Even LE are now reduced to smaller magazines, CRAZY!!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,174
    Outside the Gates
    I expect when this hits the courts the off duty LE part of it will be thrown out. Many departments require their officers to carry off duty. To require the officer to change from 17 round mags to 10 round mags when he goes off duty will probably be seen as unreasonable. Hell, a tired cop driving home from work can wind up a felon if he forgot to change his mags out.

    Liberal Loony Tunes.

    I would not count on the NJ courts to be other than Looney Toons


    I see this as a great way for NJ police to rid themselves of unpopular supervisors; equivalnt to fragging in Vietnam
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    As brought up in the other thread on this topic, I thought that the NJ law already had an exception for law enforcement going to/from work, but beyond the excepted circumstance, otherwise limited off duty carry of mags with greater than 10 Rd capacity.

    ETA: in fact, the above is started in the memo from NJ Acting Bergen County Prosecutor Dennis Calo

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    nedsurf

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 8, 2013
    2,204
    Just like the idiotic NJ hollowpoint ban, this is also ripe for a challenge under LEOSA. If an off duty officer is carrying with that officer's department issued >10 round magazines, NJ can go kick rocks. I also agree with the sentiment of equal application of gun laws for police and non-police citizens but differ in getting there by supporting enforcement of the law for a specific group as opposed to broadening the groups of citizens that a law is not enforced on.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,020
    Glenelg
    understood

    I feel strongly that LEOs should have the best equipment that they can carry. They aren't the folks who dream up restrictive laws, it's the socialist/progressive politicians. I want LEOs to be able to defend themselves, even if the rest of us can't.

    Now, that being said, I think the folks who make and enforce policy at the LD should face the same restrictions we mere mortals do.

    And I mostly agree with your posts, but LE will sure as eff would enforce these laws on us peons.
     

    Mr. Ed

    This IS my Happy Face
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2009
    7,899
    Edgewater
    And I mostly agree with your posts, but LE will sure as eff would enforce these laws on us peons.

    You're right, of course. I didn't expect my post would be popular, but I stand by it. LEOs are in what I consider to be a much higher risk category than most of us, and they are expected to intercede in crimes they witness, even if they're off duty.

    I agree that we ALL should have the ability to choose what we carry and how we protect ourselves. But until the SC rules that to be the case, we live in a world of double standards. Just because I am denied the right to carry for self defense by my state government, I don't hold it against the LEOs who might one day come to my aid, and who definitely come to the aid of others every day.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,020
    Glenelg
    no issue

    You're right, of course. I didn't expect my post would be popular, but I stand by it. LEOs are in what I consider to be a much higher risk category than most of us, and they are expected to intercede in crimes they witness, even if they're off duty.

    I agree that we ALL should have the ability to choose what we carry and how we protect ourselves. But until the SC rules that to be the case, we live in a world of double standards. Just because I am denied the right to carry for self defense by my state government, I don't hold it against the LEOs who might one day come to my aid, and who definitely come to the aid of others every day.

    Understood, my friend. We can go on and on. I definitely see that side but my schleprock thought processes see the other side about not coming to my aid as not part of their charter but coming to take away. Erpo, etc.

    To be honest, like others have stated, this would hopefully show the double standards... perhaps not. The sheeple will say but they police protect us so of course the need 75 round magazines......

    :)
     

    Batt816

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 1, 2018
    4,087
    Eastern Shore
    You're right, of course. I didn't expect my post would be popular, but I stand by it. LEOs are in what I consider to be a much higher risk category than most of us, and they are expected to intercede in crimes they witness, even if they're off duty.

    I agree that we ALL should have the ability to choose what we carry and how we protect ourselves. But until the SC rules that to be the case, we live in a world of double standards. Just because I am denied the right to carry for self defense by my state government, I don't hold it against the LEOs who might one day come to my aid, and who definitely come to the aid of others every day.


    I agree!!
     

    K31

    "Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 15, 2006
    35,632
    AA county
    I keep saying, when Joe Six Pack loses his rights, the next to go are LEOs privilege to carry while off duty. It's already been proposed.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,191
    Davidsonville
    Some might say the 2A is to quell a tyrannical .gov, and now some are fine with the .gov to be free from infringement during this tyranny?

    Tyranny is cruel and oppressive rule, Oppressive rule means unjustly inflicting hardship and constraint, especially on a minority or other subordinate group. Firearms owners are being made and acted upon as a subordinate group, I think. So I am happy for those that actually feel as though the small mag, no fast trigger, no full auto, etc is NOT a hardship or constraint.



    You may be correct K31, they are slowly creeping into infringement on LEOs because they may be the first to choose Family/Country over their handlers.
    No Offense to LEOs in any way.
     

    Attachments

    • Americans.jpg
      Americans.jpg
      64.4 KB · Views: 382

    cantstop

    Pentultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2012
    8,161
    MD
    Seriously, what LEO is going to arrest another LEO for carrying with a standard magazine?

    This is Fake News!
     

    rambling_one

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 19, 2007
    6,725
    Bowie, MD
    A little off topic but...I was sitting at a local DD the other morning when into the parking lot comes at least seven black vans, carrying an estimated fifteen agents. Seems some dignatary wanted a cup of coffee. By rough estimate, there had to be well over 500 rounds between the protectors. That figure would be just over 100 if they were limited to 7 rounds. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    I keep saying, when Joe Six Pack loses his rights, the next to go are LEOs privilege to carry while off duty. It's already been proposed.

    My Bernie-loving son-in-law think police should only be armed with tasers and not firearms. He's a SJW and a sexual intellectual (fooking know-it-all) so he's not really open to opposing points of view.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,884
    It could be just as many rounds as before . It limits the number of rounds in each magazine, not the number of magazines .
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    So - would this also apply to off duty Federal agents in NJ?

    Many states do not recognize federal officers unless they're on duty or have some memorandum of understanding with the jurisdiction involved. When I was a federal officer I ran into that. If I was traveling I would contact the law enforcement agencies where I would be passing through or staying and ask if there would be a problem. Most of the time I was told "professional courtesy" and to enjoy my stay.

    Actually, I was stopped in NJ around 1994 for some traffic violation and had no problem. My handgun was loaded with hollow-points as well. I was in a government car (not marked) and had my credentials and had no problem. Don't know how I would be welcomed today.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    Police chiefs...whether city, county or state...are appointed by the mayor, county executive or governor and beholden to that person. They'll follow directions if they want to keep their jobs regardless of personal feelings. Sheriffs are beholden to the voters and have more freedom in that respect.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,485
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom