Walkinguf61

Lawmakers have qualified immunity in what laws they pass. The person who’s rights are violated gets to sue the person or entities that actually enforce it. It’s comes from common law and is in the constitution at the federal level. “section 6 The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.” Then it’s recognized in that states are separate sovereignties. And have similar powers and protections . It’s in the common law.

They don’t care or respect the 2nd. But they seem to “ allow” exceptions like a female domestic violence victim who has direct threats and a history despite having an order of protection —- its the emotional argument that has any effect on them and not logic. They want to give responsibility for their self protection to others and thereby force everyone else to. They don’t trust people with firearms because they either they don’t trust themselves or they are going to break this law or any law anyway,

I would like to point out that we haven’t heard from any minority retired police officers. These lawmakers tend to live and travel in non crime areas and it might not be advisable for some retired cops to be forced to identify themselves as former police officers especially in certain restaurants if they don’t want extra spit in their food . Or let certain people know they have a gun so they become a target .

Just for information sake, The state PBA was actually against the lawsuit for NJ resident retired cops to be able to carry hollowpoints on LEOSA. It was the FOP who initiated that lawsuit. The State PBA speaks only for active state troopers and not for the majority of law enforcement. Frankly , state troopers in general don’t have the same experiences as city/suburban officers who routinely answer 911 calls as their primary duty. They just don’t deal with the same volume of calls.

That stuff doesn’t work with them. We have to explain it in terms they can understand. You get a permit to carry because of a threat or potential threat against you. Tell them , to put themselves in your shoes where you don’t have a police detail to protect them. Now, ask them to carry an empty holster for two weeks and see if they could carry that gun with all the restrictions that NJ is proposing . I don’t think they could do it without a violation of it somewhere, For example, having to go inside to ask the person permission to have your gun, they would be in violation just walking in to ask that permission or parking the car in the parking lot to ask. How about the parking lot that is shared by multiple businesses? Do you have to get permission from all of them ? Or the owner of the strip mall themselves?

I listened to it. The bill’s sponsor is full of it as usual. The speaker had to be informed of that by the sponsor who is being misleading in how it actually happened. He is not working with retired guys to fix the bill but rather he got a critique from an active guy who wanted a provision for his active guys. No way did a retired guy approve of that exemption for section 24 . The speaker was trying to get the sponsor to change it. That’s why I was asking for the latest revision to see if they did.

Yep. And if you listen, the bill sponsor was talking he said it was nothing to do with the second admendment when exceptions were asked for. And when the bill sponsee questioned another hearing , he couldn’t answer the question as to where one could carry. It won’t survive the court challenge.

I did. It sounds like the bill sponsor was not going for what the retired officers representive was asking for

What admendments were written by the retired LEO? Do you have a link of what they were and were the admendments passed?

It actually looks like it backfired. The active exemption that was added screwed the retirees. Section 24 is a huge problem. I am curious how this bs interacts with LEOSA. A private individual can exclude LEOSA carriers but the government can’t make them. Can the state require an affirmative permission however?

They set this up beautifully for the court case. The majority of this bill will be struck down . How does one ask permission to enter with the firearm at most places ? It’s next to impossible. Section 24 makes most of NJ off limits to carry by default .

Does anyone have a link to the most current version of the bill. This bill with all the proposed admendments is quickly changing and not always for the better

Yep. But it’s not because that is the actual belief. That is the price of getting these particular lawmakers to change it. Look how the bill’s sponsor said “ so you support the bill” or thanked someone for being on his side when they clearly were not. It’s the price they demand. If you watched the prior hearing with the state PBA representative, he did the same thing and was very careful with his words when another lawmaker asked him if retired cops felt betrayed by this law. Do you know what didn’t work ? Talking about the constitution with these people.They don’t care. While I do want my exemption, we should be thankful that they went “ full ret—-“on their law. Most of it will not survive a court challenge and the case law allowing carry gets cemented in law. The link for the audio didn’t work. Do you have another link?

Law enforcement does not want this law. The police union is trying to get exceptions for their active members and maybe, half heartedly get it for their retired ( non voting ) members. Most law enforcement do not want this law. Go look at the testimony of the PBA representative. He was scared to offend the bill sponsor because he was afraid of what else he would add to it and might not give his membership any exemption to this ……..

I saw how the state PBA tried to get an exemption. These lawmakers just betrayed all the retired cops. Retired cops now have to “ out” themselves to potential cop haters? Do these lawmakers understand what cops and retired cops have to put up with or the threats we get? It’s not overt threats . Sometimes it’s just visine eye drops in our drinks or extra spit in our food at restaurants.