Reason # 15988457 to hate New Jersey and Chis Christie

[GilpinGuy]

...how the hell does NJ get away with flouting federal law?

The people there allow it, that's how.

[Martinjmpr]

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]

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.

[Rumline]

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/...an_Opinion.pdf

[cstone]

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

I plan on being extra special after I retire.

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]

But I am special. It says so on my business card and my badge

I plan on being extra special after I retire.

Did you ride the Special Bus?

I know about being special, I was in the Very Special Forces....

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....

[Rumline]

Sorry for the jacked up formatting in my previous post. When I try to edit it, all the text disappears.

[cstone]

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.

[roberth]

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.

[Great-Kazoo]

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