Glock Forum - GlockTalk banner

1 - 20 of 62 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
78 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Didn't see this posted by anyone yet...

I wondered how long this would take to hit the courts.

TRENTON, N.J. (CN) — In an effort to more easily exercise their right to carry a concealed firearm, retired New Jersey police officers brought a federal lawsuit Monday claiming they shouldn’t have to get a state license because they are automatically granted the right to carry a gun.

Represented by lead attorney Nicholas Harbist with the Princeton firm Blank Rome, Richard Bowen, Joseph Jakubiec and Christopher Martinez argue that the state’s requirement that retired officers must obtain a separate permit for concealed carry violates their rights under the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

“The right is concrete and is within the competence of the judiciary to enforce – if an individual meets the statutory criteria of a ‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’ and carries the identification required under LEOSA, he or she is entitled under federal law to carry a concealed firearm,” the 26-page complaint states.

In New Jersey, the unlawful possession of a firearm can carry a sentence of up to nearly four years. The state requires retired police officers to obtain a so-called RPO permit before they are able to carry a concealed firearm.

In order to obtain the RPO permit, a qualified retired officer must pay a $50 fee and file an application with the superintendent of state police, who has the right to deny any application.

If the application is approved, the retired officer must pay another $50 annual fee to renew the permit. The complaint notes that officers over 75 years old are no longer eligible for the state permit, even though they qualify to carry under the federal law.

State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan – who is named as a defendant in the lawsuit alongside New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewa – allegedly denied applications from both Jakubiec and Martinez, who otherwise qualified under LEOSA. Though Bowen was able to obtain an RPO permit, he says he will not be able to renew it when he turns 75 in a little over a year.

LEOSA, enacted in 2004, allows for qualified retired officers to carry a concealed firearm and hollow point ammunition without prosecution. However, under New Jersey’s RPO permit, retired officers are not allowed to carry hollow point ammunition and they must be carrying the identification card issued by the state to avoid being charged.

The lawsuit asserts that New Jersey is bound by LEOSA to allow retired officers to carry a firearm, and that the state is obligated to make it easy for them to do so.

“LEOSA also imposes a clear and binding obligation on the individual states, including New Jersey, not to impose additional and undue burdens on an individual who is a ‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’ and is carrying the identification required under LEOSA, before he or she may carry a concealed firearm in the state,” the complaint states.

The filing also stresses that active and retired police officers need firearms to keep themselves safe.

“The job of a law enforcement officer never truly ‘ends,’” the lawsuit says. “A firearm is one of many tools that law enforcement officers may use to uphold the law and to protect themselves and their families, as well as other citizens from violent attack.”

Bowen, Jakubiec and Martinez were joined in the suit by the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Association and the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police. Attorneys for the officers declined to comment on the case.

Representatives for Attorney General Grewa did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

https://www.courthousenews.com/retired-cops-sue-over-new-jersey-gun-restrictions/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,762 Posts
The filing also stresses that active and retired police officers need firearms to keep themselves safe.
I would argue that all people have a right to keep themselves safe. Not just retired police. It is immoral for government to restrict people’s rights to own or carry a firearm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,190 Posts
I have a better argument for them. It's called the 2A.

I really hate to see law enforcement getting seduced/bribed into supporting gun control by being granted 'special class' status after retirement. The 2A applies to the people, not a select few of the people. These retired cops should be putting their weight behind an attack on Jersey's firearm privilege scheme (licenses, permits), not arguing for a free pass back into 'the special ones.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,762 Posts
I have a better argument for them. It's called the 2A.

I really hate to see law enforcement getting seduced/bribed into supporting gun control by being granted 'special class' status after retirement. The 2A applies to the people, not a select few of the people. These retired cops should be putting their weight behind an attack on Jersey's firearm privilege scheme (licenses, permits), not arguing for a free pass back into 'the special ones.'
Thank you. This is what I wished I had asserted.
 

·
Massive Member
Joined
·
25,609 Posts
The court system is available for anyone to petition for redress the restriction of their 2A rights.

No need to wish someone else would do it.

This lawsuit will likely succeed. Some have won monetary damages for LEOSA related cases, but I think mainly in cases of arrests, so don’t think they will do so in this case if they sue for damages.

