[Senate Report 110-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 341
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-150
======================================================================
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2007
_______
September 5, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Leahy, from the Committee on Judiciary, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany S. 376]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the
bill (S. 376), to amend title 18, United States Code, to
improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed
weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. Purpose and Need for S. 376......................................1
II. Legislative History and Committee Consideration..................4
III. Section-by-Section Summary.......................................4
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................5
V. Regulatory Impact Statement......................................6
VI. Conclusion.......................................................6
VII. Minority Views of Senator Kennedy................................7
VIII.Changes in Existing Law.........................................12
I. Purpose and Need for S. 376
A. SUMMARY
The purpose of S. 376, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act of 2007 is to amend current law to improve the processes by
which retired officers can receive certification to carry
concealed firearms across State lines, to refine the
eligibility requirements for retired law enforcement officers,
and to clarify that officers employed by both Amtrak and the
executive branch are covered by LEOSA's provisions.
B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION
On January 24, 2007, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick
Leahy introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
2007, S. 376, to make amendments to the existing law (18 U.S.C.
Sec. Sec. 926B, 926C). Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Arlen
Specter, and Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl are original
cosponsors of the bill. Senators Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley,
Jeff Sessions, Kent Conrad, Pete Domenici, and Gordon Smith
joined as cosponsors.
Since the enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety
Act of 2003, varying State laws and regulations have hindered
the consistent and effective implementation of the law,
particularly with respect to qualified retired law enforcement
officers. Under current law, qualified retired law enforcement
officers must carry photographic identification issued by the
agency at which they were employed and documentation that
certifies they have met, within the most recent 12-month
period, the active duty law enforcement standards for
qualification for a firearm of the same type as the one they
intend to carry. Currently, the certification component of this
document must be issued by the retired officer's former agency
or by the State in which the retired officer resides.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(1) & (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adding to the uncertainty in this regard was a memorandum
issued on January 31, 2005 by then-Attorney General of the
United States John Ashcroft. In his memorandum to all law
enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice,\2\
Attorney General Ashcroft directed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Drug
Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Federal
Bureau of Prisons; The Inspector General; United States Marshals
Service.
Individual components shall not themselves train or
qualify retired employees to carry a firearm, as
authorized under the law. In order to be authorized
under the Act to carry a firearm, a retired qualified
LEO from a DOJ component must qualify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(2)(B), and in accordance with state
standards for active LEOs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Memorandum from the Attorney General, January 31, 2005,
available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/agmemo01312005.pdf (last visited
July 9, 2007).
The effect of the Attorney General's memorandum was to
preclude officers who had retired from service with a
Department of Justice component from certification pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(1),\4\ which provides that a qualified
retired officer may satisfy the law with a single
identification card from their agency denoting both prior
service with the agency and firearms testing within one year
prior to the date of carriage. The practical result of the
Attorney General's directive was to subject officers who had
retired from Federal law enforcement to varying State
procedures in order to satisfy the firearms testing requirement
of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\(d) The identification required by this subsection is--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from
which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement
officer that indicates that the individual has, not less
recently than one year before the date the individual is
carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found
by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency
for training and qualification for active law enforcement
officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed
firearm; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To remedy the difficulties that have arisen in some
jurisdictions for retired law enforcement officers, S. 376
provides that a ``certified firearms instructor'' may conduct
testing and qualify retired law enforcement officers using the
active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as
established by the State. Moreover, S. 376 also provides that
if the State has not established such standards, the qualified
instructor may conduct testing pursuant to standards set by any
law enforcement agency within that State.
This change would enable any certified firearms instructor
to qualify a retired officer using either the standards set by
the State in which the instructor is certified and the officer
resides, or in the absence of such standards--or the
recognition thereof--the standards of any law enforcement
agency in the State.
