Oops! New Jersey’s 10-Round Magazine Limit Applies To Off-Duty Cops, Too

New Jersey's Magazine Ban Applies To Off-Duty Cops, Too

Image via northjersey.com

Bernard Kerik, the 40th NYPD Police Commissioner, sounded the alarm about New Jersey’s new magazine ban. The law bans possession of any magazine over 10 rounds after December 10th. Kerik tweeted his opposition to the new law, not because it deprives citizens of the ability to better defend their families. No, he opposed it because it applies to (and endangers) off-duty cops.

Kerik seems to think police officer lives have more value than say, taxpayers. Especially those who pay the Garden State’s exorbitantly high tax rates. Which fund law enforcement. Taxpayers who have Second Amendment constitutional rights – except in New Jersey.

The cognitive dissonance from this political hack who ran the NYPD knows no bounds. He correctly observes that bad guys “don’t give a damn about magazine capacity.” Right after ignoring the danger to Joe and Jane Sixpack and their families.

Kerik tweeted a letter (above) from the acting Bergan County Prosecutor warning police that the full-capacity magazine ban applies to all except on-duty police officers.

New Jersey's Magazine Ban Applies To Off-Duty Cops, Too

Turns out cops can’t even possess these so-called “large capacity magazines” in their homes. Even police-issued magazines. That has surely rankled a lot of Garden State law enforcement officers.

Here’s Kerik’s tweet:

Well, yes, Bernie. Governor Murphy is endangering every off-duty NJ cop…and every other man, woman and child in the state with his constitutionally-dubious magazine ban. While at the same time this gun-hating governor welcomes illegal aliens with open arms. When it comes to potential Democrat voters, Phil Murphy will all too happily ignore black-letter law when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Here is the Conservative Review’s take on the insanity that has taken over the Garden State with the election of Governor Phil Murphy:

New Jersey invites in violent criminal aliens while stripping citizens of the right to self-defense

For those of you living in free states, here is a glimpse of the living hell endured by those residing in blue states.

When the clock strikes midnight Tuesday morning, anyone in New Jersey who owns a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition is officially in possession of illegal contraband and is deemed a fourth-degree felon. Unlike previous magazine bans, this one retroactively bans people from even owning such magazines in their homes, even though they had been purchased legally. At the same time, the most violent criminal aliens will be actively shielded from deportation by state officials, against federal law. The inmates are running the asylum, while the law-abiding citizens and federal law enforcement are treated like criminals.

While the courts create insane rights for violent criminal aliens, they refuse to recognize the most unambiguous right to bear arms or the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. New Jersey has become a sanctuary to the most dangerous criminal aliens and gangs, many of whom engage in gun trafficking, but peaceful citizens are stripped of the right to self-defense and treated like criminals.

Governor Phil Murphy signed the bill into law in June, giving residents 180 days to discard their magazines of higher capacity than 10, permanently modify them, or transfer them to someone who is legally able to possess them. The ban includes everyone except active-duty military and retired police officers under certain circumstances. Veterans are not excluded at all.

Once again, we see politicians who enjoy the benefits of armed protection from police legislating away gun owner gun rights.  In this case, did these would-be tyrants mean to disarm off-duty cops in addition to the general public?  Or did these political hacks simply forget about the people who protect gun-hating legislators when crafting their onerous, Draconian bill?

comments

  1. avatar WARFAB says:

    How sad is it that New Jersey is trying to perfectly follow in the dysfunctional footsteps of New York. I’m sure the the state will let Murphy overstep his executive authority to change this little oversight in the law just like Cuomo did for the SAFE act.

    1. avatar Rick the Bear says:

      The [un-]SAFE Act was my first thought as well.

    2. avatar Tony says:

      There should be no exemptions for law enforcement. We all live under the same laws including while we work. That is the whole purpose of the 2nd Amend to ensure that the people are not subjected to tyranny by our leadership based on their opinions or emotions.

  2. avatar TommyG says:

    The dumb asses in NY did the same thing with the SAFE ACT. They had to amend the law to give LE’s a carve out. Even Premier Cuomo showed embarrassment when it was brought up during a news conference. That the NJ hacks would make the same mistake years later is even more ridiculous.

