Decent read from yesterday. I hope the link works. I am not good at this stuff.

 

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/law-enforcement-officials-say-there-s-a-reason-why-laws/article_1d129cfe-d69a-11e0-8a86-001cc4c03286.html

You see, the lives of a police officer and his family are more valuable than the lives of a "civilian"

 

While CCW is by no means a guarantee of safety, a police officer is allowed to CCW off duty, in order to at least have a chance to prevent a tragedy from befalling him or his loved ones.

 

However, should the same tragedy befall a member of the lesser classes, this is a non issue. Bad things happen every day, and the incident is simply another thing to make the newspaper the next morning. It's just another statistic.

 

It's an unnecessary risk to allow those without a badge the privilege of self defense, especially since there is nothing in the US constitution that allows them such a privilege.

 

Also, I love how the article explains how LEO should be able to carry hollow point ammunition, because it mushrooms in the body and is much safer to bystanders. I'd bet my last dollar that same newspaper calls them "cop killers" or details the horrible destructive kitten-seeking bloodshed of hollow points when someone besides a cop is caught with them.

I was thinking the same thing in regard to the part about hollow points. I live in a townhouse and not a very well constructed one either. I have neighbors connected to my left and right. I sneezed the other day and my neighbor tapped morris code "God bless you" on the wall.

 

My preference is for NJ to pass a more homeowner friendly castle doctrine. One that absolves us from retreating and civil / criminal suit. If my alarm goes off in my house at 3:15am as it did a few weeks ago, I should be allowed to check it out if I so desire. If someone jumped out from around the corner and I shot him/her then I am in big trouble, probably even if they are armed since a prosecutor would argue I should have stayed put and called the cops rather than "go hunting" for trouble.

I was thinking the same thing in regard to the part about hollow points. I live in a townhouse and not a very well constructed one either. I have neighbors connected to my left and right. I sneezed the other day and my neighbor tapped morris code "God bless you" on the wall.

 

My preference is for NJ to pass a more homeowner friendly castle doctrine. One that absolves us from retreating and civil / criminal suit. If my alarm goes off in my house at 3:15am as it did a few weeks ago, I should be allowed to check it out if I so desire. If someone jumped out from around the corner and I shot him/her then I am in big trouble, probably even if they are armed since a prosecutor would argue I should have stayed put and called the cops rather than "go hunting" for trouble.

 

There is no retreat inside your home. You may stand at the threshold and prevent an assailant's entry by any means, this applies to anywhere inside your home. The castle doctrine is defined in the 2c statutes and has been affirmed in case law thereafter. Read my post here: http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/26145-scotus-to-decide-on-carry/page__view__findpost__p__350080

thank you Malsua for reposting it. It sounds as if I repeatedly warn the intruder, who appears to be unarmed, that I will shoot if he continues to approach me and I ultimately do shoot him when he gets within XX number of feet that I will be okay in terms of criminal charges... even if it is later determined he is unarmed. Here I am at 6' and in good shape and perhaps the intruder is 5'7"...does that make a difference? I don't think so b/c he may have a concealed weapon.

 

The problem is that his family, ex girlfriend, and Facebook friends will all sue me. Even if I win, I am screwed. That should not be allowed. Thanks.

thank you Malsua for reposting it. It sounds as if I repeatedly warn the intruder, who appears to be unarmed, that I will shoot if he continues to approach me and I ultimately do shoot him when he gets within XX number of feet that I will be okay in terms of criminal charges... even if it is later determined he is unarmed. Here I am at 6' and in good shape and perhaps the intruder is 5'7"...does that make a difference? I don't think so b/c he may have a concealed weapon.

 

The problem is that his family, ex girlfriend, and Facebook friends will all sue me. Even if I win, I am screwed. That should not be allowed. Thanks.