The legislation would also make clear that those active and
retired law enforcement officers who are or were employed by
the Amtrak Police Department meet the definition of ``qualified
active law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired law
enforcement officer.''\5\ Under current law, because Amtrak is,
under Title 49, ``not a department, agency, or instrumentality
of the United States Government,''\6\ police officers employed
by Amtrak do not meet the definition in LEOSA, which requires
them to be an ``employee of a governmental agency.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 926B(c) & 926C(c).
\6\49 U.S.C. Sec. 24301(a)(3).
\7\18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Amtrak Police Department, first accredited in 1992, has
been reaccredited twice--in 1997 and 2002 by the Commission on
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The
department has a K-9 team, a Drug Enforcement Unit, an Aviation
Unit, and a Mobile Command Center. Amtrak police officers are
assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Joint
Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and Joint Operations Center in
Washington, D.C. In 1999, Congress amended the Omnibus Crime
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow railroad police
officers to attend the FBI's National Academy for Law
Enforcement Training.\8\ To date, several Amtrak officers have
successfully completed that program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\42 Sec. U.S.C. Sec. 3771(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, in the most recent report on Federal law
enforcement officers available, entitled Federal Law
Enforcement Officers, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics listed the Amtrak Police
Department as a Federal law enforcement agency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin, Federal Law Enforcement
Officers, 2004, July, 2006, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
pub/pdf/fleo04.pdf (last visited July 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the fact that the officers of the Amtrak Police
Department are Federal law enforcement officers and, but for
the language in Title 49, would clearly meet the definition in
LEOSA, it is appropriate for these officers to be eligible for
the benefits of LEOSA. For these reasons, S. 376 expands the
definitions in 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 926B and 926C to include the
officers employed by the Amtrak Police Department.
The bill also addresses two other issues that have unduly
restricted retired officers from being eligible for the
privileges conferred under LEOSA. The bill reduces the required
years of service, from 15 to 10, that a retired officer must
have in order to be eligible for LEOSA certification. This
change is responsive to the reality that some law enforcement
officers enter the field as a second career, often subsequent
to military service. This change is intended to include those
officers who entered the law enforcement field later in their
careers, but who are no less dedicated to the profession.
The bill also removes the requirement in existing law that
a retired officer be entitled to ``non-forfeitable'' retirement
benefits. Some small State and local law enforcement agencies
do not provide these benefits, and this requirement had the
effect of disqualifying otherwise eligible retired officers.
II. Legislative History and Committee Consideration
In 2004, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into
law the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (PL 108-
277). The Senate version of that bill (S. 253) was co-sponsored
by 70 senators and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee
on March 6, 2003 by a vote of 18-1. It was agreed to in the
House of Representatives by a voice vote on June 23, 2004, and
passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on July 7, 2004. The
President signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
2003 into law on June 22, 2004.
The history of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
2003 is recounted in Senate Report 108-029.
Chairman Leahy introduced S. 376 on January 24, 2007, and
the bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The
bill was first listed on the Committee's agenda on March 1,
2007. The measure was held over for a number of weeks, until
May 15, 2007, when the Committee met in open session and
reported the bill favorably by voice vote and without
amendment.
III. Section-by-Section Summary
Section 1 designates the short title of the bill as the
``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007''.
Section 2(a) adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B
making explicit that Amtrak police and executive branch law
enforcement officers are included under the statute regulating
concealed weapons carrying by active duty officers.
Section 2(b)(1)(A) amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C to reduce to
10 years, from 15 years, the duration of service as a law
enforcement officer required in order to be qualified to carry
a concealed weapon once retired. Section 2(b)(1)(B) eliminates
the requirement that a ``qualified retired law enforcement
officer'' have a non-forfeitable right to retirement benefits
and expands the list of organizations qualified to certify the
retired officer's firearms training. Section 2(b)(1)(C)
renumbers certain paragraphs.
Section 2(b)(2)(A) clarifies language describing the
identification retired officers with concealed weapons are
required to carry. Section 2(b)(2)(B) allows instructors who
conduct firearms qualification tests on active duty officers to
also certify retired officers.
