NEW JERSEY STATE
POLICEMEN’S BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION
EXECUTIVE BOARD
PATRICK COLLIGAN
State President
MARC KOVAR
Executive Vice President
Peter Andreyev 1st Vice President
Michael Pellegrino 2nd Vice President
Mark Aurigemma 3rd Vice President
Eugene Dello 4th Vice President
Richard Kott 5th Vice President
Frederick Ludd 6th Vice President
Luke Sciallo 7th Vice President
Frank P. Cipully 8th Vice President
Ed Carattini, Jr. 9th Vice President
Michael Freeman 10th Vice President
Bryan Flammia 11th Vice President
Robert Ormezzano 12th Vice President
Michael Kaniuk Financial Secretary
Margaret Hammond Recording Secretary
John Monsees Treasurer
Terrance Benson, Sr. Trustee
Rodney Furby Trustee
Charles Schwartz Trustee
Patrick Moran Trustee
Joseph Macones Trustee
Michael Tardio Trustee
Michael Heller Trustee
Keith Curry Sergeant-at-Arms
Christopher Ricciotti Sergeant-at-Arms
John Granahan Sergeant-at-Arms
Andrew Pacucci Sergeant-at-Arms
Joseph Nigro Sergeant-at-Arms
Mark Piercy Sergeant-at-Arms
Christopher Ebert Sergeant-at-Arms
Brian Brownlie Sergeant-at-Arms
Michael Palmentieri Sergeant-at-Arms
Stephen Warren Sergeant-at-Arms
Joseph Sles Sergeant-at-Arms
4
NEW JERSEY COPS
■ OCTOBER 2018
Following the rules for retired
offi cers to carry
Yes, by now you have
probably reviewed the rules
for retired law enforcement
officers to carry firearms,
which the NJ Attorney Gen-
eral’s office released on the
afternoon of Oct. 12. Yes, a
Patrick
few are vastly different than
Colligan what you were assuming to
be correct when you woke
up on the morning of Oct. 12. But most
of the rules are exactly what many of us
thought they would be all along.
Yes, these “new” rules contradict some
of the opinions we have seen in the past.
The problem is that many of those opin-
ions were offered by private attorneys,
law enforcement “sources” and self-
proclaimed experts on law for retired of-
ficers to carry. I was insistent that we add
a disclaimer in the March issue of NJ Cops
Magazine when Local 600 was attempting
to clarify the rules for you, because the NJ
State PBA never published an opinion on
this matter.
The waters regarding this issue have
been pretty murky lately. Unfortunately,
none of the folks who offered their respec-
tive expertise are going to stick around to
defend you in the event of an incident. I
wish you could point to their “opinions” as
a defense, but as we know in law enforce-
ment, that just won’t work.
I also subscribe to the theory of being
tried by 12 rather than being carried by
six, but the problem was that there were
just too many theories floating around out
there. In fact, one of those opinions from
the very agency tasked with enforcing the
rules required legislation to overturn its
contention that somehow our brothers
and sisters who served their careers on our
state’s college campuses were not eligible
to carry into retirement at all.
So now, whether or not you agree with
the new rules (fully realizing most of you
are in the “not” category), we have a four-
page inventory of opinions that are the
new baseline for retired officers to carry.
And, yes, we realize that some of the new
information contradicts HR 218. We aren’t
happy with a lot of letter in that law, either.
But now we have a clear standing about
what you need to do personally to comply
with the retired carry rules, and what we
need to do legislatively to correct them.
At the very least, these are rules you can
certainly depend on, and they finally lay
down the law pretty clearly and concisely.
Once again, and as usual, New Jersey
tops a list. We can all agree that between
the new magazine bill, the rules for retired
officers to carry and gun legislation in
general, New Jersey has what are likely the
most convoluted and contradictory laws
in the nation regarding firearms.
To see the NJ Attorney General’s report
concerning retired law enforcement offi cer
permits to carry fi rearms,
please visit the PBA website or go to
www.njspba.com/news/read.aspx?id=298