On one hand it is a bullshit law. But, on the other, the police should not be above the law- that they helped create. Caution: this story contains sweet irony and poetic justice.
BY MATTHEW J. DOWLING
Star-Ledger Staff
The prosecution of a former Far Hills police sergeant on charges that he illegally owned an assault weapon has raised questions about the extent that law enforcement officers are exempt from New Jersey's 1990 assault weapons ban.
The case against former Sgt. Kenneth Moose centers on whether police officers are allowed to possess assault weapons listed as banned under the law or only those weapons that pertain to their official police duties, such as machine guns issued to SWAT team officers.
The New Jersey Police Benevolent Association, the largest police union with 33,000 members, has intervened in Moose's case arguing that the exemption for law enforcement includes the possession of personal assault weapons.
"Thousands of police officers who belong to the PBA would be affected by this decision," said Robert Fagella, the PBA attorney. "Police officers have always been exempt."
Moose was suspended from the five-member Far Hills police force in August pending a psychiatric evaluation and had to surrender his service and personal weapons to authorities. Among those personal weapons was a World War II-era M-1 carbine assault rifle, which is on the banned list in New Jersey.
He was indicted on a third-degree charge of possession of an assault weapon and could face up to five years in prison if convicted. Moose has a hearing scheduled for today before Superior Court Judge Edward Coleman, where he will seek to have the indictment dismissed.
Somerset County Assistant Prosecutor Matthew Murphy has argued in court documents that the law enforcement exemption in state's assault weapons ban does not apply to the M-1 carbine owned by Moose, which was given to him as a gift in 1990 and never registered.
"There can be no rational basis for treating citizen-police officers differently from all other New Jersey residents and permit the secret acquisition and private possession of unregistered assault firearms that have no connection to law enforcement," Murphy wrote in his brief.
Former Gov. James Florio, who signed the assault weapons ban into law, said the exemption for law enforcement officers was not intended to apply to personal assault weapons like the one Moose kept in his home.
"The police exemption was included because of the weapons they would use as part of their responsibilities," Florio said in a recent interview. "The reason why there is an exemption for police officers is because they are special individuals performing a special function."
Robert Del Tufo, who was attorney general under Florio when the ban was enacted, gave a similar interpretation of the exemption only applying to assault weapons used for law enforcement duties.
The PBA gave a crucial endorsement to the landmark assault weapons ban in 1990 that helped Florio win approval for the legislation. Fagella said that endorsement came with the understanding that law enforcement was entitled to a broad exemption.
"Both the Legislature and the Florio administration specifically intended that police officers be completely exempt from the assault firearms ban," Fagella stated in a recent court filing.
Murphy called the PBA's position "shocking" and argued it would "be opening the door and sanctioning a veritable underground of unregulated assault firearms," in his brief to Coleman last week.
The PBA, however, points out that in the first 12 years the assault weapons ban has existed, no police officers have been prosecuted under that interpretation of the law. A case similar to the one against Moose is currently pending in Atlantic County.
Fagella obtained a statement from Wayne Fisher, former deputy director of the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice from 1988 to 2002, indicating he understood the exemption for police officers allowed for the possession of assault weapons.
"To the best of my knowledge, neither the Attorney General nor the Division of Criminal Justice has ever purported to regulate the mere possession of any type of off-duty weapon, including assault weapons, owned by a municipal police officer," according to Fisher's statement to the court.
Moose's attorney, Bruce Goodman, said the fact that there are conflicting opinions on the intent of the exemption in the assault weapons ban should be enough to dismiss his client's case.
Moose, 39, who retired from the Far Hills police department in December after 14 years on the force, obtained the carbine in 1990 from Virginia Dillon, a family friend. Dillon gave Moose the weapon after her husband John -- a World War II veteran -- died, according to court documents.
Moose fired the gun on one occasion at a shooting range shortly after it was given to him in 1990 and then placed it in storage. It was being kept in a case under his bed without ammunition at the time he surrendered it to authorities in August, court documents state.
Goodman said the series of events that led to Moose's suspension in August were motivated by an internal power struggle for control of the department as the borough's longtime chief retired.
Moose had applied for the chief's job, but another officer who had less than three years experience in Far Hills was appointed to head the department. That officer, questioning Moose's fitness for duty, ordered his suspension in August pending a psychological examination, which required Moose to turn over all weapons. Moose was cleared for duty a week later, but by then the carbine had already been confiscated.
Moose was indicted on the charge of illegal possession of an assault weapon in October. Goodman said his client has struggled financially since his retirement because he is unable to find work and is barred from receiving his pension with the pending indictment.