Section 2(b)(3) adds a subsection making explicit that
Amtrak police and executive branch law enforcement officers are
included under the statute regulating concealed weapons
carrying by retired officers.
IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI, of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, S. 1140, the following estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 29, 2007.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 376, the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007. If you wish further
details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them.
The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure.
S. 376--Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007
Current law exempts certain active and retired law
enforcement officers from most state and local laws prohibiting
the carrying of concealed firearms. S. 376 would clarify that
officers of the Amtrak Police Department and the executive
branch of the federal government would qualify as individuals
who may carry concealed firearms. The bill also would change
the requirements that retired officers must meet to carry
concealed firearms. CBO estimates that implementing the bill
would result in no significant costs to the federal government.
Enacting S. 376 would not affect direct spending or receipts.
S. 376 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would expand
a current mandate that preempts certain state or local laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Currently,
federal law allows active and retired law enforcement officers
who meet certain requirements to carry concealed weapons; this
authority preempts some state and local statutes that prohibit
private citizens or law enforcement officers from carrying such
weapons. S. 376 would increase the number of current and former
officers who would be allowed to carry concealed weapons. CBO
estimates that the costs, if any, to those governments would be
insignificant and well below the annual threshold established
in that act ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for
inflation). S. 376 contains no new private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz
(for federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the impact on
state and local governments). This estimate was approved by
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget
Analysis.
V. Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with rule XXVI of the standing Rules of the
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory
impact will result from the enactment of S. 376.
VI. Conclusion
In passing the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003,
the Senate recognized that law enforcement officers are never
off-duty. The bill the Committee reports in 110th Congress
continues this recognition by making changes to existing law
necessary to ensure that qualified retired officers are able to
gain the privileges and protections Congress originally
intended in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.
VII. Minority Views of Senator Kennedy
I strongly oppose S. 376, which amends the Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA). The bill is a serious step
in the wrong direction and will undermine the safety of our
communities and our police officers by further overriding state
and local gun-safety laws. It will also weaken the ability of
police departments to enforce rules and policies on when and
how their own officers can carry firearms. Because of the
substantial danger of S. 376 to police officers and
communities, it is vigorously opposed by the International
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs'
Association.
A. S. 376 WILL FURTHER WEAKEN THE ABILITY OF STATES AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES
Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by
guns. The devastating tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech
last April shocked the nation. The country was united in
extending our deepest condolences and prayers to the students,
faculty, and families affected by that brutal crime. Many of
the victims were young men and women in the prime of their
lives. They were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters,
friends and neighbors. Yet, as part of this ill-conceived
measure, the Committee has approved provisions to allow even
more people to carry concealed weapons in our communities.
The overall rate of firearm deaths among children is nearly
twelve times higher in the United States than in other
industrial countries. These deaths are senseless, and we all
know that the vast majority of them could be prevented by
sensible gun laws. It is shameful that we are not doing more in
Congress to achieve gun safety and reduce gun violence. The
``gun show loophole,'' which allows firearms to be purchased
illegally at gun shows, should have been closed long ago, and
there are many other steps that Congress should take to protect
citizens from the scourge of gun violence.
At the very least, Congress should refrain from interfering
with gun-safety laws enacted by states and local governments.
Before LEOSA was enacted in 2004, each state had the authority
to decide what kind of concealed-carry law, if any, best fit
the needs of its communities. But the 2004 Act took away the
ability of state and local police departments to enforce rules
and policies on when and how their own officers can carry
weapons. If we are going to amend the Act, we should give back
the power of local police to run their own departments, not
further undermine their ability to protect their citizens.
No evidence supported the need for the law when it was
first enacted. States and local governments adequately met the
interests and needs of their active duty and retired law
enforcement officers. Consider, for example, New Jersey law. In
1995, retired police Chief John Deventer was shot and killed
while heroically trying to stop a robbery. His death prompted
New Jersey to enact a law allowing retired officers to carry
handguns under a number of conditions. In drafting this law,
the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance
the safety of police officers with the safety of the public, by
including a number of important safeguards not contained in
LEOSA. For example:
The New Jersey law is limited to handguns. LEOSA
is not.
