Exactly. After 25 to 30 years I retire and decide I dont have to do anything about anything. So I don't need to carry. Also another reason I carry is because when I am not at work I still may run into somebody who I locked up. Perfect example. The guy who I locked up of federal charges was set to be bailed out befor the fed charges were brought. He was going I live with a family member in the town where I live! I only found out in speaking with the officer from ATF he didn't know I was fom Bayonne. When he Lund out he told me to keep an eye out. There seems to be a lot of hating because I get to carry. It doesn't make me any better thn you, it's just part of my job. I think more people should be able to carry but that's not the case. If it bothers you that muh thn move or get into law enforcement. I chose tht job not for the money or for the fact I cn carry a gun all the time.

Sorry, we need to stop treating LEOs as a group of 'special' people. They serve at the People's behest, not the other way around.

Actually no we are not. Your everyday citizen doesn't have a duty to react to a situation. If I am off duty and see something that constitutes a dangerous or violent crime I must act as if I m on duty. I must confront the situation. Joe citizen cn ignore it or call the police and leave. So no we are not the same in that manner. I still think ccw laws in this state are garbage and me being able to carry all the time does not make me better than you. I just have a different job that requires me to technically act 24/7.

 

Stupid. You're gonna take on criminals all by yourself? Your perceived duty to act is no different than from some CCWer's fantasy that they will save the day all by themselves when the situation arises.

 

Chances are, if you saw a crime happening, your best bet is to do what you LEOs tell us civies to do... call the Police and don't get involved until they arrive.

These threads always turn into some imagined LEO vs. Regular Joe trolling battle. Nobody said anything about off-duty LEOs being required/allowed to carry. Nobody has any but the greatest respect for those who go out every day and put their lives at risk do protect the rest of us.

 

That isn't the point of this discussion.

 

We're talking about retired LEO. You no longer have a duty to step in when you see something. Whether or not you choose to is less than irrelevant. The duty no longer exists. With that, you're no different than a retired welder, pilot or doctor., except that your 2A right to carry weapon to protect yourself is protected, while everyone else's is denied. That isn't equal treatment under the law. Nobody expects or demands a 70 year old, trembling ex-cop to jump in when he sees a gang raping a schoolgirl, and his decision to do so has no meaning to the conversation, simply the fact that by virtue of his previous profession, he has the right to carry a gun, and the rest of us don't.

 

No cop bashing, no us vs. them bullshiit, no standing on the highest peak and defending your profession... just a simple fact.

Under 2C Municipal Police, Corrections, Park Police, Parole, JJC officers are all law enforcement. They all have the same rights to carry off-duty. Retired LEO's in this state must qualify twice a year to retain the right to carry as a retired LEO.

Exactly. After 25 to 30 years I retire and decide I dont have to do anything about anything. So I don't need to carry. Also another reason I carry is because when I am not at work I still may run into somebody who I locked up. Perfect example. The guy who I locked up of federal charges was set to be bailed out befor the fed charges were brought. He was going I live with a family member in the town where I live! I only found out in speaking with the officer from ATF he didn't know I was fom Bayonne. When he Lund out he told me to keep an eye out. There seems to be a lot of hating because I get to carry. It doesn't make me any better thn you, it's just part of my job. I think more people should be able to carry but that's not the case. If it bothers you that muh thn move or get into law enforcement. I chose tht job not for the money or for the fact I cn carry a gun all the time.

Exactly. After 25 to 30 years I retire and decide I dont have to do anything about anything. So I don't need to carry. Also another reason I carry is because when I am not at work I still may run into somebody who I locked up. Perfect example. The guy who I locked up of federal charges was set to be bailed out befor the fed charges were brought. He was going I live with a family member in the town where I live! I only found out in speaking with the officer from ATF he didn't know I was fom Bayonne. When he Lund out he told me to keep an eye out. There seems to be a lot of hating because I get to carry. It doesn't make me any better thn you, it's just part of my job. I think more people should be able to carry but that's not the case. If it bothers you that muh thn move or get into law enforcement. I chose tht job not for the money or for the fact I cn carry a gun all the time.

 

Sounds like a problem with the legal system, not your off-duty carry policy.