    1. avatar Napresto says:

      Personally, I think law enforcement in NJ (and I wish this had been the case in my own state of NY) should have to live with the implications of this, including jail time for violations. The law shouldn’t be “fixed,” it is doing exactly as intended: criminalizing the law-abiding (including law enforcement) to score political points. Deal with it or repeal it. No carve outs.

      1. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

        Spot on!
        My thoughts as well.

      2. avatar Frank M. says:

        Agreed.

        One argument I make to my gun-control supporting friends is that unilateral gun bans are a sure-fire path towards a police state. Police are citizens and these carve outs create what’s effectively an exclusive class. Here in NYC cops can own ARs, which I can’t. Cops can carry firearms, I can’t (since I’m not rich nor to I guard the property of the rich). Cops can run whatever magazines they want, I can’t.

        I think most of the libertarians, progressives, and all around fair-minded people can see why this is a huge problem. Unfortunately there are a lot of authoritarians out there.

        1. avatar WARFAB says:

          The same people pushing these types of laws that will lead to a police state also support the BLM movement and love to protest against police forces whenever they get a chance. They really don’t put much thought into the contradictions created by their positions.

        2. avatar RA-15 says:

          FRANK M. as a fellow New York subject , I feel you. If I had the means , I would absolutely get my behind out of N.Y. I am in rural upstate which is not as bad as other areas. That said it’s still commie , anti 2A. If only we could let the Dem’s have their own swamp to live in & the true patriots have their space away from all the BS infringment’s forced upon us. One can have hope’s & dreams. But then ( reality sets in , like a nightmare ) OMG I AM IN N.Y !!

      3. avatar Southern Cross says:

        There will either be a carve out for police officers instigated by the police unions, or very selective enforcement.

      4. avatar Chris. says:

        Carve outs should automatically render a law Unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause.

        1. avatar Tracy says:

          Some people are more equal than others

        2. avatar rosignol says:

          Hm.

          Is there anyone with a law degree that thinks this might fly?

          Finding people with standing wouldn’t be a problem.

      5. avatar TX223 says:

        It will eventually get like the UK where cops are unarmed all the time and have to wear slab proof armor, and special weapons officers have to check in their arms before they go home.
        Only “carve outs” will be the elite rulers while the unwashed masses are at the mercy of the wolves.

    2. avatar California Richard says:

      And like the NY SAFE act and the California magazine law, it will be ignored by 95% of the law abiding and 100% of the criminals….. Speaking of NJ being behind the times: California backed away from our “hi cap mags = fellony” law, and reduced it to a $100 infraction citation.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    The way they keep making the same “mistakes” makes me wonder if these people have any capacity to observe the world around them. They always act like their great idea is the first time anyone thought of it and certainly the first time anyone implemented it.

    1. avatar Yepnope says:

      Hard to see things with your head lodged firmly in your ass

    2. avatar Ardent says:

      Interesting observation Shire-Man. The same people who conceived of and implemented this dumpsterfire also advocate for socialistic/communistic policies and would like to take this country down that rabbit hole, all the while ignoring the obvious and well know facts that socialism and communism have caused more poverty and killed more people than any other sorts of government and do so everytime they are tried. I’d say that indicates they are either delusionally incapable of accurately perceiving reality, too stupid to interpret the information, or evil enough not to care about the consequences of their laws and policies.

      You may be right, they might be crazy, but don’t discount the possibility they may be stupid or evil, or some combination of these as well.

      All we know for sure is that they can’t be sane, smart and well meaning simultaneously, since were that the case that would not advocate for such laws.

  4. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    I’ll be holding my breath waiting for a New Jersey DA to prosecute.

  5. avatar Parnell says:

    2. (New section) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection j. of N.J.S.2C:39-3, a retired law enforcement officer who is authorized to possess and carry a handgun pursuant to subsection l. of N.J.S.2C:39-6 may possess and carry a large capacity ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic handgun.

