In re Denial of Application of Giles W. Casaleggio for a Retired Law Enforcement Officer Handgun Permit, 420 N.J. Super. 121 (App. Div. 2011). Giles Casaleggio retired from a career in which he served as an Assistant County Prosecutor and as a Deputy Attorney General. While employed in those capacities, he was allowed to and did carry a handgun, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(a)(4), which permits such persons to carry guns as long as they receive adequate training pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(j). When he retired, he sought a permit to carry a gun under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(l). That section permits retired “law enforcement officers” to carry a weapon. The Law Division denied his application. The Appellate Division affirmed, in an opinion by Judge Graves.
Though a prosecutor helps enforce the law, the Legislature did not contemplate that they would fall within the definition of retired “law enforcement officers,” the panel concluded. Judge Graves cited legislative history showing that the Legislature was targeting “retired police officer[s]” instead. Prosecutors and deputy attorneys general are not “police officers.” Judge Graves also found persuasive the fact that active prosecutors and DAG’s are permitted to carry guns under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(a)(4) while “these same positions are not enumerated under N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(l).”
The panel found its conclusion consistent with “the restrictive nature of the State’s gun control policy.” Under that policy, exemptions from gun statutes “should be strictly construed to better effectuate the policy of gun control.”
Finally, Judge Graves rejected Casaleggio’s argument that he was entitled to a gun permit under the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, 18 U.S.C. §§926B, 926C (“LEOSA”). N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(l) refers to LEOSA as one basis for a gun permit. But again looking at legislative history, the panel found that “the reference to LEOSA in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-6(l) does not encompass retired assistant prosecutors or deputy attorneys general. Rather, it is intended to accommodate retired law enforcement officers from out of state who have relocated to New Jersey.”
Why would anyone move TO New Jersey?
Residents are clearly SUBJECTS, not CITIZENS.
I hope this former ADA moves to a less crowded, less expensive State. A State where he is a Citizen, not a Subject.
And I hope he never spends another dime in the festering sewer that much of the NY/NJ Tri-State area has become in the last 2 generations.
This analysis is absurd. Judge Graves inability to interpret a simple Federal Law ought to make him be removed from the bench. First of all, there is nothing in LEOSA / 18 USC 926C which state that you have to be a “police officer”… the wording in the law is “…who—
(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of…” clearly prosecutors are included in this law. Next, there is no verbiage in 18 USC 926C that supports the conclusion that this law applies to an “out of State person who relocated to NJ” —this is totally made up.
I agree that Casellegio should not be given a gun permit —not because he is not entitled but it is completely NOT needed. He can carry his firearm without a permit anywhere in the US as long as he maintains the annual qualification requirement. NJ should be ashamed for treating a retired public servant like this.