These threads always turn into some imagined LEO vs. Regular Joe trolling battle. Nobody said anything about off-duty LEOs being required/allowed to carry. Nobody has any but the greatest respect for those who go out every day and put their lives at risk do protect the rest of us.

 

That isn't the point of this discussion.

 

We're talking about retired LEO. You no longer have a duty to step in when you see something. Whether or not you choose to is less than irrelevant. The duty no longer exists. With that, you're no different than a retired welder, pilot or doctor., except that your 2A right to carry weapon to protect yourself is protected, while everyone else's is denied. That isn't equal treatment under the law. Nobody expects or demands a 70 year old, trembling ex-cop to jump in when he sees a gang raping a schoolgirl, and his decision to do so has no meaning to the conversation, simply the fact that by virtue of his previous profession, he has the right to carry a gun, and the rest of us don't.

 

No cop bashing, no us vs. them bullshiit, no standing on the highest peak and defending your profession... just a simple fact.

 

Agreed. When you turn in your badge, you turn in your gun, and become just like the rest of us.

I am not going to be 70 when I retire. I will be in my late 40's early 50's. I would still get involved if I needed to and I will still carry.

These threads always turn into some imagined LEO vs. Regular Joe trolling battle. Nobody said anything about off-duty LEOs being required/allowed to carry. Nobody has any but the greatest respect for those who go out every day and put their lives at risk do protect the rest of us.

 

That isn't the point of this discussion.

 

We're talking about retired LEO. You no longer have a duty to step in when you see something. Whether or not you choose to is less than irrelevant. The duty no longer exists. With that, you're no different than a retired welder, pilot or doctor., except that your 2A right to carry weapon to protect yourself is protected, while everyone else's is denied. That isn't equal treatment under the law. Nobody expects or demands a 70 year old, trembling ex-cop to jump in when he sees a gang raping a schoolgirl, and his decision to do so has no meaning to the conversation, simply the fact that by virtue of his previous profession, he has the right to carry a gun, and the rest of us don't.

 

No cop bashing, no us vs. them bullshiit, no standing on the highest peak and defending your profession... just a simple fact.

I totally agree, however it seems when anything LE related comes up On/Off duty retired or not some always says, "Why cant we" or "They think they are special". We feel like we have to defend ourselves. I think everyone should be able to carry a gun for protection or just because you want to. But I dont make those decisions.

Actually I never turn in my badge. I will always have one long after I retire.

Im reposting my post from page one because posting is so active in this thread Ithink most missed it....

 

Posted Today, 11:01 AM

I think that there is a muddied argument being made here. Duty to act is not relevant to a fed law allowing retired LE to carry. But this convo ties in to some statements I had made previously on this forum and that was the disiparity of the human right to protect ones self. Retired LE, like corrections officers are afforded the right to self protection presumably because they may be targeted or run into someone that harbors bad intentions toward them for actions performed during their active service. This, for me, sparks MANY questions!!!! Why are rights different for groups of people. I believe this to be pattently wrong!!!!!

 

Why cant an individual that has served in the military in Delta force, recieved more firearms training than entire police departments recieve in a decade, fought evil worldwide get a permit to protect themself?

 

Why cant a retired LE who worked a supermax prison for 30 years and come into contact with the baddest of the bad get a carry permit without jumping through yearly hoops and expence of certification?

 

Why cant a person that has been abducted in error by a biker gang who testified against them and put them behind bars have the right to protect themself.

 

Why CAN any non leo non with zero training that gets a ccw because they are friends with a judge or politician have one with NO requirements whatsovere, yearly or otherwise?

 

WHY AS CITISENS OF THE UNITED STATES DO WE TOLERATE THESE DESPARITIES IN HUMAN RIGHTS??????? We might as well bring back segregation, repeal womans right to vote, deny employemnt on race, religion or sexual oreintation if we are going to continue to grant or deny rights based on the group they belong to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Shane

 

I totally agree, however it seems when anything LE related comes up On/Off duty retired or not some always says, "Why cant we" or "They think they are special". We feel like we have to defend ourselves. I think everyone should be able to carry a gun for protection or just because you want to. But I dont make those decisions.

