I agree with the sentiment that it shouldn't matter but the fact is as a veteran and a former police officer he was entrusted by the public to carry firearms in the past so there is a hypocrisy in the fact he is being arrested for possession of a firearm.
EX COP Gets 5 Years for Legally owned Guns in NJ
- Thread starter Midwest
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Not speaking for him directly, it implies two things that are unappealing: A tug on the heartstrings and an appeal to special privilege.
The law is written for everyone, and must apply to everyone equally. When someone points out the former service and/or employment of the "victim" here, there can be a tacit message sent that surely the cops could have turned a blind eye to his misstep since he is/was one of "them" and/or a veteran. The flip side of such sentiments is that "regular" folks need expect no such special allowances.
Now, if the story only pointed out his backstory in the last paragraph as infill filler, that would be fine. Making it part of the headline indicates that his status is presented as a material aspect of the story, for good or ill.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Perhaps there is, one way or another.
He's either a special class who shouldn't be treated this way because he's above the status of an ordinary citizen, or he's a knowledgeable individual even more accountable than most for knowing and following the law.
I take the latter view, myself.
Last edited:
BSA1
member
Good point Sam1911,
And it does not mention the reason why he is a "ex cop". It could be well for, how shall I put it, "unsuitability" for the occuption.
However I owuld like to point out how difficult it is for someone who lives in a "free" state (Kansas) with pro-gun laws to know and comply with the anti-gun attitude and laws in a highly restrictive one like N.J.
Case in point yesterday I decided to go shoot a handgun I am testing. I put the unloaded handgun which was in it's factory box, 2 boxes of ammo, a couple of NRA paper targets, staple gun and ear muffs in the passenger side of my pick-up. I drive a little Ford Ranger so there is not a separate compartment to lock the gun or ammo in. All of the items were in plain view if a leo had stopped me. I had no concerns about being arrested for a firearms violation if I had been stopped. Contrast this with highly restrictive laws in N.J. and N.Y. I am not even sure if the Taurus 8 shot revolver I was shooting is even legal in N.Y., if the 22 ammo hollow points are legal in either state (I suspect neither are not) or if I could even legally transport the gun since my truck does not have a separate compartment I can lock the gun and ammo in.
And it does not mention the reason why he is a "ex cop". It could be well for, how shall I put it, "unsuitability" for the occuption.
However I owuld like to point out how difficult it is for someone who lives in a "free" state (Kansas) with pro-gun laws to know and comply with the anti-gun attitude and laws in a highly restrictive one like N.J.
Case in point yesterday I decided to go shoot a handgun I am testing. I put the unloaded handgun which was in it's factory box, 2 boxes of ammo, a couple of NRA paper targets, staple gun and ear muffs in the passenger side of my pick-up. I drive a little Ford Ranger so there is not a separate compartment to lock the gun or ammo in. All of the items were in plain view if a leo had stopped me. I had no concerns about being arrested for a firearms violation if I had been stopped. Contrast this with highly restrictive laws in N.J. and N.Y. I am not even sure if the Taurus 8 shot revolver I was shooting is even legal in N.Y., if the 22 ammo hollow points are legal in either state (I suspect neither are not) or if I could even legally transport the gun since my truck does not have a separate compartment I can lock the gun and ammo in.
Last edited:
I'm sure there is much more to the story than the media reports. I am a little perplexed by two statements, though: "Reininger's SUV did not have a trunk, and state law only requires the firearm be in a "closed and fastened case" or "securely tied package" while transported. His attorney argued the zippered cases satisfied this requirement." "Judge Graves wrote. "In our view, however, the warrantless seizure was not necessary for the officers' safety, because defendant had been removed from the vehicle and there were multiple backup officers at the scene. Nevertheless, we conclude the limited seizure was valid under the plain view exception to the search warrant requirement.""
So, the firearms which prompted the inquiry were carried in accordance with the law but the officer conducted a warrantless search (without consent) because he feared for his safety. The court ruled, however, that the warrantless seizure was not necessary for the officer's safety, but was valid under the plain view exception. Under the plain view exception, the item should be "immediately recognizable" as contraband, yet was described as being carried in accordance with regulations governing transport.
After obtaining a warrant, police recovered fourteen rifles, four shotguns and three handguns, including a loaded Glock. Sounds like someone was a little uneasy about the warrantless search and decided to cross the t's and dot the i's. Or did they discover more than they reported during the warrantless search and decide to obtain a warrant to cover the more extensive search they'd conducted to avoid losing a case built upon fruits of the poisonous tree.
So, the firearms which prompted the inquiry were carried in accordance with the law but the officer conducted a warrantless search (without consent) because he feared for his safety. The court ruled, however, that the warrantless seizure was not necessary for the officer's safety, but was valid under the plain view exception. Under the plain view exception, the item should be "immediately recognizable" as contraband, yet was described as being carried in accordance with regulations governing transport.
