NJ ex cops complain they are not more equal than others.....

Welcome to serfdom.

Get in the back of the line and keep quiet.

Commonsense gun laws are paramount to public safety.[rolleyes]
 
Didn't they hear that Chris Christie said he had expanded gun rights in New Jersey, I'm sure they're covered.
 
Didn't they hear that Chris Christie said he had expanded gun rights in New Jersey, I'm sure they're covered.

Why yes, he did last December! [troll]

On December 21, Governor Chris Christie (R) released a statement supporting the clarification of New Jersey gun laws and the expansion of what qualifies as a “justifiable need,” as it pertains to reaching the threshold for being issued a firearm carry permit.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...0EPRMyggKN4lVn9xQ&sig2=0RCEz5iy70bBNjYvSjh-pA
 
Didn't they hear that Chris Christie said he had expanded gun rights in New Jersey, I'm sure they're covered.


And he clarified that in a Republican debate by vetoing a gun control ban (one that he proposed). [rofl]

During Thursday’s Republican presidential debate, Chris Christie cited his veto of a proposed gun ban to bolster his conservative bonafides… while leaving off the inconvenient fact that he was the one who proposed the ban to begin with.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Q6DjIJNbxO6_kCk5A&sig2=KOmiSadPhz9i7brHuyxMfw
 
I'm sure they have a lot violent enemies bent on revenge, after tough decades patrolling the mean hallways of the school of medicine and dentistry.
 
“By that logic, that makes the entire Rutgers police force -- which is one of the largest in the state -- ineligible. And that flies in the face of the intent of the law, which is to increase public safety.”

Want to increased public safety? Let the rest of your population carry.
 
I'm sure they have a lot violent enemies bent on revenge, after tough decades patrolling the mean hallways of the school of medicine and dentistry.
exactly. Can they show an elevated need to carry more than that of an average citizen. I would argue that with their extentsive training and street smarts they are less needy to carry.
 
exactly. Can they show an elevated need to carry more than that of an average citizen. I would argue that with their extentsive training and street smarts they are less needy to carry.

You're absolutely right. More guns equals more gun violence. I don't think we should increase vigilantism,

Perhaps they can write an essay, explaining why they need to carry. Also, clearly they will need to pay to keep their police firearms qualifications and training current on a yearly basis. Otherwise they will be just as dangerous as non-police officers.
[troll]
 
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.

Retired at 48 and 55. No longer special. Yeah, this is just a damned shame. ****ing clowns.
 
Law Abiding Citizens' Safety Act - A Modest Proposal

Why are there exceptions for police? This "overlord > serf" mentality is pathetic.

Want to increased public safety? Let the rest of your population carry.

A few months ago, comments on NES inspired some thoughts on a cheap and cheesy way to achieve nationwide gun rights (well, privileges). Under a sufficiently non-Donk Congress and administration, push a specific kind of law so that gun owners don't have to wait for yet another unicorn fart of liberty from the Supreme Court:

Amend LEOSA to apply to all (non-FPP) adults - co-opt most of the language for normal people.

No "suitability" nonsense, no state- or local-level restraints on guns and ammo; not even reciprocity between all the more or less flawed state laws. Your Federal card would be a nationwide license to buy what you wanted and take it where you wanted, regardless of restrictions placed upon people carrying under a state license.


  • That Glock fotay you want in Mass? Sorry, Marsha - I have a Federal License to buy it.
  • Loaded with hollow points in Newark? No problem - I have a Federal License to carry them.
  • Anti's blathering on MSNBC about what the Second means? The point is moot - I have a Federal License.

Advantages could include fig leaves woven in about training, photo identification, etc. - hopefully stupid things that slay gun-grabber strawmen without actually burdening real people in practice. For instance, a (one-time) short course that most jurisdictions might have already. (Let it include briefing on the agenda and machinations of gun grabbers, so that new gun owners know their enemy). Photo-id requirements that are coincidentally out of reach of crimaliens; etc. Under no circumstances require more from citizens than police.


