Reason # 15988457 to hate New Jersey and Chis Christie

[TFOGGER]

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

If you look at the thread title, this annoyance is pretty far down the list of Reasons to Hate New Jersey...


If we're going to talk about States' Rights, does that mean states can ignore the US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights?

[cstone]

If you look at the thread title, this annoyance is pretty far down the list of Reasons to Hate New Jersey...


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]

If you look at the thread title, this annoyance is pretty far down the list of Reasons to Hate New Jersey...

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]

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.

[cstone]

Everyone needs to be treated with respect. Period. The law needs to apply equally to all humans. Period.

Except the Clintons.

[Dave_L]

Except the Clintons.

He did say "Humans". Do the Clintons fall into that category?

[HoneyBadger]

He did say "Humans". Do the Clintons fall into that category?

Correct.

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]

Correct.

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.")

[MAP]

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.

[MAP]

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