    3. (New section) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:39-6, a law enforcement officer may possess and carry while on duty a large capacity ammunition magazine and possess and carry while off duty a large capacity ammunition magazine which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition that can be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm.

    What part of the above does the Bergen Co. Prosecutor and Bernie Kerick not get? The carve-out’s there because all the animals are equal but the on-the-job and retired pigs are more equal than the others.

    1. avatar Newshawk says:

      “which is capable of holding up to 15 rounds of ammunition…”
      Even the amendment can’t get it right! This still bars the sale/purchase/possession of the STANDARD capacity magazines for the Glock 17/19, SIG P-226/227/228/229/250/320, S&W M&P9, etc.

      I am so glad I put Jersey in my rear view mirror 14 years ago.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Parnell,

      I was going to ask about active/retired police who are residents of other states and carry while in New Jersey under the LEOSA (Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act). It looks like the new additions would cover them.

      And how about a resident of another state who is driving through New Jersey with their 15 round magazines locked in the trunk? Are they felons as well?

  6. avatar Warlocc says:

    Boo boo. Poor cops having to obey the same laws as everyone else.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Well at least they aren’t coming to take your guns…

    2. avatar Arandom Dude says:

      Indeed. As far as I’m concerned, ban state cops shouldn’t have anything the little people can’t own even when on duty.

  7. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “Gang bangers, drug thugs and really bad guys don’t give a damn about magazine capacity…”

    “So he takes the good guy’s ammunition, and the bad guys are loaded for bear!”

    Nice of him to give us the pull quotes. Throws every “smaller mag” attempt into “So, you want people over-matched?”

    Accusing them of state uber-alles can sound crazy. When people figure it out for themselves, they convince themselves.

    Love “good guys” / “bad guys”, too. Legitimizes the language, and sets up “What non-cops aren’t good guys? We’re all on the same side here, right?”

    I do wonder how he got away from Bloomie’s handlers.

  8. avatar Tracy says:

    Until off duty officers are required by law to respond to deadly force incidents, there should be no special cut-out for police officers regarding gun control.

    Maybe then, some of those police chiefs who has their noses up their Democratic superiors rear ends, will speak out against gun control vs rather than supporting them

    1. avatar 16V says:

      Off duty??

      The Supremes have ruled time and again that ON duty coppers don’t owe you the time of day. Legally they are under no requirement to respond to anything at all. And, if they deign to show up, they can respond as they see fit.

      1. avatar tracy says:

        Correct, there is no Federal Constitutional right to be protected by the Police, but that does not preclude any State, County, or City law being passed.

        Such laws exists in Texas.

        1. avatar jwtaylor says:

          Fascinating. Can you please cite that law?

        2. avatar tracy says:

          GENERAL ORDER 540.00, Greeley Tx

          Off-duty officers are often faced with situations involving criminal conduct they
          are neither equipped nor prepared to handle in the same manner as if they were on
          duty. There is also the possibility that involvement in these types of circumstances
          could lead to unnecessary injuries to off-duty officers and confusion for on-duty
          officers responding to the scene. Nevertheless, off-duty officers may be required
          by circumstances to respond as police officers in emergency situations;

        3. avatar LKB says:

          +1 to JWT’s inquiry. I’d be surprised to see if one actually exists that *requires* (as opposed to permits) off-duty LEO’s to so respond , and if so what the penalty is for violating it.

          While I seriously doubt that any such law exists, I would wager that even if it does there won’t be any private right of action by an individual injured by any violation of this purported law. I.e., in Texas if you are injured because a cop (or duty or not) fails to do his job / come to your aid, you’re not gonna have a civil cause of action against him.

        4. avatar Tracy says:

          The only reason I can see preventing such a law is to avoid liability. But, I understand that there are policies, and laws that does have penalties for neglect of duty. At which point, an officer can be fired.

          But if one asserts that there is no duty to act, why should the officer be allowed to carry weapons not allowed for the public, if the only purpose is self defense. And why should not the local CCW apply equally to the police officer, if there is no public benefit?