The New Jersey law has a maximum age of 70. LEOSA
does not.
Under New Jersey's law, retired police officers
must file renewal applications every year. There is no
application process under LEOSA.
The New Jersey law requires retirees to list all
their guns. No such record is required under LEOSA.
The New Jersey law gives a police department the
discretion to deny permits to retirees. No such discretion is
provided under LEOSA.
By enacting LEOSA, Congress essentially eliminated all of
the safeguards in the New Jersey statute, as well as the
judgment of other states that have considered this issue. We
had no evidence of the need for this legislation in 2004, and
we have none now. It is critical that our policies be guided by
research and evaluation.
This legislation was adopted as Title IV of the School
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act of 2007 during the
August 2nd Judiciary Committee meeting. At that time, I
introduced an amendment adopted by unanimous consent that
requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a
study of the number of active and retired law enforcement
officers who carry concealed firearms under the provisions
established by LEOSA. It would have made more sense to conduct
such a study prior to enacting legislation that puts more guns
on the street.
In the 1990's, Boston, New York, and other cities made
substantial progress in the war on crime, precisely because
they were able to pass laws that addressed the factors that
lead to violence--including the prevalence of firearms in inner
cities. As Congressman Henry Hyde has said, ``the best
decisions on fighting crime are made at the local level.'' By
overriding all local gun-safety laws, LEOSA compromised the
ability of cities to fight crime. Congress has no business
overriding the judgment of states and local governments in
deciding whether concealed weapons should be prohibited.
S. 376 neither promotes consistent training policies among
different police jurisdictions nor limits the conditions under
which officers may use their firearms. The idea that more
crimes will be prevented when more concealed weapons are
carried by untrained and unregulated out-of-state, off-duty and
retired officers is pure fiction. The International Association
of Chiefs of Police (IACP), one of the oldest and largest
associations of law enforcement executives, has identified the
dangers of this legislation in a recent letter to the
Committee,
``[S. 376] would severely weaken the eligibility and
training requirements for retired police officers to
carry concealed weapons. The IACP believes that states
and localities should have the right to establish
standards that determine who is eligible to carry
firearms in their communities . . . Specifically, the
provisions of [S. 376] would mandate that, in the
absence of state standards, the standards set by any
police department within the state would become the de
facto standard for the entire state.
For example, in the absence of state standards:
The standards for Vermont could be set by
the Fairlee Police Department (one sworn officer);
The standards for Pennsylvania could be set
by the Dauphin Police Department (two sworn officers);
The standards for Illinois could be set by
the Cordova Police Department (one sworn officer);
The standards for California could be set by
the Etna Police Department (two sworn officers);
The standards for Massachusetts could be set
by the Brookfield Police Department (one sworn
officer).''
For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that S. 376
``would undercut the ability of state and local law enforcement
agencies to determine what standards best meet the needs of the
departments and the communities they serve.''
Law enforcement leaders face extremely difficult challenges
today. With crime rates on the rise again and new concerns
about domestic security, police chiefs are forced to do more
with less. The weak economy has forced cities and states to cut
back on funding for law enforcement. The Administration's
budget proposes to eliminate all federal funding for such vital
programs as the COPS Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant
Program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The
last thing Congress should do now is pass a bill that expands
the civil liability of police departments and nullifies the
ability of police chiefs to regulate their own officers' use of
firearms and maintain discipline.
Those who want to amend LEOSA have offered no evidence that
states and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide
these important issues for themselves. They have offered no
explanation why Congress is better suited than states, cities,
and towns to decide how to best protect police officers,
schoolchildren, church-goers, and other members of their
communities. Congress should bolster, not undermine, the
efforts of states and local governments to protect their
citizens from gun violence.
