TheWeekInCongress

TheWeekInCongress.com

Week Ending July. 9, 2004

HR 218 Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004

BRIEF

Federal law allows any law enforcement officer to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the US but States have the right, and 31 have exercised that right, to prohibit the practice. The bill would override State laws that prohibit ‘qualified’ current or retired law enforcement officers from carrying a concealed weapon while in that State.

The bill would not supersede or limit State laws that permit private persons or entities to restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property. The bill would also not override State laws that prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Qualified law enforcement officer means a current government agency law enforcement officer who is authorized to carry a firearm, is not the subject of disciplinary action, and meets agency standards to qualify in the use of a firearm.

A retired law enforcement officer is one who is retired in good standing from public agency service, who was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for at least 15 years, has a non-forfeitable right to agency retirement benefits, has met the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms during the most recent 12-month period.

Those under the influence of “alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance “a drug would not be allowed the privilege during the time they are under the influence.

Weapons not permitted to be concealed are any machine-gun, firearm silencer, and destructive devices.

Supporters see the bill as one to protect off-duty law enforcement and those opposed se a serious imposition of the Federal government on State’s rights for self-governance.

Declaration of the bill’s purpose came from bill supporter the Fraternal Order of Police that concluded the legislation would, in the wake of September 11^th “will help its members to protect citizens in the wake of a terrorist attack.” The law Enforcement Alliance of America and President Bush also supported the bill. Most supporters noted that law enforcement officers are frequently the target of retribution from criminals they have arrested or helped convict. The Police Executive Research Forum and the International Association of Chiefs of Police opposed the bill.

The bill said that weapons can be shipped to the out-of-state officer through any means of commercial shipping or transport.

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

Vote: Passed House by voice vote (June 23, 2004) Passed Senate by Unanimous Consent (July 7, 2004)

UpDate: Signed into law by President Bush (July 22, 2004) Now Public Law 108-277.

Cost to the taxpayer: No discernible cost.

MORE INFORMATION

Some Specifics and the Pros- and Cons.

The bill defines a qualified law enforcement officer as an employee of a governmental agency who—

is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

The identification required is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

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.”

Support for the bill was uniform. Rep. Ric Keller(R-FL-8^th) explained his reasons for supporting the bill, “Mr. Speaker, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is a commonsense piece of legislation that will make our communities safer by allowing qualified law enforcement officers to carry their concealed firearms across State lines. Criminals do not recognize jurisdictional boundaries, particularly when it comes to seeking revenge against the police officers who arrested them.

If a doctor were traveling on vacation and he came across a child in a traffic accident who needed CPR to save his life, our society would expect the doctor to be a good Samaritan and save the child's life, regardless of State boundaries.

Similarly, law enforcement officers are, in effect, always on duty; and we are right to expect a police officer to come to the aid of a crime victim, and we are right to give that police officer the ability to provide that help by passing this important law.

If our airline pilots have the ability to carry firearms across jurisdictional boundaries, surely our police officers should have that same right.

Without this law, a police officer from Orlando, Florida, who wanted to take his family on a vacation to D.C. to see the monuments would have to travel through six separate States where he would face an instant patchwork of concealed weapons laws which would make it legal for him to have a gun in some jurisdictions and illegal in others. This law solves that problem and enhances the ability of that officer to defend his family and our communities.”

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.’