        5. avatar LKB says:

          The Greeley, Tx “general order” hardly counts. All it says is that city LEO’s “may” be required to act in emergency situations (i.e., during a disaster the chief can order his people to act). That’s hardly a law that imposes a duty on off-duty LEO’s to act, much less creates any meaningful consequences for violating such a “law.”

        6. avatar tracy says:

          I believe the was was written to justify officers having access to service weapons like AR-15 while off duty.

          The laws was written as justification that there maybe circumstances that officers maybe required to act.

          But assuming you are correct, and officer have no legal duty to respond, then what justification do you offer to support carve-out from gun control laws? If they only want it for self defense, and not to serve the public…. are police officers lives worth more than the average citizen?

        7. avatar LKB says:

          There’s not really a justification for the “off duty / retired LEO” exceptions that withstands any sort of actual scrutiny (indeed, the retired officer exception to California’s gun control laws has been raised [in Peruta, if memory serves] as an argument to their constitutionality).

          So why are they almost universally found in gun control laws? Mostly, it’s just part of the fairy tale reality of gun control advocates: LEO’s are somehow inherently / magically better with firearms than ordinary citizens could ever be; retired / off duty LEO’s need to be armed because they are going to rush in and intervene in emergencies; all off-duty / retired LEO’s are targets for criminals, etc.

          The realpolitik is that the cops just want that little extra benefit, and the anti-gun politicians (who depend on said cops to defend them) don’t want to cross them.

        8. avatar Jospeh says:

          That is a general order of a city police department. It is simply policy of a local agency, it is not a law of any kind.

        9. avatar tracy says:

          Yes, but at least with a policy, where an officer knows that they could risk their job by ignoring a crime if they do not act. And violating policy also put you at risk of liability if the victims / or victims family sues the officer for violating policy.

          That’s better than 99.9% of other police departments out there. I am more like to support a carve out for police if they are will to assume some risk for the privilege of having access weapons denied the public. Otherwise, I do not support carve outs for police, if they only use it to defend themselves and their families, while leaving the rest of us out in the cold.

        10. avatar LKB says:

          Nope. Unless state law creates a private right of action for an officer “violating policy” (and I’ve never seen one), there is no cause of action here. Add in qualified immunity for good measure, and said cop has nothing to fear from the victim or his family.

          And that’s part of the problem — qualified immunity needs to go or be radically curtailed.

        11. avatar LKB says:

          Here’s what happens when you try and sue cops who chicken out, violate department policy, and otherwise intentionally fail to do their job, resulting in mass murder: case dismissed, because said cops have no legal duty to protect us:

          https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html?fbclid=IwAR2Mtn7QsiHFNuQp5nR30xpH8djV3ItIHD3UohJMcLizgYW-1TuDH-cUfn8

  9. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    it must be something in the water in new jersey and new york that burns common sense out of the residents brains.THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION IN THAT AREA SEEMS TO HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE DEMONS LIVING IN THIS AREA. when the communist idiot that some-how got elected to the office of governor in BOTH STATES pushes this kind of leftist crap on the law books . the people should feel free to remove them WITH ANY MEANS NRCESSARY.

  10. avatar Michael in AK says:

    Hahaha

  11. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    Think one cop is gonna arrest another for that?

  12. avatar EWTHeckman says:

    Welcome to Animal Farm, 2018 Edition.

  13. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    Did they ever explain what makes the 11th bullet in the magazine so much more dangerous than the previous ten?

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      Well, they managed to convince the Third Circuit Court of Appeals…but that is not saying much. Something about reloading and escape and something something something. No word about citizens being able to defend themselves, only the threat of bad guys having them…

  14. avatar JMR says:

    Cops are civilians and should have to follow the same laws as all other civilians.

    If Kerik doesn’t like that he should push for the full repeal of the law, not just for his people because he thinks him and his fellow cops are of a different class.

    Excluding someone from a law just because they are a cop is ridiculous.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      Welcome to New Yorkistan.

  15. avatar DJ says:

    Turns out THEY are citizens too. When you go to enforce the 10 magazine ban remember you’re just a CITIZEN.