 

+1

I'm also seeing a lot of "you just don't understand how hard or tough our jobs is". Guys, that might be true, but I'm pretty sure almost ANYONE can say that. Farmers work crazy hours in crazy weather so we can eat, sanitation workers have terrible jobs dealing with our trash so we don't die of cholera, plumbers make sure our waters is clean and our **** goes away to unseen places, roofers get burned up in the sun so we can stay out of the rain.

 

It is easy for any group to say "if you are not us you just don't understand" but when this translates in different privileges before the law, then I don't care. Sure, a con may have it in for guy who put him in prison or kept him there, but remember .. you weren't his first choice of victim to begin with, he started by targeting everyone else, and everyone else is still a target.

Im reposting my post from page one because posting is so active in this thread Ithink most missed it....

 

Posted Today, 11:01 AM

I think that there is a muddied argument being made here. Duty to act is not relevant to a fed law allowing retired LE to carry. But this convo ties in to some statements I had made previously on this forum and that was the disiparity of the human right to protect ones self. Retired LE, like corrections officers are afforded the right to self protection presumably because they may be targeted or run into someone that harbors bad intentions toward them for actions performed during their active service. This, for me, sparks MANY questions!!!! Why are rights different for groups of people. I believe this to be pattently wrong!!!!!

 

Why cant an individual that has served in the military in Delta force, recieved more firearms training than entire police departments recieve in a decade, fought evil worldwide get a permit to protect themself?

 

Why cant a retired LE who worked a supermax prison for 30 years and come into contact with the baddest of the bad get a carry permit without jumping through yearly hoops and expence of certification?

 

Why cant a person that has been abducted in error by a biker gang who testified against them and put them behind bars have the right to protect themself.

 

Why CAN any non leo non with zero training that gets a ccw because they are friends with a judge or politician have one with NO requirements whatsovere, yearly or otherwise?

 

WHY AS CITISENS OF THE UNITED STATES DO WE TOLERATE THESE DESPARITIES IN HUMAN RIGHTS??????? We might as well bring back segregation, repeal womans right to vote, deny employemnt on race, religion or sexual oreintation if we are going to continue to grant or deny rights based on the group they belong to!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

Shane

 

You make very valid points that I agree with. I don't make the laws and don't hate on me because I get to carry. There seems to be a lot of animosity because police get to carry all the time. I can't understand your frustration but I do understand it. All I say is don't make it personal against LEO. It's the politicians

I totally agree, however it seems when anything LE related comes up On/Off duty retired or not some always says, "Why cant we" or "They think they are special". We feel like we have to defend ourselves. I think everyone should be able to carry a gun for protection or just because you want to. But I dont make those decisions.

It seems that way because:

 

someone has a personal axe to grind against a particular cop, department or law, and take any opportunity to paint an entire profession with a single broad brush, or

one of our LEO members reads something between the lines that isn't really there and takes a personal offense at being singled out for criticism. or

people just like to troll and stir the pot of confrontation, trying to bait someone into saying something stupid, or

as in this case, someone didn't read the OP and just jumped feet first into the piranha pool.

 

Civility is a wonderful thing. Let's practice it.

#1 Commercial fisherman

 

#2 through #10 Most Dangerous for 2010

 

 

Job Title and Number of Deaths per 100,000 People Employed

2. Loggers and related: 91.9/100,000 -- Same place rank as 2008.

 

3. Aircraft Pilots and Flight Engineers: 70.6 -- Up from #6 in 2008.

 

4. Farmers and Ranchers: 41.4 -- Same place rank as 2008.

 

5. Mining Machine Operators: 38.7 -- Up from #8 in 2008.

 

6. Roofers: 32.4 -- Up from #7 in 2008, becoming more deadly.

 

7. Refuse and Recyclable Materials Collectors: 29.8 -- Down from #5 in 2008

 

8. Driver/Sales Workers and Truck Drivers: 21.8 -- Up from #17 in 2008.

 

9. Industrial Machinery Installation, Repair and Maintenance Workers: 20.3

 

10. Police and Sheriff's Officers: 18.0 -- Up from #12 in 2008.

 

 

 

 

SO WE NEED TO ARM THE FISHERMAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vlad you are right and I agree. But for some reason those jobs mentioned dont get bashed on here or in the public as much as our profession. Again I think everyone should have the right to carry and own as many guns as they want as long as they arent a convicted felon.

