View Full Version : Reason # 15988457 to hate New Jersey and Chis Christie
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/08/arcane-nj-law-prevents-retired-cops-from-carrying-concealed-weapon.html?intcmp=trending
New Jersey’s arcane gun law is preventing some retired cops from getting a permit to carry a concealed weapon, according to a published report.That’s because the law makes no provisions for retired public university police officers to get one, the Newark Star-Ledger (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/02/confusing_new_jersey_gun_laws_deny_some_ex-cops_ri.html) reports.
“There seems to be discrepancy in whether [state] university police are viewed as working for a state agency,” attorney Thomas Roughneen told the paper.
He represents John Kotchkowski, 55, and Robert Dunsmuir, 48, two retired University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey police sergeants who were denied right-to-carry permits.
A judge last month refused to grant Kotchkowski a permit on appeal. Dunsmuir’s appeal will be heard next month.
“It’s made me feel like my whole career was a sham, like they’re saying I wasn’t a real cop,” Kotchkowski told the paper Thursday.
He lost his appeal even though other retired campus cops have won theirs, the paper reported.
Why we should have to prove need to carry a weapon is ridiculous in the first place, but for some bureaucrat to arbitrarily decide it is criminal...[Mad]
ETA: Thankfully I live in a mostly free state, although the libs are trying to erode that (and succeeding)
Oh, FFS...can one of the Mods please correct the title...fingers are WAY too fat this morning...
Doesn't LEOSA supersede their crap gun laws anyhow? Or is that only for active officers?
All laws should apply to all people. If this "hurts" retired cops, then maybe it will get the attention it deserves.
I was under the impression that once anyone retires from any government job in NY or NJ they instantly moved to some other place with a reasonable cost of living, lower taxes and maybe even some nice weather...like FL or AZ.
Getting a retired carry permit in NJ is pretty low on the list of mistakes I can see in their thought process. [Coffee]
Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see constitutional carry in all 50 states and any US possessions, but how the hell does NJ get away with flouting federal law?
Martinjmpr
02-08-2016, 11:17
I believe another term for "retired cop" is "ordinary citizen." That being the case, such a citizen shouldn't have any greater, nor any lesser, right to a CCW permit just because he's a retired campus cop. Let him apply for a regular persons CCW permit just like any retired teacher, retired janitor or retired grocery store clerk would.
And yes, I get that the supposed justification for giving retired cops special CCW privileges is that they might be targeted by someone they arrested while they were on duty (though I think that's BS) but really, what's this guy worried about, that the frat boy he busted for having an unauthorized keg 30 years ago is going to come after him? [ROFL1]
but really, what's this guy worried about, that the frat boy he busted for having an unauthorized keg 30 years ago is going to come after him?
If you think campus police are a joke and don't do anything other than bust frat boys for unauthorized kegs, do a quick search for Garrett Swasey.
Nevermind, I will save you the effort. http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/11/28/colorado-springs-officer-was-father-former-competitive-skater/76496346/
hurley842002
02-08-2016, 11:40
And yes, I get that the supposed justification for giving retired cops special CCW privileges is that they might be targeted by someone they arrested while they were on duty (though I think that's BS) but really, what's this guy worried about, that the frat boy he busted for having an unauthorized keg 30 years ago is going to come after him? [ROFL1]
Yeah those frat boys are soooo much less dangerous than your average Joe on the street. I suppose that's the same thought process some members have, that don't think real crimes occur in prison...
Martinjmpr
02-08-2016, 12:26
If you think campus police are a joke and don't do anything other than bust frat boys for unauthorized kegs, do a quick search for Garrett Swasey.
Nevermind, I will save you the effort. http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2015/11/28/colorado-springs-officer-was-father-former-competitive-skater/76496346/
Yeah those frat boys are soooo much less dangerous than your average Joe on the street. I suppose that's the same thought process some members have, that don't think real crimes occur in prison...
OK, point taken and I'll apologize for implying that campus police aren't real cops. Yes, campus cops sometimes have to deal with violent crime, and sometimes are even killed in the line of duty.
But the supposed justification for giving retired LEOs special privileges with regards to CCW permits is that cops often have to deal with organized crime or other hardened criminals who may well come after LEOs even when the LEOs are retired, for revenge. Does that really happen to campus cops? Does it really happen to big city street cops enough to justify granting them a special privilege that the rest of us are denied?