Randy


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,228 Posts
This needs to happen in Tennessee...where, oddly enough, the national HQ of the FOP resides. The state is great in most things, but they really make you jump thru hoops for LEOSA crap.

I just follow federal law and risk meeting "that guy". I've got my retired creds and proof that I qualified this year. While there's always the risk of running into an idiot, it's good to know that a few hours in jail will eventually end in the paying off of my mortgage...and not a penny less.
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
27,023 Posts
This needs to happen in Tennessee...where, oddly enough, the national HQ of the FOP resides. The state is great in most things, but they really make you jump thru hoops for LEOSA crap.

I just follow federal law and risk meeting "that guy". I've got my retired creds and proof that I qualified this year. While there's always the risk of running into an idiot, it's good to know that a few hours in jail will eventually end in the paying off of my mortgage...and not a penny less.
My experience with FOP was that they were generally a useless organization.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,115 Posts
I have a better argument for them. It's called the 2A.

I really hate to see law enforcement getting seduced/bribed into supporting gun control by being granted 'special class' status after retirement. The 2A applies to the people, not a select few of the people. These retired cops should be putting their weight behind an attack on Jersey's firearm privilege scheme (licenses, permits), not arguing for a free pass back into 'the special ones.'
While most of us agree with you, this particular forum - Coptalk- is not the correct venue for that discussion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
364 Posts
But wait... I though that when you guys retired, all the DB’s you put away respected that and left you alone!
 

·
Mr. Awesome
Joined
·
11,244 Posts
I would argue that all people have a right to keep themselves safe. Not just retired police. It is immoral for government to restrict people’s rights to own or carry a firearm.
I have a better argument for them. It's called the 2A.

I really hate to see law enforcement getting seduced/bribed into supporting gun control by being granted 'special class' status after retirement. The 2A applies to the people, not a select few of the people. These retired cops should be putting their weight behind an attack on Jersey's firearm privilege scheme (licenses, permits), not arguing for a free pass back into 'the special ones.'
I agree. However, if you look at how rights get taken away, maybe a slow-steady reversal is more likely to succeed than a big-dramatic one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gray_Rider

·
Registered
Joined
·
32,462 Posts
But wait... I though that when you guys retired, all the DB’s you put away respected that and left you alone!
I had one threaten to kill me as I was about to go in for my final surgery. He is still floating around town. He's a Marine with combat experience and mental health issues. He was stalking one of his former coworkers to the point the USGS, where they worked, had to hire two armed guards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: agtman

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
27,023 Posts
I ran into guys that I had arrested all the time after I retired. No one every tried to threaten me. They either pretended I was not there or acknowledged my presence by calling me officer, or sir.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lens and pAZ Ron

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,635 Posts
Both of my parents recently lost their driving privileges. They are both in their 80’s, and I don’t disagree with the decision, because they are unsafe at any speed. Prior to losing their licenses, I refused to ride as a passenger with either of them. It will be a great inconvenience, but in the end, it’s for everyone’s safety.

While I think 75 years may be too young to lose your carry privileges, I have seen some older retired officers who scared the bejesus out of me on the range.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,848 Posts
Both of my parents recently lost their driving privileges. They are both in their 80’s, and I don’t disagree with the decision, because they are unsafe at any speed. Prior to losing their licenses, I refused to ride as a passenger with either of them. It will be a great inconvenience, but in the end, it’s for everyone’s safety.

While I think 75 years may be too young to lose your carry privileges, I have seen some older retired officers who scared the bejesus out of me on the range.
Those older officers who scared the bejesus out of you on the range probably would have scared you when they weee young too-lol.

But really, that’s the range master who decides if they are unsafe. A set “age” is unfair determiner of ability and unlike a driver’s license, in NJ they are “tested” every six months.
 

·
Unfair Facist
Joined
·
27,023 Posts
I can recall a few old timers that could barely qualify (and then, at the time, they only qualified because the rangemaster fudge their scores.

I told more than one of them that if we were on a call together they better never ever draw their gun. The day might come when I could get shot, (and it did) but I damn well wasn't going to be shot by their incompetent ass.
 
1 - 20 of 62 Posts
Top