 

You see, the lives of a police officer and his family are more valuable than the lives of a "civilian"

 

While CCW is by no means a guarantee of safety, a police officer is allowed to CCW off duty, in order to at least have a chance to prevent a tragedy from befalling him or his loved ones.

 

However, should the same tragedy befall a member of the lesser classes, this is a non issue. Bad things happen every day, and the incident is simply another thing to make the newspaper the next morning. It's just another statistic.

 

It's an unnecessary risk to allow those without a badge the privilege of self defense, especially since there is nothing in the US constitution that allows them such a privilege.

 

Also, I love how the article explains how LEO should be able to carry hollow point ammunition, because it mushrooms in the body and is much safer to bystanders. I'd bet my last dollar that same newspaper calls them "cop killers" or details the horrible destructive kitten-seeking bloodshed of hollow points when someone besides a cop is caught with them.

 

 

In addition to these few remaining 2A lawsuits, we really need to get a massive number of Equal Protection lawsuits to force all cops and government employees to lose their privileges to carry while not on the job. Their carry permits should be the same as those armored guards get. Off the clock, go to prison.

In addition to these few remaining 2A lawsuits, we really need to get a massive number of Equal Protection lawsuits to force all cops and government employees to lose their privileges to carry while not on the job. Their carry permits should be the same as those armored guards get. Off the clock, go to prison.

I think it should be the opposite. People should have the same equal protection that cops have while off duty. No reason to make the few who have the ability to carry loose that because of NJ.

I think it should be the opposite. People should have the same equal protection that cops have while off duty. No reason to make the few who have the ability to carry loose that because of NJ.

 

Your way is better. But, if you can't get it, there is every reason to prevent the entitiled and elite from getting their 2A rights if nobody else can.

thank you Malsua for reposting it. It sounds as if I repeatedly warn the intruder, who appears to be unarmed, that I will shoot if he continues to approach me and I ultimately do shoot him when he gets within XX number of feet that I will be okay in terms of criminal charges... even if it is later determined he is unarmed. Here I am at 6' and in good shape and perhaps the intruder is 5'7"...does that make a difference? I don't think so b/c he may have a concealed weapon.

 

The problem is that his family, ex girlfriend, and Facebook friends will all sue me. Even if I win, I am screwed. That should not be allowed. Thanks.

 

 

I'm 5'7" and 215 and pretty good shape (36" waist). Gun or no gun, what does your 6'0 have to do with anything? Don't be so quick to think you can overpower everyone my height. I promise you, you cant.

In addition to these few remaining 2A lawsuits, we really need to get a massive number of Equal Protection lawsuits to force all cops and government employees to lose their privileges to carry while not on the job. Their carry permits should be the same as those armored guards get. Off the clock, go to prison.

No Problem..of course that means off the Clock, if i see you getting the snot beat out of you, i can just walk on by...take away our Off-duty carry you also take way that whole "Duty to act" thing as well.

No Problem..of course that means off the Clock, if i see you getting the snot beat out of you, i can just walk on by...take away our Off-duty carry you also take way that whole "Duty to act" thing as well.

 

You could always call the police if you see that happening...

 

...or allow CCWers to be protected under Good Samaritan laws. Where, if they acted within the law to defend someone or stop a crime, they wouldn't be held liable.

No Problem..of course that means off the Clock, if i see you getting the snot beat out of you, i can just walk on by...take away our Off-duty carry you also take way that whole "Duty to act" thing as well.

 

I, fully armed, stopped to help a cop once from what appeared to be him being overwhelmed during a violent scenario. Turns out the cop was just fine, but I guess I shouldn't do that without "duty to act?"

 

Dude, to answer your question, YES, that's just fine. I certainly don't expect any off-duty cop to do anything to help me in a life or death situation above and beyond what I would expect a decent person to do. Because the chances of that are so close to zero it's not really on my radar. I don't even expect an ON-DUTY cop to magically appear in such a situation. Give me a break, and get over yourself.

