TheWeekInCongress.com

Week Ending June 25, 2004

HR 218 Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act of 2003

BRIEF

   The bill would override State laws that do not allow a current or retired law enforcement officer to carry a concealed weapon while in that State. The intent is to allow the officers to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the US. Those under the influence of alcohol or a drug would not be allowed the privilege during the time they are under the influence but would not be subject to a law or restriction unless the State has one to apply.

Sponsor: Representative Randy (Duke) Cunningham (R-CA)

Vote: Passed House by voice vote.

Cost to the taxpayer: No discernible cost.

MORE INFORMATION

   Representative Robert C. Scott (D-VA) opposed the bill beginning with the definition of who may be authorized to carry the concealed weapons. `'Law enforcement officer' includes corrections, probation, parole and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials, and just about anybody who has statutory power of arrest and anyone who is engaged through employment by a government agency in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision, prosecution or incarceration of law violators, Rep Scott said.”

   “One of the problems with even suggesting that the purpose of a Federal law is for law enforcement officers to assist in protecting the public outside their jurisdictions is that it may give them encouragement or even a sense of obligation to do so,” he said. “I submitted for the record in the hearing before the subcommittee a long list of articles and reports in instances where, even in the same jurisdiction, off-duty plainclothes law enforcement officers have shot, or been shot by, other off-duty officers, or gotten shot by them or uniform officers, in gun battles because the plainclothes officers were mistaken as criminals. If off-duty officers in the same jurisdiction are being shot by their fellow officers, encouraging out-of-state officers to join in such activities through a Federal law will certainly only add to the problem. Therefore, any perceived benefit that could arise from such engagement is of dubious value.”

   Geographical and population differences across State lines also concerned Rep. Scott, “Now, this is especially true when there are officers from small jurisdictions who may not be trained in how to tell fellow police officers from criminals (in large jurisdictions). Such training would be routine in large cities; but if it is a small jurisdiction where everyone knows everybody, that training would not take place. It is this specter of individually determined engagement in law enforcement actions by out-of-state, plainclothes, off-duty officers who may not be trained for specific situations that gives police chiefs and local and State governments huge concern. Clearly, they see these officers as more of a challenge to law enforcement than a help. The bill not only takes away the ability for local law enforcement leaders to manage concealed firearms activities from out-of-state officers, but it also overrides the ability of the police department to regulate its own officers. The bill overrides a police chief's ability to regulate his own officers in what they do with their own private funds within their jurisdiction. It also eliminates control over concealed weapons activities of retired officers within their own jurisdiction. Now, it also even overrides a police chief's ability to say what the officers can do with agency-issued guns in their possession within their own jurisdiction.”

   Rep. Scott continued, “State legislatures can authorize out-of-state off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions. Some have, although most have not. I do not know what the liability implications are for local jurisdictions when officers become engaged in out-of-state shoot-outs. Which jurisdiction is liable for the conduct of the out-of-state active or retired officer who may be negligent? The jurisdiction viewed as allowing an unfamiliar, untrained officer to participate in the shoot-out or the jurisdiction that issued the gun and certified the officer to carry it or other concealed weapons across State lines? The liability insurance implications alone should give Congress pause in imposing an interstate concealed-carry provision on State and local governments.”

   Law Enforcement Organizations split in support and opposition.

    The committee report included some organizations positions on the bill;

   ‘The Fraternal Order of Police (`FOP') and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (`LEAA') support the legislation, while the Police Executive Research Forum (`PERF') and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (`IACP') oppose this legislation.

   LEAA argues that this legislation will `allow tens of thousands of additionally equipped, trained and certified law enforcement officers to continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no cost to taxpayers.' FOP contends that this legislation will help its members to protect citizens in the wake of a terrorist attack and that it is even more necessary since September 11, 2001.

   Additionally, supporters argue that this legislation must include retired officers as well as current officers because 'retired officers need to be able to protect themselves and their families and because they are just as trustworthy as they were when they were employed full time.' Supporters also maintain that 'active and retired law enforcement officers often have to defend themselves outside their own State from criminals whom they have arrested.’

   Opponents of this legislation argue that this is an issue of States' sovereignty. The States have traditionally had the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms in their communities. This legislation would disregard the judgment of State authorities on what many believe is an important public safety issue. Statistics from the Southern States Police Benevolent Association indicate that a number of States forbid officers from other States to carry concealed weapons when not on official duty. Some States do not allow any of their citizens to carry concealed weapons and therefore might object to being required to allow officers from other States to carry concealed weapons. IACP expressed concern that because of difficulty in verifying the identity and eligibility of out-of-State law enforcement officers, passage of the bill could lead to a tragic situation where officers from other jurisdictions are wounded or killed by local police. PERF argues that the bill could put police agencies at risk for liability for an officer who misuses a weapon in another State. PERF also argues that the requirements on retired police officers are insufficient and difficult to implement. Many States do not currently permit their own law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons, yet this legislation would force all the States to allow retired officers to carry a weapon.’## All Rights Reserved. No Reproduction or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com