(908)402-4770The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently handed down an important decision for retired law enforcement officers in New Jersey and their right to carry firearms.
Background
In May 2020, the Federal Law Enforcement Association, the New Jersey Fraternal Order of Police, and three individual retired New Jersey law enforcement officers sued the New Jersey Attorney General and Superintendent of the State Police in New Jersey Federal Court. The suit sought an injunction against the State, barring it from enforcing New Jersey’s retired police officer permitting law, N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-6l (“RPO law”) against retired New Jersey law enforcement officers.
The suit argued that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. § 926C (“LEOSA”), with its less restrictive licensing and carrying requirements, preempted New Jersey’s RPO law.
The Attorney General opposed the suit, alleging that LEOSA did not preempt the RPO law.
The State also argued that LEOSA covered retired law enforcement officers when they traveled interstate with firearms. Therefore, the State could regulate firearm usage by retired officers who lived in New Jersey and were retired from New Jersey law enforcement agencies.
Some differences between the state and federal retired officers’ laws at issue included different time periods in which retired officers must be tested and qualified to handle firearms, age limitations (New Jersey had a 75-year-old age cutoff; there is no age cutoff in the federal law), and additional identification requirements by the State.
Significantly, carrying hollow-point bullets was precluded by state law; no such limitation is present in LEOSA.
The District Court ruled LEOSA preempts the RPO law and the associated state statutes as applied to any qualified retired law enforcement officer (“QRLEO”) with LEOSA-compliant identification, regardless of their residence. Furthermore, the Court ruled that any QRLEO with LEOSA-compliant identification may carry a concealed firearm and hollow-point ammunition without obtaining an RPO permit, regardless of their residence or the agency from which they retired.
It also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the State from prosecuting any QRLEO who has LEOSA-compliant identification regardless of their residence or the agency from which they retired.
The State appealed the lower court’s decision. The Third Circuit agreed with the trial court.
In a decision dated February 14, 2024, the Third Circuit concluded that the federal statute provides certain retired officers (those who meet all the statutory requirements) with an enforceable right. That right extends equally to officers who retired from New Jersey agencies and those who retired from federal or out-of-state agencies. The federal statute also preempts contrary aspects of New Jersey law.
The Court further ruled that LEOSA reflects Congress’s clear intent to confer a right upon individual QRLEOs who comply with the federal statute’s identification requirements to carry a concealed firearm.
This means that individuals acting on behalf of a state or political subdivision may not enforce firearms regulations that burden the right holder’s ability to carry under LEOSA.
In short, LEOSA requires states to recognize existing LEOSA-compliant identification that a retired officer has got from his former agency—whether that agency is within the retired officer’s state of residence or elsewhere.
Furthermore, when Congress enacted LEOSA, it expressly preempted contrary state law. New Jersey may not limit the LEOSA right or burden that right by imposing additional requirements upon right-holders. The Circuit Court recognized Congress’s unambiguous conferral of an individual right and its clear intent to preempt state law. In LEOSA, Congress granted certain retired law enforcement officers a right to carry a concealed firearm, and LEOSA expressly preempts contrary provisions of state law.
However, LEOSA does permit state laws that let private persons or entities restrict the possession of firearms on their property. Likewise, under LEOSA, states may prohibit carrying firearms on state/local government property.
What Does This Mean for You?
If you are a QRLEO with LEOSA-compliant identification, you may carry a concealed firearm and hollow-point ammunition without obtaining a permit under New Jersey’s retired officer permitting law.
This decision reaffirms the rights granted to retired officers under LEOSA, regardless of their residence or the agency from which they retired. It ensures that individuals acting on behalf of the state cannot enforce firearms regulations that impede your ability to carry under LEOSA.
LEOSA reflects Congress’s clear intent to confer a right upon qualified retired officers to carry a concealed firearm. Moreover, it expressly preempts contrary state laws, including those in New Jersey.
LEOSA does not require states to issue LEOSA identification or adopt firearms qualification training standards. It does, however, require states to recognize existing LEOSA-compliant identification that retired officers receive from their former agencies.
In essence, LEOSA grants you the right to carry a concealed firearm, and New Jersey must recognize and respect this right without imposing additional requirements or limitations.
The Court’s decision underscores Congress’s intention to preempt state laws that infringe upon the rights of qualified retired law enforcement officers. It serves as a reminder of the importance of understanding and advocating for your rights under LEOSA.
Experienced New Jersey Civil Rights Attorneys Can Help Retired Police Officers Whose Civil Rights Have Been Violated.
Retired police and law enforcement officers living in New Jersey may face illegal actions by federal, county, or local governments and/or their employees. These illegal acts may result in civil rights violations under the federal or state Constitutions, and/or the CRA. This includes your right to carry a firearm under LEOSA.
If you believe that a government employee violated your civil rights or those of a loved one, contact the civil rights attorneys at Schiller, Pittenger & Galvin P.C., in their Scotch Plains office at 908-490-0444. You can also email them here.