After obtaining a warrant, police recovered fourteen rifles, four shotguns and three handguns, including a loaded Glock. Sounds like someone was a little uneasy about the warrantless search and decided to cross the t's and dot the i's. Or did they discover more than they reported during the warrantless search and decide to obtain a warrant to cover the more extensive search they'd conducted to avoid losing a case built upon fruits of the poisonous tree.
TEAM101 said:
I am most concerned about the apparent 4A violation. Evidently if he had been transporting his guns in a violin case he would have been fine. How about if his clothes were in his gun case, and his guns were in his suitcase, could they still search the suitcase without a warrant because they saw the gun case?
Altogether too much rationalizing in Judge Graves' statement, IMO. Following his reasoning, any bag or case, capable of holding a gun, in view would justify a warrantless search.
PRM
Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2008
- Messages
- 2,111
Ex-cop/veteran: I don't see it as the person expecting special privilege or treatment. Or, why it's even a part of the discussion. Their background does speak to some degree about their motives and intent (generally a law abiding citizen) VS someone who may have a criminal record, were involved in criminal activity, or a person in a prohibited status. To me, a common sense question would have been why were they in possession? Yea, they may have been in a technical violation of the letter of the law, but, come on, they were in the process of moving. This would be a BS prosecution of any law abiding citizen. This is a classic example of government out of control.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Er...well, when you've broken the law, you "law abiding citizen" halo becomes a little harder for everyone else to see!
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,136
I am going to play devil's advocate here but who says the firearm was loaded? I have had run ins with NJ and NY police. Some will just "assume" that if they see a firearm it is loaded. Or not bother to check a firearm.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
ilbob said:
Except that the rule he was convicted under should NOT apply to anyone (LE, civilian, military, etc) so long as they are not convicted felons.
I think the reason that they mentioned this man's military/police service is to highlight that a good guy is being convicted for carrying a gun. It makes a much better case for gun owners than if the guy had been a drug runner who hadn't yet been convicted of a crime. This case highlights how NOBODY has rights in some states!
Sam1911 said:
The problem, of course, is that most gun owners aren't as well versed as some of us (who live on these forums) in the variety of laws that exist around the country. It's a real headache when you realize how vulnerable you are in some parts of this nation.
I grew up in Ohio and lived there prior to the CCW system that is now in place in that state. Ohio was fairly strict on how guns were transported in vehicles when I was growing up, but it wasn't anything like NJ/NY/CA (OH is reasonably gun friendly). Ohio is still pretty restrictive on the places that you're allowed to carry with your CCW permit. I now live in Colorado, which despite its recent notoriety on stupid gun laws, is pretty friendly when it comes to issues of carrying or transporting guns. A citizen in Colorado can carry a gun concealed and loaded in a vehicle even without having a CCW permit (something that isn't authorized in most places), and the same citizen with a CCW permit can carry on campuses, in stores, in liquor establishments, even in places with "no gun" signs (provided they are prohibited places like elementary schools), and many other places that aren't traditionally authorized (even in gun friendly places like Texas). But, in Colorado you can potentially get in trouble for open carrying of a firearm in certain "home rule" cities around the state (whereas places like Ohio are pretty open to open carry). Then, of course, you have the issue of places like NY/NJ/CA/etc, where rights pretty well don't exist... I've droned on about my experiences in those states (even as an active-duty LEO), so I'll spare you the rant in this thread.
My overall point is that it is very easy for a regular, reasonable, law-abiding citizen to get themselves hemmed up on laws that they never even would have imagined existed. Plus, I think there's a pretty valid argument to be had about the fact that some of these laws appear to be in direct conflict with the purpose and intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Last edited:
Well....not exactly.....being a cop or vet is hardly a guarantee of being a "good guy".....I could provide about a million cases where that simply was not at all remotely accurate. It may have been accurate in this case, but I'm sick of the assumption or insinuation that cops are somehow better people than the rest of us, and some people seem to believe that to some degree.
Last edited:
leadaddict
Member
In addition to the importance of KNOWING the laws, I take away from this story a reminder of the importance of the "plain view exception" and how it can save you a lot of trouble to keep weapons (and cases) out of plain view even if you know you're not doing anything illegal.
HankR
Member
This. To the average denizen of a free state (e.g. one who doesn't spend hours a day on the internet discussing gun laws) it would be ridiculous to insinuate that a tool needs to be carried a certain way, or locked up a certain way, prior to transport. Do I need to check with California before I drive my 49-state legal truck or motorcycle across their state lines? If I am carrying a bandsaw with a broken safety switch do I need to check with NJ law before driving through? I realize that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but:
To those that would say that "is gun, is different" I would argue that bandsaws and motorcycles are not constitutionally protected. If anything we should be more lenient with guns than with, say, agricultural products or motorcycle helmets (where there are huge signs at the border informing drivers that certain states do things a little bit differently.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I agree, but that's irrelevant.
I think mandatory seatbelt laws for adults is stupid, but I wear one because its the law.
It may be irrevelant, but when is it no longer 'irrevelant'? If guns were outlawed and the 2A repealed, that would be stupid too. I'm sure we would all feel differently about it's relevance, though.