Disadvantages include the possibility that the law would be a single point of failure. If it was popular enough and most people carried on their Federal license, then state schemes might wither. (One might jawbone the states by making Federal law-enforcement funding for states contingent on supporting gun ownership at the status quo or better). And if the Federal regime were popular enough, it would be the single biggest target of the gun grabbers. The ideal protection would be for gun ownership to leap to high enough levels even in blue states that it's the anti's themselves that would be resigned to gnash their teeth in the outer darkness.

There are proposals for National Carry. I don't know if this one shares all their advantages, or has unique flaws. Yet spun properly, it might cause neutral voters to question why it shouldn't be passed. It would be ironic if LEOSA turned out to have allowed the camel's nose into the tent.

I look forward to SCOTUS unicorn farts about Full Faith and Credit, Interstate Commerce, and plain old striking down state/local laws as violating the plain letter of the Constitition. But some Federal carry statute might make a good firewall in the meantime.


One wouldn't have to change the existing LEOSA provisions - one could add the non-cop sections in parallel. If Congress was sufficiently concerned about police misbehavior compared to the Average Joe, they could retain the sections requiring cops to pass annual qualifications and remaining in good standing with their departments.

So (getting back to the subject), NJ cops could continue to receive all of their current entitlements, good and hard.


As I am led to believe Ma$$holechusetts has a CMR that limits the application of LEOSA. ...

As alluded to in this LEOSA thread.

At least there's a $43K Lovely Parting Gift, to help you get back over the Hellhole/Freedom border.

... I have no use for the states that do not trust the armed citizen.

If only they were better holding pens for the kind of citizens who elect that kind of politicians.
 
Last edited:
  • That Glock fotay you want in Mass? Sorry, Marsha - I have a Federal License to buy it.

Carry licenses have nothing to do with what you can buy where. That is covered by federal law. I've got a NH non-resident license, but that still doesn't allow me to buy a handgun from an FFL in NH and take delivery of it from him.
 
A few months ago, comments on NES inspired some thoughts on a cheap and cheesy way to achieve nationwide gun rights (well, privileges). Under a sufficiently non-Donk Congress and administration, push a specific kind of law so that gun owners don't have to wait for yet another unicorn fart of liberty from the Supreme Court:

Amend LEOSA to apply to all (non-FPP) adults - co-opt most of the language for normal people.

No "suitability" nonsense, no state- or local-level restraints on guns and ammo; not even reciprocity between all the more or less flawed state laws. Your Federal card would be a nationwide license to buy what you wanted and take it where you wanted, regardless of restrictions placed upon people carrying under a state license.


  • That Glock fotay you want in Mass? Sorry, Marsha - I have a Federal License to buy it.
  • Loaded with hollow points in Newark? No problem - I have a Federal License to carry them.
  • Anti's blathering on MSNBC about what the Second means? The point is moot - I have a Federal License.

Advantages could include fig leaves woven in about training, photo identification, etc. - hopefully stupid things that slay gun-grabber strawmen without actually burdening real people in practice. For instance, a (one-time) short course that most jurisdictions might have already. (Let it include briefing on the agenda and machinations of gun grabbers, so that new gun owners know their enemy). Photo-id requirements that are coincidentally out of reach of crimaliens; etc. Under no circumstances require more from citizens than police.


Disadvantages include the possibility that the law would be a single point of failure. If it was popular enough and most people carried on their Federal license, then state schemes might wither. (One might jawbone the states by making Federal law-enforcement funding for states contingent on supporting gun ownership at the status quo or better). And if the Federal regime were popular enough, it would be the single biggest target of the gun grabbers. The ideal protection would be for gun ownership to leap to high enough levels even in blue states that it's the anti's themselves that would be resigned to gnash their teeth in the outer darkness.

There are proposals for National Carry. I don't know if this one shares all their advantages, or has unique flaws. Yet spun properly, it might cause neutral voters to question why it shouldn't be passed. It would be ironic if LEOSA turned out to have allowed the camel's nose into the tent.

