‘any state,’ a person who qualifies under LEOSA is not subject to
the concealed carry laws of any state.”
We disagree with this broad statement, at least as far as New
Jersey is concerned. While LEOSA does eliminate the require-
ment of a “state-issued permit,” it clearly requires the officer to
obtain photo ID from the state. This identification card is the
“permit” that is required under state law, and expressly required
by LEOSA. In fact, LEOSA arguably has an additional require-
ment not in state law mandating that the retired officer meets
specified safety requirements in the most recent 12-month pe-
riod.
The predominant purpose of LEOSA is to regulate carrying
of concealed firearms across state lines. It does not prevent
states from enforcing their own eligibility requirements for is-
suance of a retiree identification card. LEOSA is a national law
and does provide an “alternate route” for carry privileges, but
only if a state’s laws are more burdensome than federal require-
ments. Illustratively, New Jersey cannot prohibit retired officers
from other jurisdictions to carry weapons in this state if they
qualified under LEOSA. And conversely, qualified retired law
enforcement officers from New Jersey may carry concealed fire-
arms even if they would not be eligible under the laws of the
state to which they travel. Put differently, if a state requires sig-
nificantly more than LEOSA or did not permit retirees to carry
at all, the LEOSA requirements would prevail. In that instance,
LEOSA would provide an “alternate route” as discussed above.
But that is not the case in New Jersey.
Moreover, the intent of LEOSA, at least in part, is to ensure
that retired officers in states that do not provide a path to ob-
tain permission to carry, or which have laws inconsistent with
LEOSA, have a route to do so under the federal law. It is also
intended to accommodate retired officers from out of state who
relocate or travel to New Jersey. We do not believe LEOSA was
intended to replace state laws that provide a procedure for re-
tired officers to obtain permission to carry, so long as those pro-
cedures are not contrary to LEOSA.
Arguably, some provisions of New Jersey law needed to ob-
tain the mandatory state-issued identification card (for exam-
ple, requiring that an officer list all other firearms) could be
deemed by a court to unduly burden the limited state approval
process envisioned by LEOSA. But we think that success in such
a lawsuit is unlikely, in light of the overwhelming similarities of
LEOSA and our own laws regarding issuance of identification
cards. Because we believe that the requirements of New Jersey
law in obtaining the mandated identification card are consis-
tent with those of LEOSA, it is unlikely that a retired New Jersey
officer who does not qualify under this state’s laws will qualify
under LEOSA.
As we have seen with many laws, whether federal or state,
statutory provisions are often open to interpretation. As we not-
ed above, LEOSA is not crystal clear in its language, and we un-
derstand that there may be other opinions that differ from ours.
We are not aware of any reported court cases that address this
specific question, nor are we aware or has the State PBA advised
us of large-scale denials of retired officers’ right to carry because
of the operation of New Jersey law. If there is a claim that New
Jersey’s procedure for obtaining an identification card is more
burdensome than LEOSA contemplates, it may take a lawsuit to
resolve this issue with any certainty. We will, of course, keep the
State PBA and its membership apprised of any developments
in this area.
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ DECEMBER 2018 13