Because that's what this is about: Special privileges. These guys were used to having special privileges because they have a badge. Then they got denied their privilege and they're complaining about it. Note that they're not complaining about the denial as much as they are about being denied the special privilege they think they are entitled to, as if somehow being denied a permit besmirches their service.
I was vehemently opposed to LEOSA when it was proposed and I still am. Retired cops who have zero arrest powers are not "super citizens" with additional rights not available to the rest of us, and they have no reason to be granted a CCW permit that is not available to an ordinary citizen.
GilpinGuy
02-08-2016, 15:17
...how the hell does NJ get away with flouting federal law?
The people there allow it, that's how.
Martinjmpr
02-08-2016, 15:36
Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see constitutional carry in all 50 states and any US possessions, but how the hell does NJ get away with flouting federal law?
Probably because the law itself hasn't been challenged under LEOSA. As I read LEOSA (18 USC section 826 (c) is the part that applies to retired officers) LEOSA simply says that qualifying officers can carry concealed - not that the State is required to issue them a permit to do so. In essence, LEOSA is their permit.
18 USC section 926 (c) states:
[(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
Now, LEOSA does require that the state issue some kind of credential to the applicant - that is the "Identification required by subsection D" which states that
(d) The identification required by this subsection is— (1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer and indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(2) (A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual separated from service as a law enforcement officer that identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met— (I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm
So, it may be that the required identification that " identifies the person as having been employed as a police officer or law enforcement officer" is something the state has not issued and without that, their LEOSA eligibility cannot be determined.
Martinjmpr
02-08-2016, 15:41
Of course, if they're confident they could just strap up and wait to see if they're arrested, and then if they are, they can raise LEOSA as their defense. From what I read at the NRA-ILA web site, the courts have been pretty generous in granting protection under LEOSA, for example, in the case of an enlisted Coast Guardsman who was busted for having a gun in his car in violation of state law, who then raised LEOSA as his defense and even though he was (a) off duty, (b) with a privately owned weapon and (c) had a job with the USCG that did not require the carrying of a firearm concealed or unconcealed, the courts still found that he was protected under LEOSA and therefore could not be prosecuted.
I believe another term for "retired cop" is "ordinary citizen." That being the case, such a citizen shouldn't have any greater, nor any lesser, right to a CCW permit just because he's a retired campus cop. Let him apply for a regular persons CCW permit just like any retired teacher, retired janitor or retired grocery store clerk would.
I agree. Unfortunately the 4th Circuit just upheld the concept of special gun privileges for retired LEO in the Kolbe v. Hogan appeal:
In our view, the district court correctly determined that retired police officers are not similarly situated with the public at large for purposes of the Maryland Firearm Safety Act ("FSA"). Therefore, granting those officers certain rights under the FSA does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
[Rationales presented:]
First, retired police officers possess a unique combination of training and experience related to firearms. See Shew v. Malloy, 994 F. Supp. 2d 234, 252 (D. Conn. 2014); Pineiro v. Greene, 937 F. Supp. 2d 161, 176 (D. Mass. 2013). All Maryland police officers undergo comprehensive training and qualification on their firearms.
On a day-to-day basis, through their years of employment, police officers gain further practical experience with their weapons -- experience that few, if any, private civilians can claim to possess in equal measure. [...]
Second, because they are granted a "special degree of trust," O’Donnell v. Barry, 148 F.3d 1126, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1998), police officers are instilled with what might be called an unusual ethos of public service. "[Police forces] must demand a high level of discipline and duty of their members in order to function effectively for the good of all members of society." Vorbeck v. Schnicker, 660 F.2d 1260, 1263 (8th Cir. 1981).
Third, retired police officers face special threats that private citizens do not. Most obviously, "retired law enforcement officers often have to defend themselves . . . from criminals whom they have arrested." H.R. Rep. 108-560, at 4 (2004), reprinted in 2004 U.S.C.C.A.N. 805, 806; see, e.g., Alison Gendar, Ex-Con with Grudge Busted in Bashing, N.Y. Daily News, July 1, 2007, at 13 ("Armed with a grudge and a set of brass knuckles, an ex-con pummeled a retired cop last week as payback for a minor arrest in 2002, authorities said.").
Decision starts on Page 47: http://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Kolbe-v.-Hogan_Opinion.pdf
But the supposed justification for giving retired LEOs special privileges with regards to CCW permits...Special privileges. These guys were used to having special privileges because they have a badge....