This junk is just all part of the 'they won't confiscate your guns' logic. No, they won't confiscate from law abiding citizens, but they will make your stuff illegal, and you are no longer 'law abiding'.
NJ and the other oppressive states are already halfway down that road. That's the troubling part. On a 'micro' scale, it may be irrevelant, but on a 'macro' scale, it very important.
Arkansas Paul
Member
A very good, and legitimate question. One that is tough to answer.
xxjumbojimboxx
Member
Side bar, I know that truckers quite frequently keep guns in their cabs and whatnot, what do they do about situations like this?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Break the law. Go to jail if they get caught.
alsaqr
Member
Good post.
Tim McVeigh was a vet. What if that OK cop had let McVeigh go?
Carl N. Brown
Member
I have about as much respect for the New Jersey gun laws as I have for the Virginia Racial Integrity and Sterlization Acts of 1924 through 1975. I personally hope to see the day those laws go the way of the Virginia Racial Integrity and Sterlization Acts, which abolished by 1969 SCOTUS ruling and by 1975 VA legislature repeal.
dprice3844444
member
S. 1132 (111th): Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010
111th Congress, 2009–2010. Text as of Jan 01, 2010 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill).
Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO
S.1132
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.
(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ‘which could result in suspension or loss of police powers’ after ‘agency’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.’.
(b) Active Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’--
‘(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
‘(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(3) does not include--
‘(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
‘(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).’.
(c) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated from service’; and
(ii) by striking ‘, other than for reasons of mental instability’;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘retirement’ and inserting ‘separation’;
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more’ and inserting ‘separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’;
(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
‘(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;’; and
(E) by striking paragraph (5) and replacing it with the following:
‘(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
‘(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);’;
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’; and
(ii) by striking ‘to meet the standards’ and all that follows through ‘concealed firearm’ and inserting ‘to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm’;
(B) paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘that indicates’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ‘or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--
‘(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
‘(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.’; and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘firearm’--
‘(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
‘(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(C) does not include--
‘(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
‘(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(2) the term ‘service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer’ includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate
111th Congress, 2009–2010. Text as of Jan 01, 2010 (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill).
Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO
S.1132
One Hundred Eleventh Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fifth day of January, two thousand and ten
An Act
To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010’.
SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.
(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)(3), by inserting ‘which could result in suspension or loss of police powers’ after ‘agency’; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
‘(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest.’.
(b) Active Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section, the term ‘firearm’--
‘(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
‘(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(3) does not include--
‘(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
‘(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).’.
(c) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code is amended--
(1) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated from service’; and
(ii) by striking ‘, other than for reasons of mental instability’;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘retirement’ and inserting ‘separation’;
(C) in paragraph (3)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more’ and inserting ‘separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’;
(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:
‘(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, either a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides or the standards used by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State;’; and
(E) by striking paragraph (5) and replacing it with the following:
‘(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or
‘(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);’;
(2) in subsection (d)--
(A) paragraph (1)--
(i) by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’; and
(ii) by striking ‘to meet the standards’ and all that follows through ‘concealed firearm’ and inserting ‘to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm’;
(B) paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘retired’ and inserting ‘separated’; and
(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking ‘that indicates’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ‘or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--
‘(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
‘(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.’; and
(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:
‘(e) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘firearm’--
‘(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;
‘(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and
‘(C) does not include--
‘(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
‘(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and
‘(2) the term ‘service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer’ includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, service as a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve, or service as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.’.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate
Double_J
Member
Can we put together a legal fund for this guy? I think if we did it right and appealed to the federal courts and brought up the 4th amendment violation we might be able to get at least some of these laws overturned. We will not win fighting in the state courts of NY, NJ, or CT; nor will we win in the legislatures of these states. We need to start getting to the federal level and set precedent for the eventual U.S. Supreme Court case. We have the beginning of a change in the tide with the past several cases before the Supreme Court. Let us not waste the momentum, and possibly get the interstate travel laws changed in our favor. I would love to be able to see parts of New York state without having to worry about arrest for possession of a firearm without a permit that I can not get.
The fact that the individual was a LEO should not matter in this case, only the fact that the officers who made the stop violated the law with an unlawful search of the vehicle. We could also have fun by all carrying obvious gun cases in our cars and drive through N.J. Eventually one of us would get stopped and searched, and we can embarrass them when they find an empty case.
The fact that the individual was a LEO should not matter in this case, only the fact that the officers who made the stop violated the law with an unlawful search of the vehicle. We could also have fun by all carrying obvious gun cases in our cars and drive through N.J. Eventually one of us would get stopped and searched, and we can embarrass them when they find an empty case.
Purposely distracting officers from performing their sworn duties...whether or not we agree with each one of them....doesn't seem like an efficient way of protest. I don't like people distracting me from my job for absolutely no good reason, and I think those in law enforcement would agree. Being a PITA doesn't always get your message across the way you intend it to.
- Status