I look forward to SCOTUS unicorn farts about Full Faith and Credit, Interstate Commerce, and plain old striking down state/local laws as violating the plain letter of the Constitition. But some Federal carry statute might make a good firewall in the meantime.


One wouldn't have to change the existing LEOSA provisions - one could add the non-cop sections in parallel. If Congress was sufficiently concerned about police misbehavior compared to the Average Joe, they could retain the sections requiring cops to pass annual qualifications and remaining in good standing with their departments.

So (getting back to the subject), NJ cops could continue to receive all of their current entitlements, good and hard.




As alluded to in this LEOSA thread.

At least there's a $43K Lovely Parting Gift, to help you get back over the Hellhole/Freedom border.



If only they were better holding pens for the kind of citizens who elect that kind of politicians.

Seriously, why in hell would I want that when I live in NH where I don't need a license at all?

You people in MA just need to move and stop thinking the rest of us are ready to horse trade away our freedom in exchange for you losing a little bit of your slavery. JUST MOVE.
 
This is a little off topic, but I think it applies. That Beyonce BLM Superbowl nonesense got me thinking.

Most of us on here are good guys. We don't want to hurt anyone, we want to protect ourselves, our families, and some of us, our communities. If we were called upon to help in the event of a natural or other type of disaster, we would be the ones stepping up.

I feel like there was a time when guys/gals like us would have aligned with police. There wouldn't be an us vs. them mentality. At least not at the level we see today.

On the flip side, I feel like most of us are tired of the BLM, the anti LE president, and other thuggery going on in this country.

This is where we citizens and the police share common ground. I feel like we have an opportunity to try and bridge the gap. We stand with the cops against the president and the BLM types, but they need to step up with us on the Second. We are starting to see rural sheriffs step up, I wish there was a way to convince more local PDs.

I know it's a pipe dream, but on a personal level, most of the police officers I am friends with are good guys.

How it applies to this thread... As with everything, sometimes the stick outweighs the carrot. Until it affects them, they won't step up to bat, risking their careers.

So while I am not in favor of the .gov restricting anyone's right to carry, I am happy to see this happening in NJ. If the police are subjected to the same laws with respect to firearms, and perhaps self defense shoots as we the people; we will start to see some progress.
 
if they are ex police officers, why should they have ANY additional rights above what a common citizen has? Change the frigin law and let people easily concealed carry if you are pissed about it.
 
I've said it before and I've said it again.... Cops should at least be treated (and be subject to the same laws) as us lowly peons. If we can't carry somplace (or at all) then neither should they. ESPECIALLY off duty or retired police. OK, maybe a slightly different rules for on duty uniformed police... But they should be held to a higher standard, after all they are being paid by tax payers (as much as they hate to hear that)
 
One of my FB friends lives in NH. Former city PD in a city/state five hours south.

Posted a pic of his 'retired' badge with a caption "My get out of jail free card."

I left a (not so) tongue-in-cheek, profanity-laced comment asking why he'd be IN jail, and why his badge should suffice to get him out. Called him out on lack of police accountability, and how the brotherhood of the thin blue line is one of our biggest problems as a country.

Then I asked to borrow it.

He must not have thought it was funny. He didn't unfriend me, but deleted the comment.
 
One of my FB friends lives in NH. Former city PD in a city/state five hours south.

Posted a pic of his 'retired' badge with a caption "My get out of jail free card."

I left a (not so) tongue-in-cheek, profanity-laced comment asking why he'd be IN jail, and why his badge should suffice to get him out. Called him out on lack of police accountability, and how the brotherhood of the thin blue line is one of our biggest problems as a country.

Then I asked to borrow it.

He must not have thought it was funny. He didn't unfriend me, but deleted the comment.

Keep reposting it until asshat either answers or runs away too afraid of you (unfriends you)
 
Back
Top Bottom