But I am special. It says so on my business card and my badge [ROFL3]
I plan on being extra special after I retire. [Flower]
I support Constitutional Carry for everyone who is not incarcerated. I treat everyone I meet as if they are armed, and for their own safety, I hope they are.
Be safe.
Martinjmpr
02-08-2016, 16:04
But I am special. It says so on my business card and my badge [ROFL3]
I plan on being extra special after I retire. [Flower]
Did you ride the Special Bus? [ROFL1]
I know about being special, I was in the Very Special Forces.... (http://www.theonion.com/article/clinton-deploys-very-special-forces-to-iraq-645) [LOL]
I support Constitutional Carry for everyone who is not incarcerated. I treat everyone I meet as if they are armed, and for their own safety, I hope they are.
Be safe.
I actually don't have a problem with "shall issue" concealed carry permits, to me it's like a driver's license. I realize that's probably a minority opinion on this board (and on most gun boards) though. Still, having one law for retired cops and another one for common citizens irks me.
It's also, IMO, a part of the gun-grabber's agenda to drive a wedge between police and citizens. After all, once the cops have their "special privilege" to carry, why would they care about supporting the rights of us lesser beings? They got theirs....
Sorry for the jacked up formatting in my previous post. When I try to edit it, all the text disappears.
I do not believe that bearing a firearm is like driving a vehicle. The first is a right I was born with. The second is a priviledge granted by the state where I reside.
When acting under the color of law, citizens who are commissioned by a government act with the authority of that government and are an extension of the people that elect that government.
If Constitutional Carry was universally recognized nationwide (quite the pipe dream eh?) there would be no need for LEOSA.
IMO, If someone is too dangerous or irresponsible to carry a firearm, they should be subjected to the legal system where some form of protective custody, like incarceration can be provided until they are no longer dangerous to themselves or others. If you get to walk the street, the government, which cannot provide 24/7 protection, should not hinder any adult citizen from providing for their own protection.
Just my $.02
Be safe.
I do not believe that bearing a firearm is like driving a vehicle. The first is a right I was born with. The second is a priviledge granted by the state where I reside.
When acting under the color of law, citizens who are commissioned by a government act with the authority of that government and are an extension of the people that elect that government.
If Constitutional Carry was universally recognized nationwide (quite the pipe dream eh?) there would be no need for LEOSA.
IMO, If someone is too dangerous or irresponsible to carry a firearm, they should be subjected to the legal system where some form of protective custody, like incarceration can be provided until they are no longer dangerous to themselves or others. If you get to walk the street, the government, which cannot provide 24/7 protection, should not hinder any adult citizen from providing for their own protection.
Just my $.02
Be safe.
Liked. [Beer]
Great-Kazoo
02-08-2016, 19:05
Don't get me wrong. I'd like to see constitutional carry in all 50 states and any US possessions, but how the hell does NJ get away with flouting federal law?
Sates rights or Federal .gov rights. Which is it?? You can't have both. To even suggest the FEDERAL .GOV sticks it's nose in to states rights AGAIN, is crap.
They've done enough damage over the last few decades eroding states rights. leave it to the state to decide. If we follow your line of thinking the feds should mandate what firearms , magazines and ammo one is "permitted" to posses.
Not happening as long as people like me vote. Next thing you know the feds will tell a small business owner who they can or cannot make a cake for [shithitsfan]
Sates rights or Federal .gov rights. Which is it?? You can't have both. To even suggest the FEDERAL .GOV sticks it's nose in to states rights AGAIN, is crap.
They've done enough damage over the last few decades eroding states rights. leave it to the state to decide. If we follow your line of thinking the feds should mandate what firearms , magazines and ammo one is "permitted" to posses.
Not happening as long as people like me vote. Next thing you know the feds will tell a small business owner who they can or cannot make a cake for [shithitsfan]
If you look at the thread title, this annoyance is pretty far down the list of Reasons to Hate New Jersey...[ROFL1]
If we're going to talk about States' Rights, does that mean states can ignore the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?
If you look at the thread title, this annoyance is pretty far down the list of Reasons to Hate New Jersey...[ROFL1]
If we're going to talk about States' Rights, does that mean states can ignore the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?
The Constitution did not take effect until the States ratified it as a controlling document. All states admitted after the Constitution took effect had to agree to the preeminence of the document.
Over time many of the rights originally meant to restrict the actions of the federal government have been incorporated to also restrict state and local government actions through the interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
If the powers were not strictly enumerated to the federal government, the power is to remain with the individual states.
