’s exemption that permits them to possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause."

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183170p.pdf

Someday a LEO will explain this "training and experience" that a civilian who used (gasp) 15 round mags for years does not have.

Of course, you could use that same reasoning to only allow motor vehicles to be driven by  emergency services.

Then again, I'm not sure the judge who wrote that opinion knows which end the bullet comes out of..

Not en banc. 

You blame the cop? Or the 2 of 3 judges?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is good for the gander should be good for the goose also.  There should be no exemptions for retired LEO's. It just furthers the divide that citizens are second class citizens in the eyes of the legislature. 

Nobody in LE is getting jammed up. Just like they look the other way for DUI's for LEO's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Stonecoldchavez said:

What is good for the gander should be good for the goose also.  There should be no exemptions for retired LEO's. It just furthers the divide that citizens are second class citizens in the eyes of the legislature. 

Nobody in LE is getting jammed up. Just like they look the other way for DUI's for LEO's. 

This wasn’t a typo. First bill did not exempt. Then they changed it for active and lost the change, or fubar it up pretty good.

its actually hilarious to watch 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zeke said:

This wasn’t a typo. First bill did not exempt. Then they changed it for active and lost the change, or fubar it up pretty good.

its actually hilarious to watch 

And now after the PBA and FOP bitched about it, the legislature will be voting next week to exempt LEO's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WP22 said:

Is there really a rash of former LEO being attacked by gang bangers they put away during their career?

Why do they NEED HIGH capacity magazines?

The theory is they are targets for the bad guys they put away if they ever get out of jail or retaliation from family members. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stonecoldchavez said:

The theory is they are targets for the bad guys they put away if they ever get out of jail or retaliation from family members. 

I don’t besmirch our guys in blue. But.. that being said, we all deal with “ the public “

the legislature is pandering to the union.

place blame where it is do... it ain’t on the troop

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Stonecoldchavez said:

The theory is they are targets for the bad guys they put away if they ever get out of jail or retaliation from family members. 

The percentage of John Q Public being a target of opportunity, or targeted for any of the multitudes of reasons criminals choose their victims is far higher than the mythical   Super crackhead that hunts down the officer that arrested them. Not saying it hasn’t happened or doesn’t happen but definitely not to the degree it’s presented.

Perhaps the guys on the job here can chime in on how may times in their careers they’ve had to use their weapons off duty to fend off an attack from a prior arrest/specifically targeted as a result of work and not a random act?

Going a step further...since they jump to make exemptions because they feel bad guys thinking leos have or may have a weapon all the time keeps them safe, why don’t they apply their same “if it just saves one life” to EVERYONE’S right to protection?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, pjd832 said:

The percentage of John Q Public being a target of opportunity, or targeted for any of the multitudes of reasons criminals choose their victims is far higher than the mythical   Super crackhead that hunts down the officer that arrested them. Not saying it hasn’t happened or doesn’t happen but definitely not to the degree it’s presented.

Perhaps the guys on the job here can chime in on how may times in their careers they’ve had to use their weapons off duty to fend off an attack from a prior arrest/specifically targeted as a result of work and not a random act?

Going a step further...since they jump to make exemptions because they feel bad guys thinking leos have or may have a weapon all the time keeps them safe, why don’t they apply their same “if it just saves one life” to EVERYONE’S right to protection?

I do not disagree with you...... the politicians hate us and want to disarm the citizens of the PRNJ. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Stonecoldchavez said:

The theory is they are targets for the bad guys they put away if they ever get out of jail

Aren't all citizens a potential target of convicted felons who have been released?  I wonder if there are any hard statistics for convicts attacking the arresting officers.  I also wonder if the state disarms all relatives and associates of convicted felons, as a common sense precautionary measure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to statistics I found using NYPD statistics for 2016, 1 out of 538 police officers fired their gun on duty.

Statistics for defensive gun use by civilians average 1 in 97 based on  1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year based on  100,000,000 gun owners!

Seems to me that all in all, civilians use guns legally for self defense 5 times more often than cops do on the job!

Now I realize I am probably way off but I feel based on what I could find that normal people are in fact more likely to use a gun for defense than the police. So who needs the larger mag capacity?

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, JohnnyB said:

According to statistics I found using NYPD statistics for 2016, 1 out of 538 police officers fired their gun on duty.

Statistics for defensive gun use by civilians average 1 in 97 based on  1,029,615 defensive gun uses per year based on  100,000,000 gun owners!

Seems to me that all in all, civilians use guns legally for self defense 5 times more often than cops do on the job!

Now I realize I am probably way off but I feel based on what I could find that normal people are in fact more likely to use a gun for defense than the police. So who needs the larger mag capacity?

 

 

Nice stats. And of course there are many variables.....but more relevant would be how many times off duty Leo fired in self defense and surely the numbers skew even more in favor of civilian use. And those are city numbers. Out in suburbia and the more rural areas I'd wager there are entire police forces that haven't fired on duty for yrs much less an off duty shoot. Don't get me wrong, I don't begrudge Leo's need for hi mag carry but don't turn around and try to use bogus stats and needs against civilian needs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...