In 2004 the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was enacted. LEOSA grants certain privileges to LEOs. New Jersey’s Retired Police Officer program is nothing short of insult to law-abiding gun owners.
The passage and enactment of LEOSA made perfect sense. The law enables qualified law enforcement officers the ability to have permitless carry throughout the United States. On one hand, this is a great tool and is common sense. On the other, particularly pre-Bruen, it created a class divide between cops and everyday taxpayers in some jurisdictions. In New Jersey, retired law enforcement, even post-Bruen, are afforded more “rights” than citizen permit to carry holders.
The New Jersey Retired Law Enforcement Officer Program information page has links to information for RPOs. On the history page, the following is specifically outlined:
It should also be noted that, as civilians, retired officers cannot legally carry hollow-point ammunition or utilize high-capacity ammunition magazines (capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition) in the handgun they are carrying.
Class distinction between civilians and law enforcement aside, the protections offered by LEOSA often went ignored in states like New Jersey. A 2024 court case sussed out some of the irregularities between the Garden State’s draconian laws–even to qualified LEOs–and LEOSA. The lawsuit, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, et al v. Attorney General New Jersey, et al, put to bed New Jersey’s restrictions on hardware, ammunition, etc. and stated they’re permissive to qualified LEOs.
The opinion notes the following:
Like LEOSA, New Jersey’s RPO Law allows certain retired law enforcement officers to carry a firearm if they meet certain qualifications, but the RPO Law requires retired officers to obtain a state-issued permit. N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-6l. And there are other key differences between the two statutes. One is the age limit: LEOSA imposes none, but the RPO Law prevents retired officers over the age of 75 from obtaining a permit to carry. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 926C(c), with N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-6l. Another difference is the treatment of hollow point ammunition: the RPO Law prohibits retired officers from carrying it, but LEOSA does not. Compare 18 U.S.C. § 926C(e),2 with N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3f. The laws also require retired officers to complete firearm qualification training at different frequencies: once a year under LEOSA, and twice a year under the RPO Law. Compare 18 U.S.C. §§ 926C(c)(4), (d), with N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-6l.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in the above case upheld the 2022 order from the Federal District Court:
[A]ny QRLEO who has identification required by 18 U.S.C. § 926C(d) may carry a concealed firearm in the State of New Jersey, including hollow point ammunition, without obtaining a Retired Police Officer permit under New Jersey law regardless of their residence or the agency from which they retired; and […] that the Stale of New Jersey is enjoined from arresting and/or prosecuting any QRLEO who has identification required by 18 U.S.C. § 926C(cl) regardless of their residence or the agency from which they retired[.]
Looking at a May 2, 2025 document linked on the RPO page, there’s some more information. “A Distinction: NJ RPO and LEOSA–Retired Law Enforcement Officer Guidance,” points out some of the benefits of getting an actual RPO credential for former LEOs within the state, versus relying on the protections of LEOSA. It also shows the chasm between ordinary citizens and this elevated class of people.
The RPO allows a QRLEO to possess a 15-round magazine, whereas LEOSA does not exempt an individual from state ammunition magazine laws. Without an RPO, QRLEO’s are restricted to a 10-round capacity ammunition magazine.
LEOSA allows a QRLEO to carry hollow point ammunition. The RPO program under current state law allows a QRLEO to carry ammunition that has a hollow nose but is polymer filled, providing a comparable alternative to regular hollow point ammunition.
The RPO allows a QRLEO the ability to open carry a handgun while LEOSA mandates the firearm must be concealed. Specifically, N.J.S. 2C:39-6l does not overtly restrict the QRLEO with a valid RPO from openly carrying a firearm, and guidance from the NJSP has interpreted the permit to be an unrestricted permit to carry in terms of open or concealed.
*Note: This is the key distinction that makes the RPO more appropriate as a permit used for purposes other than personal protection, I.E. security work.
Accordingly, civilians who are retired police officers in the State of New Jersey that obtain an RPO permit to carry and have LEOSA protections are afforded the following privileges–if they were rights, we’d all have them–which civilian permit to carry holders are not able to enjoy:
- Possession of standard capacity 15-round magazines. [RPOs only]
- Possession and use of hollow point ammunition. [LEOSA]
- The open carry of firearms. [RPOs only]
The note above specifically outlines that RPOs in the State of New Jersey are better situated than civilian permit to carry holders as the credentials would be beneficial for “security work.” Civilians wishing to work as armed security must get an entirely different permit to carry and go through specialized training. This creates a financial disparity, in addition to a liberty related one.
LEOSA solved several issues for qualified LEOs across the nation. New Jersey’s laws are so draconian and out of touch that even QLEOs had to sue in order to get the federal protections in New Jersey that Congress granted them. Regardless, the Garden State maintains a class system separating former–no longer on the job–law enforcement officers from the taxpaying civilians that support their pensions.
Further other LEOSA qualified individuals without RPO qualifications or from out of state are not much better situated than a civilian carrier.
New Jersey needs to figure out if these are rights or privileges for this distinct class of individuals. Because if they’re going to keep calling them rights, then that means they should apply to every law-abiding citizen–which clearly is not the case in the Land of 1000 Diners. This is another reason why we need nation-wide unrestricted permitless carry and state governments that respect the rights of the people.
Read the full article here