Great-Kazoo
02-08-2016, 20:51
If you look at the thread title, this annoyance is pretty far down the list of Reasons to Hate New Jersey...[ROFL1]
Yet you felt it necessary to bring such a minuscule item to everyone's attention.
If we're going to talk about States' Rights, does that mean states can ignore the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?
The states already ignore the Constitution (Ill, CA, NY, MA, CT, CO) with different degrees of legislation.
HoneyBadger
02-09-2016, 10:54
All laws should apply to all people. If this "hurts" retired cops, then maybe it will get the attention it deserves.
THIS^ Cops are not a special class of citizen. They have special duties and responsibilities when in uniform (which are agreed upon, in some way, by the people) and that is the limit of their "authority".
I've seen the same argument for military members and some localities actually do treat them differently (Colorado waives the CCW training requirement for Active Duty or recently separated military members) and it's absolutely unjust. Members of the military are not a special class of citizen and they don't deserve any more respect or special privilege than anyone else. Everyone needs to be treated with respect. Period. The law needs to apply equally to all humans. Period.
Everyone needs to be treated with respect. Period. The law needs to apply equally to all humans. Period.
Except the Clintons. [Sarcasm2]
Except the Clintons. [Sarcasm2]
He did say "Humans". Do the Clintons fall into that category? :D
HoneyBadger
02-09-2016, 11:24
He did say "Humans". Do the Clintons fall into that category? :D
Correct. [LOL]
All joking aside, if we support the creation of a special class of animals, then it logically follows that some animals will be more equal than others.
Martinjmpr
02-09-2016, 12:49
Correct. [LOL]
All joking aside, if we support the creation of a special class of animals, then it logically follows that some animals will be more equal than others.
I agree and if we create special privileges that accrue to certain jobs then you can bet there will be people fighting to get those privileges.
For that matter, now that shall-issue CCW permitting is now the law in most of the country, and there is widespread (although not universal) reciprocity, seems to me the justification for the LEOSA is pretty flimsy.
To put it another way, if a retired cop thinks that he might face some special danger that would justify him needing to carry a weapon, why can't he just apply for a permit like everybody else?
I would also ask: Why is it only RETIRED cops? What about someone who walked a beat or drove a squad car for 5 years and then moved on to a non-LE job? Doesn't he face the same possibility of running into some bad guy he locked up years ago? And yet LEOSA doesn't apply to "former" LEO's, just RETIRED LEOs.
To me that just illustrates the fact that this isn't about providing genuine protection to a vulnerable class of people, it's about giving a special privilege to a politically connected class as a bribe to get them to support other gun control measures (IOW the bribe is like this "You can go ahead and support gun control measures for the regular citizens because we will carve out a special exception for you.")
Doesn't LEOSA supersede their crap gun laws anyhow? Or is that only for active officers?
Yes, LEOSA (18 U.S. Code Sect. 926B) supersedes NJ State Law. the Code specifically states:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
(b)This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—
(1)permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2)prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
The NJ Retired carry permit mess came about after a retired Police Chief was killed trying to help an elderly couple that was attacked by armed men.
The article is miss leading. If you are a qualified person under the Code and meet the requirements there is no need for the NJ permit.
As a retired NJ LEO I always carry when visiting family in NY & NJ. The same should apply to everyone.
I would also ask: Why is it only RETIRED cops? What about someone who walked a beat or drove a squad car for 5 years and then moved on to a non-LE job?
You don't need to be retired, the Code, states "before such separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more;"
You can find the Code here https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/926C
Mike
IMO, CCW is asking your government for permission and paying a special tax to wear a cover garment.
Lots of people carry concealed. Only some of them ask their government for permission to do so. Those people would generally be the law abiding types.
Rather than focusing on taking protection away from one group of citizens for exercizing a birthright, I believe we should focus on restricting government from infringing upon that birthright of all citizens.
I sometimes miss living in NJ. Never lasts long and while I may visit from time to time, I don't want to pay taxes to Trenton ever again.
HoneyBadger
02-09-2016, 15:04
IMO, CCW is asking your government for permission and paying a special tax to wear a cover garment.
Lots of people carry concealed. Only some of them ask their government for permission to do so. Those people would generally be the law abiding types.
Rather than focusing on taking protection away from one group of citizens for exercising a birthright, I believe we should focus on restricting government from infringing upon that birthright of all citizens.
Well said.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.