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.”

First of all, both the military and Saudino’s tactical police teams have access to fully automatic weapons. 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 Constitutional 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 anti-gun voices have been calling gun owners paranoid, insisting “No wants to take your guns.” Current events show this to be a LIE.

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 will 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.”

About JAMES A SINGER Owner of That Gun Guy Gun Shop

Retired U.S. Army and former Federal and State Law Enforcement Officer. A self-described Constitutionalist. I have a B.S. in Criminal Justice as well as coursework in political science / Constitutional law.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to NJ Sheriff and Former Chief Show Contempt for Oaths with 2nd Amendment Infringements

  1. Woebegone but Hopeful says:

    As an outsider to the current gun control debate which is continuing in the USA but mindful how deep this runs in many sections of USA society I would like to ask a question, which might seem very innocent, being from the UK.
    Would the NRA and its supporters consider that a high-profile campaign run by the NRA along the lines of asking all gun owners to follow a code of practice for Responsible Gun Ownership have an advantage in the debate. So rather than attack the opposition, be in a situation where the pro-ownership side could say ‘We recognise with our right comes a responsibility’
    Just a thought?


    • For 100 years, the NRA has been at the forefront of firearm safety training. 125,000 instructors, 8,000 coaches and, 2,200 training counselors, train OVER 1 MILLION people Every year in the safe handling of guns. The Anti-gunners know these facts. But, their arguments are not about facts, it’s about an agenda to disarm the American people. It’s a campaign of disinformation and Lies.
      I educate and train people who desire to carry concealed weapons. I’m a former law enforcement officer and Use-of-Force/Firearms Instructor as well.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Woebegone but Hopeful says:

        This is interesting to read.
        How diverse.
        If I might ask another question James. In your opinion and by your experience why do people feel the need to have, what I understand are semi-automatic weapons?…if that is the right term.
        I will probably ask other questions, but would like to ask one at a time.
        (You have to bear in mind I live in a country where an elderly man was detained by the police for, protecting his invalided wife from a knife wielding burglar (one of two men), they struggled and as a result his attacker was stabbed and died. The householder was detained by the police, then finally released as a result of a public outcry…So, we as a nation are somewhat innocent on the subject of guns)


      • I’ve been following that knife case with much interest. Self-defense is one of the foundational values in British Common Law! Your politicians and judges should be tarred-and-feathered! It appears to me that the majority of the people across the pond have forgotten their roots and who they are. Very sad. Churchill is spinning in his grave.
        Semi-automatic refers to One bullet being fired per one pull of the trigger. As opposed to full-automatic firearms with which one pull/hold of trigger launches multiple bullets. The purchase of new Fully automatic firearms has been prohibited since 1985 except for law enforcement and obviously the military. However, one can, after extensive background checks and a $400 federal tax stamp, own a pre-1985 fully automatic weapon. However, since these pre-ban weapons fetch $10,000+ from private owners/licensed dealers, they’re very cost prohibitive by most of the public.
        Semi-auto firearms are the most common in use in America. Semi-auto handguns, rifles and shotguns are very common on gun ranges, sports shooting and, hunting. Google “Three Gun Competition.” Our Supreme Court has ruled that gun ownership, per the Constitution, IS an individual Right. And, that Right applies to all guns in “Common Use.” The Semi-automatic weapon has been around since the 1800’s. It’s not a new or even recent development.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Woebegone but Hopeful says:

        We’ve had a few high profile cases over the years. As an retired UK civil servant (and proud of my 40+ years service) I can see how the event happens….The rules insist that procedure must be followed and those making the decisions are either dedicated By The Book, or fearful of repercussion; double parking is one thing, Death another. The basic problem is deeper, government cut back of funding for the police forces have resulted in less ‘coppers’ on the beat (patrol)….hence increase in crime…Simple equation.
        If I can return to guns, may I ask two questions and voice one.
        1. What qualifies as non-automatic?
        2. The devices which are reputed to turn semi to fully automatic weapons. In your opinion how effective are they, and what is the current legality, overall?
        3. I have an interest in The American Civil War (I say American because we had our own, well more than one actually). The carbines used by Buford’s (much respect for the man as a commander) cavalry at the first day of Gettysburg, would these, in your opinion have been classed as semi-automatic?


      • No. These were Lever-Action guns. The original design of the 1865 model was essentially the same model designed in 1862. Feed through buttstock, fired seven rounds. One could actually reload pretty quickly with the pre-loaded tubes of ammo available to the Army.

        A “non-automatic” could be a revolver, any semi-automatic pistol, rifle or shotgun. Basically, any weapon that fires only One shot per one pull of trigger.
        There are a few different types of devices to increase rate of fire. I think you’re referring to so-called “bump Stocks.” They Do Not “turn a gun into a fully-automatic gun.” Which is why Our federal regulatory agency (BATF) gave approval of the devices numerous times. Basically, a bump-stock is a stock that slides back and forth on a tube attached to the gun. When one pulls the trigger, the recoil of the gun with a light touch of the firing trigger work to “bump” the trigger at an increased rate. It IS still one pull of trigger to one bullet being fired. It’s just the rate is increased. Here is a video of how it works. They were legal in all states, now, they’re legal in all states but 4 or 5. There are no modifications of the rifle. the rifle is still a semi-automatic rifle.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Woebegone but Hopeful says:

        Thanks James.
        I can see myself copy and pasting your information just so I can read it in one go….like most things when you come ‘from the outside, there are a wealth of complexities to absorb, like getting my head around the differences in ‘categories’.
        Next question, please…this is genuine by the way. (Remember we are a culture in which it is assumed folk who have guns are either sportspeople;hunting folk; or criminals…sort of ‘Other Types of People’ have guns’ mentality)
        The 2nd Amendment: Madison envisaged as a means to keep a federal army in check by having local militias and so preserving freedom of the individual from a national and maybe non-representative govt. (I’m guessing at the time some also saw it as a good way of having local defence forces against, say French or British incursions).
        I see this has been a debate in the political and legislative arenas almost since it was included in the Constituion.
        I am guessing (I mean that in its literal sense) that Madison’s view is still one which is deep in part of the American heritage?


      • Woebegone but Hopeful says:

        Thank you. I replied directly to the post.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s