 

And you are damn right cops should not be allowed to carry off-duty if civilians are not allowed to. It tends to give them attitudes like yours, apparently.

And you are damn right cops should not be allowed to carry off-duty if civilians are not allowed to. It tends to give them attitudes like yours, apparently.

 

Well said. I really don't care if an off-duty cop doesn't help me either.

 

If the general populace cannot carry, then off-duty LEO should not be permitted to either.

 

Besides, what do they need a gun for, since carrying is illegal they surely will not need it anyway.

I, fully armed, stopped to help a cop once from what appeared to be him being overwhelmed during a violent scenario. Turns out the cop was just fine, but I guess I shouldn't do that without "duty to act?"

 

Dude, to answer your question, YES, that's just fine. I certainly don't expect any off-duty cop to do anything to help me in a life or death situation above and beyond what I would expect a decent person to do. Because the chances of that are so close to zero it's not really on my radar. I don't even expect an ON-DUTY cop to magically appear in such a situation. Give me a break, and get over yourself.

 

And you are damn right cops should not be allowed to carry off-duty if civilians are not allowed to. It tends to give them attitudes like yours, apparently.

 

 

Well Bless your heart

If I'm ever up shits creek and the cops arn't around, and I need the assistance of an armed citizen, I would prefer help from an armed off duty LEO than a guy with a Florida carry permit who buys his underwear at a PA Walmart because he can carry a gun there.

Can any thread about LEOs end without personal attacks and cop-bashing?

Can any thread about LEOs end without personal attacks and cop-bashing?

 

I think it is ok so far.

 

In reality, please lets distinguish between the laws as they are, by whom they are enacted, and whom they cover.

 

The fact that LEO are allowed to carry off duty, has nothing to do with that we cannot. two separate issues.

 

For one, having off duty LEO allowed to carry is a great benefit, especially since we are not allowed to protect ourselves.

As much as I think we should all have the right to carry, the fact that we don't have criminals who get out of jail pissed off at us for us arresting them does play into it a bit.

If I'm ever up shits creek and the cops arn't around, and I need the assistance of an armed citizen, I would prefer help from an armed off duty LEO than a guy with a Florida carry permit who buys his underwear at a PA Walmart because he can carry a gun there.

 

Well, that depends. Since most cops around my area NEVER carry off duty I'll take the armed citizen over an unarmed odd duty LEO.

Decent read from yesterday. I hope the link works. I am not good at this stuff.

 

http://www.pressofatlanticcity.com/news/top_three/law-enforcement-officials-say-there-s-a-reason-why-laws/article_1d129cfe-d69a-11e0-8a86-001cc4c03286.html

 

 

Total BS. The Supreme Court RULED that officers, on duty or off duty, have NO DUTY to protect you.

If I'm ever up shits creek and the cops arn't around, and I need the assistance of an armed citizen, I would prefer help from an armed off duty LEO than a guy with a Florida carry permit who buys his underwear at a PA Walmart because he can carry a gun there.

 

I hear ya, but if I'm up SC and need help I'll take it from whoever is able to help, there should be plenty of help if people would just put the camcorder down for a minute.

 

Harry

As much as I think we should all have the right to carry, the fact that we don't have criminals who get out of jail pissed off at us for us arresting them does play into it a bit.

 

Sounds like a bad hollywood cop movie. How often does this actually happen, where a criminal freshly released from prison, tracks down the one cop who got him?

I have NO issue with off duty LEo's carrying. Why would you? They didnt make the laws saying we can't.

I now many Leo's are opposed to us carrying, but there are also many that don't.

 

Many people claim there is never a cop around when you need one, they only clean up the mess etc, and you are mostly correct.

 

So, why would you want them around even less?

I think it is ok so far.

 

In reality, please lets distinguish between the laws as they are, by whom they are enacted, and whom they cover.

 

The fact that LEO are allowed to carry off duty, has nothing to do with that we cannot. two separate issues.