LEOSA has also jeopardized most ``safe harbor'' laws at the
state level by essentially overriding laws that categorically
prohibit guns in churches and other houses of worship, since
only laws that permit private entities to post signs
prohibiting concealed firearms on their property remain in
force. In most states, churches are not currently required to
post signs in order to have a gun-free zone.
LEOSA has even preempted laws that prohibit concealed
weapons in places where alcohol is served. Surely, it is
reasonable for a state to prohibit individuals from bringing
guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when
liquor and firearms come together. Yet Congress allowed this
legislation to go forward and now this measure will make it
even easier for a retired officer to get a gun--regardless of
state and local laws. We should not be compounding that mistake
by further damaging firearms laws with the provisions contained
in S. 376.
B. S. 376 WILL UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE SAFETY
OF POLICE OFFICERS
S. 376 will also allow less qualified retired officers to
carry concealed weapons. The provision changes the service
requirement from a retired officer who was regularly employed
for an aggregate of fifteen years or more to a retired officer
who served for ten years. The measure also strikes the
provision that requires a retired officer to have obtained a
non-forfeitable right to benefits under the agency's retirement
plan. These changes erode the few safeguards in the original
Act. Greater numbers of less qualified officers will now be
able to legally carry concealed weapons, making local
communities even more dangerous.
I introduced an amendment at the August 2nd Judiciary
Committee meeting to Title IV of the School Safety and Law
Enforcement Improvements Act of 2007, which emphasized that
nothing in LEOSA should be construed to limit or supersede
state or local laws that prohibit or restrict the possession of
a concealed firearm by an officer who has retired under threat
of disciplinary action, who has been dismissed for emotional
problems, who leaves the force prior to a disciplinary or
competency hearing, or who, after retiring, becomes unfit to
carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately, the Committee rejected
this amendment by a vote of 9 to 10.
Make no mistake. There are numerous cases in which both
active duty and retired officers have used firearms with deadly
consequences. Recently, a Prince George's County police officer
and former Homeland Security official was indicted in August
2007 on charges of murder and attempted-murder. The officer
fired on two unarmed delivery men last January, killing one and
seriously wounding the other. The same officer was charged in a
second gun-related case after he pulled a gun on a real estate
appraiser who accidentally knocked on his door. In another
disturbing case, a retired New York Police Department police
officer was charged with shooting and killing his ex-wife.
There's no question that such incidents will increase if this
legislation becomes law and allows less qualified officers who
do not receive ongoing training to carry concealed weapons. As
the National Sheriff's Association pointed out in a letter of
February 28, 2007, ``. . . carrying a firearm is a privilege
that is bestowed upon those retired law enforcement officers
that have dedicated their lives to protect the safety of our
citizens, and when considering the expansion of such a
privilege we must not act hastily.''
There is not even a requirement in S. 376 that a retiree
demonstrate a special need for a firearm. The legislation
provides only that an officer must have technically left law
enforcement in ``good standing.'' It is clear, however, that
sub-par government employees are often routinely released from
their positions without a formal finding of misconduct. The
bill does not draw a distinction between officers who served
ably and those who did not. Officers who retire in ``good
standing'' while under investigation for domestic violence,
racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could
still qualify for broad concealed-carry authority for the
remainder of their lives.
Congress should also support emerging technologies, such as
microstamping, which can allow law enforcement to make more
effective use of evidence found at crime scenes. Microstamping
uses lasers to make precise, microscopic engravings on the
firing pin and chamber of a weapon, which are transferred onto
the cartridge casing when the weapon is fired. The process
transfers the gun's make, model and serial number to the
casing, and can yield important information to law enforcement
officers investigating crimes. This technology will
substantially improve law enforcement's ability to act quickly
to identify and link shell casings found at a crime scene to
the individual handgun from which it was fired. In fact,
microstamping may have enabled investigators of the Virginia
Tech shooting to identify the perpetrator more quickly, by
analyzing microstamped markings on the casings left behind at
the first crime scene.