I wanna see him at 87 years old going, "Freeze! Police! It's my duty"

Mike

http://www.nj.gov/cs...rs/jobs/safety/

 

Take the test. Do not be angry at LEO's for spending time away from their families, or working holidays and weekends and all other kinds of shifts. Dont be angry at LEO's for taking a test and passing then passing an academy. Do be mad at LEO's for working 25 years hopefully not getting hurt or killed then collecting a pension for those years of civil service.

 

Don't be mad at LEO's because we have to carry a weapon in performance of our duties or in the case of off-duty to protect their families against harm from some person they locked up or spent years with in prison that holds a grudge. They arent mad at you because you make x amount of dollars a year and have weekend and holidays off to spend with your families. They arent mad at you because you sit in an office or warehouse or wherever and enjoy the comforts of air conditioning or being able to talk to your families on your cell phone whenever your heart desires. LEO's whether they are State Troopers, Local Police, Corrections, Park Police or whatever give up alot of their lives to the jobs and for the most dont complain about how non-LEO's live. If it seems like we stick together, of course we do no matter where we work or for what department. People do not understand about the job or the sacrifices.

I dont agree about CCW policies regarding civilians, but it is what it is. Either put more money into groups that get it changed or move out. As harsh as it sounds thats the reality.

Take the test if you want. I think it comes out again in a little while.

 

I'm crying my eyes out!

 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf

 

Look at chart #3

 

Pampered protected union employees.

 

I'm certainly not a basher but this is cry baby stuff.

 

If you don't want this kind of comment don't post this poor me stuff.

 

All the issues you stated apply to virtually all professions.

 

Maybe we should pension out commercial fisherman with beefits for life.

 

Again, not bashing just saying if you don't want the heat, get out of the fire.

Those jobs arent comparable. They are dangerous but not comparable.

BLF, personally I have no hard feeling about LE carrying. Clearly I think it should be the case unabated. But I also think that should be the case for anyone that is not a disqualified citizen. I think the point of this thread, though, is that retired LE could find themselves standing shoulder to shoulder with "us". And that I guess that creates the hope of perhaps a greater sympathy of our situation for LE that have previously held a position that only LE or Mil should have the right to carry.

Its not cry baby stuff. The difference is we dont cry about regular people, why do they cry about us?

Vlad you are right and I agree. But for some reason those jobs mentioned dont get bashed on here or in the public as much as our profession.

 

You are correct on the other hand farmers and roofers tend to no come in contact with me that often and when they do we exchange cash for goods and services and move on. Not so with law enforcement encounters.

 

One day maybe we can have a chat over a beer and I'll give you some examples of why cops get bashed. I shoot with a lot of cops/prison guards/DHS/FBI types and most are salt of the earth. The problem is that every now and then, like in every other job, some people aren't salt of the earth types and the nature of the job means that whoever ran into them is going to have a very long and very negative view of that encounter.

 

From where I'm standing that wouldn't even be so bad if the rest of the law enforcement community made more of an effort to repudiate those folks among them, but way to often I see otherwise good people hold that blue line just because they are expected to.

I think no one should be without some sort of protection, be it a gun, knife whatever. But this state is not gun friendly, never has and never will.

I think no one should be without some sort of protection, be it a gun, knife whatever. But this state is not gun friendly, never has and never will.

 

Well I really hope you are wrong on the last one

Believe me there are a ton of d-bags in the line of work. Most of us on here just want to BS and shoot the crap with Gun-minded people like us whether we are LEO, Lawyers, work at wal-mart, whatever. It doesnt matter to me. We all have the same hobby and goals, to spend alot of money on that hobby and meet new friends. I hate getting involved in "Political" conversations be it here or at work. I would rather talk about the weather or why Glock rules supreme in this land.

Glocks rule cause they are cheap and have all the usual benefits of items built by the lowest bidder

Well I really hope you are wrong on the last one

 

Me too. I would love to own a silencer or a MP5 or something cool, and if I didnt fall into this career carry a weapon, just because I can. Hopefully things change for the better.

Now I hate you both. Glock users are a group that should be segregated!

I feel bad for other companies too, so I bought a XD-9. It was like that runt in the window nobody else wanted, I felt bad for it.