 

For one, having off duty LEO allowed to carry is a great benefit, especially since we are not allowed to protect ourselves.

 

Except for the fact that there is never an off-duty LEO around when you need one... just like an on-duty one. So it's not really a great benefit at all.

 

The other thing is how the police approach the issue themselves... they harp up their right to carry while simultaneously putting down the right of civilians to carry, because they have magic police training or a need more supposedly justifiable than anyone elses. Like you and I... but better. (Or, "all animals are equal, just some are more equal than others")

Total BS. The Supreme Court RULED that officers, on duty or off duty, have NO DUTY to protect you.

 

 

No, SCOTUS ruled that there is no CIVIL LIABILITY if there is a delayed response. State laws and departmntal regulations DO in fact address that "Duty". "Neglect of Duty" is a part of every single department in this state's Rules and Regulations. The crux of the SCOTUS case was that someone tried to sue a PD for not responding to a 911 call where someone was injured or killed IIRC. The fact of the matter was it was a small agency and literally had nobody to send at that time.

 

As far as "Most" or "Many" Cops not wanting Civilian CCW..sorry, but Nonsense. MOST cops have no issue with it, in fact when it was brought up on NJLawman's forums, it was the WANNABE's that were down on Civilian CCW, all of the actual cops who answered were in favor of it.

I think it is ok so far.

 

In reality, please lets distinguish between the laws as they are, by whom they are enacted, and whom they cover.

 

The fact that LEO are allowed to carry off duty, has nothing to do with that we cannot. two separate issues.

 

For one, having off duty LEO allowed to carry is a great benefit, especially since we are not allowed to protect ourselves.

 

Law enforcement as a political entity comes out against CCW for the average joe time and time again. They want every advantage they can get against the "them" part of the us and them equation. If I can't get CCW reform now, I'd definitely sign on for sticking them with the exact same set of rules we have as that will quickly either shut them out of the CCW discussion or stop them form being an adversary when it comes to the issue.

 

I don't bash for the sake of bashing, but you get to own the problems you cause.

One of my best friends is a Sherrif's officer on patrol. he is not a gun guy AT ALL, not even a litt bit.

With that said, he usually carries a G26 off duty and has NO problem with law abiding CCW.

No, SCOTUS ruled that there is no CIVIL LIABILITY if there is a delayed response. State laws and departmntal regulations DO in fact address that "Duty". "Neglect of Duty" is a part of every single department in this state's Rules and Regulations. The crux of the SCOTUS case was that someone tried to sue a PD for not responding to a 911 call where someone was injured or killed IIRC. The fact of the matter was it was a small agency and literally had nobody to send at that time.

 

As far as "Most" or "Many" Cops not wanting Civilian CCW..sorry, but Nonsense. MOST cops have no issue with it, in fact when it was brought up on NJLawman's forums, it was the WANNABE's that were down on Civilian CCW, all of the actual cops who answered were in favor of it.

 

After you mentioned the NJLawman's thread, I went over to check it out. It's a shame that LEOs who do think progressively in regards to Gun Rights don't have a much greater voice. That being said, those loudmouth LEOs who think they are better than the rest of us' really ruin things for the good cops out there and give ya'll a bad name.

 

http://uslawman.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=4943470&trail=80

Law enforcement as a political entity comes out against CCW for the average joe time and time again.

 

 

You need to clarify that statement. (KD, correct me if I'm wrong) The faction of LE that comes out against CCW "time and time again" is the upper echelon - the chiefs and commissioners, the ones that have to play the political games to keep their jobs. Blue state, blue mayors, blue chief LEO's - that's the political reality.

 

The rank and file LEO is generally for citizen carry or has no opinion. The problem is that when a political candidate says he has such & such a LE organization's endorsement, Joe Schmoe takes that as meaning the police are in favor of that candidate. The general populus is not intelligent enough (or just too apathetic) to distinguish who is endorsing who, or what organization is in favor of what.

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob