NJ Sheriff and Former Chief Show Contempt for Oaths with 2nd Amendment Infringements
Extensive quotes from two New Jersey law enforcement officials leave little doubt that they would gladly support any and all citizen disarmament edicts. Opinions expressed by Bergen County Sheriff Michael Saudino and former Tenafly Police Chief Michael Bruno in Monday’s Pascack Press appear representative of predominant command attitudes in the Garden State. (Note the story is not online so there is no link to offer—I was sent a photo of the April 16 page 3 story “Mental health ‘highest priority’ for public, school safety” written by Michael Olohan. I have not received a response from the paper to an inquiry I sent them yesterday. This post will be updated if a link becomes available. )
Sheriff Saudino says it’s “fortunate” that New Jersey has draconian infringements and hopes to see them become a “model” for the rest of the country. And naturally, he repeats the same lie many prominent gun-grabbers offer while they’re doing the direct opposite of what they say.
“I don’t say it very often, but I do believe in the Second Amendment,” Saudino protests. “However…”
Who didn’t see that huge, in-your-face “but” coming?
He doesn’t think the “average person” should have the very weaponry the Second Amendment is supposed to guarantee. To underscore his point, Saudino smears those who disagree as “the NRA and some gun nuts.” And here’s the kicker, a talking point getting moldy it’s growing so stale:
“Those weapons are designed to take out mass amounts of people, for the military to use, for the police to use, should they have to…”
First of all, both the military and Saudino’s tactical police teams have access to full auto. And note he doesn’t define when his sworn duties will require him to issue the orders to “take out mass amounts of people.”
If taken literally, and I would, the oath-breaking maniac is talking about making war on American citizens. Naturally he doesn’t want those who would defy tyranny also being able to resist it.
Former Chief Bruno, no longer in a position to actively take anyone’s guns, has his own way of harassing edict-abiding gun owners. He wants gun-grabber sympathizers to “contact their local police chiefs and ask to see the firearm files of legitimate registered gun owners in town.
“The hot topic today is guns,” Bruno asserts. “Everybody’s talking about guns, restricting guns, eliminating guns, taking guns.”
Wait a minute – for years the antis have been calling gun owners paranoid, insisting “No wants to take your guns.” Does this mean they were lying?
That was a rhetorical question. And Bruno ignores that some of us are talking about protecting our guns.
“I guarantee you it will be an eye-opener for you, because when you talk about that person who snaps and can go right into their own home, take a weapon go out and do something with it—you have hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of guns in your communities,” he bemoans, insulting citizen trustworthiness by insinuation while being part of a system that protects and rewards enforcer misdeeds.
Like the problems come from “legitimate registered gun owners” who strive to comply with all prior restraint mandates, no matter how offensively oppressive.
Still, in order to keep their lucrative double-dipping gigs going, New Jersey sheriffs like Saudino need to sell out their countrymen and parrot the narrative expected by their masters. Besides, he and Bruno are taken care of as LEOSA beneficiaries, “eligible to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States or United States Territories, regardless of state or local laws…”
It’s the “Only Ones” loophole. They have their seat at the table, so why should they care if you’re outside looking in. Still, Mr. Mason’s “except for a few public officers” observation comes to mind.
The sad thing is it hasn’t always been that way, even in New Jersey. Those of us who have been around a while well remember this 1993 quote from the testimony of Trenton Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”
If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please make a donation to support our work. You can donate HERE.
David Codrea’s opinions are his own. See “Who speaks for Oath Keepers?”