  16. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

    Benard Kerik is just mad because he’s a convicted felon, fraudster, liar, and criminal conspirator who cannot legally posses a firearm, himself. He longs to return to the days when he, too, was one of the chosen insiders, our betters, rulers, and overlords, who are immune from the laws and conditions they impose upon the rest of us. He should still be in prison.

  17. avatar New Continental Army says:

    As someone who’s fairly pro LE I think that any government agency, LE or military, should be subject to the same restrictions on firearms that the public is restricted to. Want to ban “hi cap” mags, semi autos, or SBRs? Then your agencies must comply with the same rules.

  18. avatar Ralph says:

    Good. Cops shoot each other. Now let them arrest each other.

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      Fat chance RALPH !! I don’t see Leo’s ever arresting a brother in arms. As for the rest of us lowly citizens , they won’t hesitate to make criminals out of us.

  19. avatar tdiinva says:

    Sanctuary is transparently designed to protect criminals. It is the only group of illegals that Democrats care about. Sanctuary does not really protect illegals who keep a low profile safe from ICE. Their enforcement activities do not require State or local approval. It protects illegals arrested for felonies and deportable misdemeanors from ICE. If the Democrats actually cared about the “safe” illegals they would have written their statutes so that an illegal who commits a serious crime would forfeit their sanctuary status.

  20. avatar possum says:

    Stop the world and let me off,,, I’m tired of going round and round. I really don’t think any off duty police officer is going to be arrested for 10 round limit law. They still pack heat with Domestic Violence charges, you know the misdemeanor that gets your guns taken away,,For Life,,,but somehow LE can be trusted with gunz after dog kicking their significant non other black and blue. Change the things we can, and accept those we can’t. A hard pull to swallow.

  21. avatar Oz says:

    All lives matter. If Americans Citizens lives don’t. As in US Constitution Rights. Sorry nor should a cop or any law enforcement.

    1. avatar Tracy says:

      Didn’t they take an oath to uphold the laws of their state? Or there an exception to only enforce the laws they agree with?

      1. avatar possum says:

        Deeeuh what was the part after I state your name, I’m supposed to do something???? !!! Oh my Captain will tell me anything I need to know….. It’s a good thing the LE guys that visit here have a sense of humor. I wouldn’t wanna be a cop.

  22. avatar Marcus says:

    Excellent maybe something similar will happen with the CA handgun roster forcing cops to one day use only handguns on the roster only even ON DUTY!

  23. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    Taxpayers who have Second Amendment constitutional rights – except in New Jersey.
    *******************************************
    DON’T forget Massachusetts, New York, CT., MD., etc….Awaiting Prez. Trump to restore 2nd Amendment Rights to these states…

    1. avatar RA-15 says:

      AARON WALKER , I fear it is going to be a very long wait !!

  24. avatar Jackrabbit1957 says:

    Sounds like time to move to a different state.

    1. avatar Aaron Walker says:

      Remember, united we stand divided we fall…. Creeping Incrementalismism is coming to a state near you…Just ask any DemoCommie…

  25. avatar Aaron Walker says:

    An LET’S make sure [email protected] groups DON’T rollover and help NJ Law Enforcement Community any “Special Privileges/Carve-outs” so they get to be excluded in this Law….Next Law Enforcement Community can get involved and HELP support the 2nd Amendment for ALL U.S. Citizens in NJ! Not just for THEIR cushy Big GOVERNMENT Jobs….NO CARVE-OUTs FOR Thee!!!! Make THEM live with it !!! Unless THEY uphold THEIR oath to protect the US Constitution/Bill of Rights!

  26. avatar GunnyGene says:

    “You know the score. You’re not cop, you’re little people.”

  27. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Sovereign citizens of sovereign States vote this stuff for themselves. Why should we be sympathetic, or even interested? I find no moral imperative to prevent suicide by tool or vote.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      Find a way to keep them in their state and out of mine and I’ll be all for it.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Find a way to keep them in their state and out of mine and I’ll be all for it.”

        Yeah. There’s that.