I also introduced an amendment at the August 2nd Judiciary
Committee meeting to require stricter standards, so that only
truly competent persons could qualify to carry concealed
firearms. The Committee rejected the amendment by a vote of 6
to 13. I also offered an amendment to require certain firearms
manufactured, imported or sold by Federal firearms licensees to
be capable of microstamping ammunition. The Committee failed to
approve the amendment by a vote of 8 to 11.
C. CONCLUSION
Each state and local government should be allowed to make
its own judgment as to when citizens and out-of-state visitors
may carry concealed weapons--and whether active or retired law
enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any
prohibition. In the words of the International Association of
Chiefs of Police, it is ``essential that state and local
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry
laws that best fit the needs of their communities.''
Allowing greater numbers of less qualified off-duty or
retired officers with concealed weapons to go into other
jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for
police officers and civilians. As the Executive Director of the
IACP explained in a letter of March 7, 2007:
The ability of law enforcement agencies to establish,
implement, and maintain firearms standards and training
requirements varies greatly from state to state and
from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions
have developed rigorous training programs and have
established strict standards of accountability and
stringent firearms policies while other jurisdictions
have not. This legislation would undercut the ability
of state and local law enforcement agencies to
determine what standards best meet the needs of the
departments and the communities they serve.
LEOSA will unnecessarily damage the efforts of states and
local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence.
It will also expose state and local governments to unnecessary
liability and nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain
discipline and control within their own departments. I regret
that the Committee did not correct the bill's most serious
flaws. The nation will be better served if Congress puts aside
this misguided effort to further weaken state and local control
over concealed carry laws, and turns its attention instead to
measures we know will reduce crime and improve the safety of
police officers and all Americans.
VIII. Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law
made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing
law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
Title 18, United States Code, Part I, Chapter 44. Firearms
* * *
SEC. 926B. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
* * *
(f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer
of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police
officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government
qualifies 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 for, any violation of the law, and has statutory
powers of arrest
* * *
SECTION 926C. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
* * *
(c) As used in this section, the term ``qualified retired
law enforcement officer'' means an individual who--
* * *
(3)(A) before such retirement, [was regularly
employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate
of 15 years or more] served as a law enforcement
officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
(B) retired from service with such agency, after
completing any applicable probationary period of such
service, due to a service-connected disability, as
determined by such agency;
(4) [has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the
retirement plan of the agency] during the most recent
12-month period, has met, at the expense of the
individual, the standards for qualification in firearms
training for active law enforcement officers as set by
the former agency, the State in which the officer
resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in
which the officer resides;
[(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met,
at the expense of the individual, the State's standards
for training and qualification for active law
enforcement officers to carry firearms;]
[(6)] (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or
another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or
substance; and
[(7)] (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from
receiving a firearm.
(d) The identification required by this subsection is--
(1) a photographic identification issued by the
agency from which the individual retired from service
as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the
individual has, not less recently than one year before
the date the individual is carrying the concealed
firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency
[to meet the standards established by the agency for
training and qualification for active law enforcement
officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the
concealed firearm; or] to meet the active duty
standards for qualification in firearms training as
established by the agency to carry a firearm of the
same type as the concealed firearm or
(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the
agency from which the individual retired from service
as a law enforcement officer; and
(B) a certification issued by the State in which the
individual resides that indicates that the individual
has, not less recently than one year before the date
the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been
tested or [otherwise found by the State to meet the
standards established by the State for training and
qualification for active law enforcement officers to
carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed
firearm.] Otherwise found by the State or a certified
firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a
firearms qualification test for active duty officers
within that State to have met--
(i) the active duty standards for
qualification in firearms training as
established by the State to carry a firearm of
the same type as the concealed firearm; or
(ii) if the State has not established such
standards, standards set by any law enforcement
agency within that State to carry a firearm of
the same type as the concealed firearm.
* * *
(f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency
as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law
enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law
enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the
Federal Government.