  28. avatar Mark N. says:

    California has a ten round capacity max, with a police carve out. San Francisco, for no particular reason at all, enacted its own mag limit ordinance, and it applies to off duty police officers as well as the rabble. That was its intended effect. I wonder if there was enough complaining from the SFPD and the SO to get the ordinance changed.

  29. avatar WhiteDevil says:

    I hope one day I come across one of these state thugs, i.e. cops, that enforce these illegal laws. Like the piece of shit cop that arrested Shaneen Allen and the pathetic excuse for a human being prosecutor, who insisted on putting her in jail, until she was rightfully pardoned by Christie. All of these laws mean nothing unless police officers are willing and able to enforce them. Any officer enforcing an illegal and unconstitutional law immediately becomes a criminal in my eyes. They need to understand that we don’t work for them and they are not welcome anywhere in our community if they insist on abrogating the oaths that they have taken.

  30. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    They don’t need hi cap mags in NYC. Hell they don’t need guns. They’re pretty well outlawed so it’s a gun free paradise. Amirite?

  31. avatar former water walker says:

    Tony Soprano liked his cop’s less lethal…😄😎😏

  32. avatar MIO says:

    Despite the anti LEO attitude here as a LEO I support what y’all are saying. There shouldn’t be any of this control BS. I’ve zero issue with The People, of who I am also a member, having any of it. The People of NJ have to fight

  33. avatar Sian says:

    Write your legislators to remove all carveouts.

    End the tradition of “some are more equal than others”.

  34. avatar Kyle says:

    I think that is exactly how it should be. If a law is applied to civilians, no person, government official, officer of the law, off duty soldier, on duty soldier, judge, or anyone else should be exempted.

    You want to disarm your citizens, you disarm yourself….first.

    ….and like it.

    1. avatar GS650G says:

      And no security guards either. Let the rich and famous call 911 too. Or learn Karate. Their lives and families are not more important than mine. Most of these people are entertainers.

  35. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Question: Should we really demand “off duty” police be restricted to a magazine capacity required of the public? This is not a trick question, but a serious inquiry.

    Situation: State and local law limits magazine capacity for non-LEO to X number of rounds. LEO are issued firearms with X+ capacity magazines. LEO are required to respond to crimes observed, or called out by others, regardless of shift hours. LEO are required to carry firearms when not on shift (any normal duty hours). LEO are not appointed LEO only for specific shifts; authority (badges) is appointed without regard to duty hours.

    We expect LEO to be able to use their full set of tools whenever they respond to an incident. Do we really want LEO to be under-equipped just because they are not working normal shifts?

    Criminals are gunned-up 24/7, and ignore firearm ammunition capacity laws. What is the tactical/public safety gain by restricting LEO (who are “on duty” 24/7) armament when not working established shifts?

    Seems that if we want LEO restricted to magazine capacity limits required of the public when “off duty”, we should demand LEO be restricted to magazine capacity limits required of the public while LEO are “on duty” (working established shifts). Would that make sense?

    1. avatar UpInArms says:

      I’m not exactly sure what point you’re trying to get to with this thought experiment.

      The issue isn’t really to limit the magazine capacities of law enforcement. The issue is to NOT restrict the capacity of the armed citizen.

      There is nothing that justifies treating law enforcement as a favored class. The average citizen faces exactly the same level of threat as law enforcement. The nature of the law enforcement job increases the frequency that law enforcement encounters these threats, but it does not increase the level of the threat itself. And law enforcement, being the experts and professionals (ahem), are possibly the best qualified to assess the threat levels facing the community.

      We all know there is a critical and significant lag time from when a threat materializes and law enforcement can respond. We also know that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect the citizenry. It logically follows, then, that the citizenry is ultimately on its own.

      Having established that, what makes sense is for the citizenry to have exactly the same access to defensive capacity that local law enforcement deems necessary to meet local levels of threat. If the police think they can handle the situation with BB guns, then perhaps that is a barely justifiable limit of what should be available to everyone. If there are any carve-outs to be had, they go to sportsmen and hunters who require a little more firepower to pursue their hobbies.

      On the other hand, if the local police decide that fully automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers are appropriate to the local conditions, then that is what needs to be available to everyone.

      In any case, there is nothing that justifies giving law enforcement a monopoly on violence, or even a most-favored status.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        When LEO are “on duty” (an inefficient term) we expect them to be armed to whatever level the department requires. So, if a LEO “on-duty” has a pistol with 20 round capacity (as in a duty pistol, belt, holster and extra magazine holders, why would we want that LEO to be less armed when not “on duty” (on shift)?

        If LEO are, by law or department policy, prohibited from acting as LEO when not “on duty”, it would make sense the “off duty” LEO reverts to the gun controls placed on private citizens. However, if the LEO retains full police authority while not “on duty” (arrest, investigation, pursuit, etc), then why would we demand they not be as armed as when on shift? This is not about special privileges, but about whether we would want police to be differently capable just because they didn’t “punch the clock”.

        In short (which is where this probably should have started), the only “carve out” would be if LEO are denied police authority when not on shift, but are allowed to possess larger capacity magazines than the public.

        1. avatar UpInArms says:

          OK. Now I get it. Thanks.

  36. avatar enuf says:

    Either this is perfect poetic justice …

    … or it is perfect poetic injustice!!!

    I’m not an English major, as you can tell. So somebody else can work out which one it is!

  37. avatar Hannibal says:

    I only wish this could directly effect the lawmakers in question but I’m sure that’s out of the question.

  38. avatar Francis Desposito says:

    All they have to do is ammend the law with the following.Possession of magazines with a cspacity of more than 10 rounds is a violation of state law when that magazine “IS USED IN THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME” . But our politicians dont have the common sense to do so.

  39. avatar GS650G says:

    Kerik was on Tucker last night trying to peddle his support for gun owners who don’t carry badges. I’m not buying it. He probably saw the backlash and realized he let it slip that only employees of the state should have no limits.

  40. avatar DaveDetroit says:

    IMO law enforcement shouldn’t have special privileges for weapons carried even while ON DUTY. The same laws that apply to the average citizen should apply to everyone, including capital police, private security, and on-duty law enforcement. Carve outs for special groups are a defacto admission that a law is unjust.

  41. avatar Glad I am Not in NJ says:

    I wonder if he intended the ban to apply to his private security detail as well (no doubt paid out of public funds)?
    I wish someone would post photos of the magazines his off duty security carry.

  42. avatar Frank Wilson says:

    Humm…. Since law enforcement officers are authorized to carry their weapons to and from their home, which is off duty time. and there are no standard under 10 round magazine for issue 9mm or 40 cal police issued weapons, and the mere possession of such a magazine makes the person who posses such a magazine a felon. Then all police officers become felons immediately when they go off duty and still have their loaded service weapon in their possession! As a felon they can no longer be a police officer and must be terminated. Therefore New Jersey will no longer have any legal law enforcement officers in the state! The above just goes to show that is law is both unworkable and very badly conceived as well as a violation of the 2nd Amendment and numerous federal laws, including The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.

    1. avatar Frank Wilson says:

      I can see defence lawyers having a field day with this law! Consider:
      Lawyer questioning Officer X: You wear your uniform to and from work?
      Answer: Yes Sir!
      Lawyer: You are required to carry your weapon and it be functional when in uniform?
      Answer: Yes Sir! You have carried your weapon while in uniform after midnight 31 December
      2018?
      Answer: Yes Sir:
      Lawyer: You went off duty and returned to your residence in uniform after 00:01 1 January 2019?
      Answer: Yes Sir:
      Lawyer: Your Honor! This officer by his own admission committed a felony after 00:01 1 January 2019. The law requires any officer who has committed a felony be immediately suspended and loses his “power to arrest”. This officer lost his power of arrest as soon as he went off duty on 1 January 2019! Therefore this officer had no “power to arrest” when he arrested my client which arrest took place after 1 January 2019. Therefor the arrest of my client was unlawful. I move the charges against my client be dismissed immediately due to unlawful arrest by an unauthorized person!

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email