[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 104 (Tuesday, July 15, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Page S9401]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





  (At the request of Mr. DASCHLE, the following statement was ordered 

to be printed in the Record.)



                  LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT



 Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support 

for S. 253, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. This 

groundbreaking legislation will enable law enforcement officers to 

protect themselves and our communities, wherever they are, whenever 

they are needed. This legislation authorizes off-duty and qualified 

retired officers to carry a firearm anywhere in the Nation to help 

ensure the safety and well-being of law abiding citizens. While I 

strongly support this goal, I hope that amendments on the Senator floor 

will add additional common sense restrictions to the bill.

  Today, the authority of off-duty police officer to carry concealed 

weapons varies widely from State to State. This complex patchwork of 

Federal, State and local laws places an undue and unnecessary 

limitation on professionals sworn to defend the public interest. The 

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act would allow active law enforcement 

officers to carry their weapons while traveling outside their own 

jurisdiction, anywhere in the country. However, the bill also preserves 

State laws that restrict the carrying of concealed weapons on private 

or government property.

  Although we need to supplement the nationwide effort to increase 

security, it is critical that enactment of such legislation be limited 

to current licensed professionals. This new authority to carry 

concealed firearms should complement existing duty of police officers 

to protect their communities however, it must also provide clear 

channels of accountability.

  I hope that the Senate will consider including the following common 

sense restrictions to improve this legislation for our officers and our 

citizens. First, we should limit this new authority to currently 

employed law enforcement officers. This will allow for reliable 

oversight by State and local authorities. We should also restrict the 

off-duty officer's firearm selection to handguns. This will reduce the 

potential for abuse and the unnecessary violence that high powered 

weapons may induce. We should also prevent off-duty officers from 

carrying weapons in places where alcohol is served. Clearly, guns and 

alcohol are a deadly combination, even in the hands of trained 

professionals.

  Finally, even as we take comfort in the greater protection this 

legislation will provide, we must not lose sight of the fact that there 

is no substitute for a uniformed, on-duty police officer. The 

reluctance of the administration to provide adequate State fiscal 

relief has forced many police departments to downsize their police 

forces at a time when they have never been in greater demand. In 

addition, the inadequate funding of First Responders within the 

Homeland Security Department puts even greater strain on police 

departments and threatens our national security. Furthermore, the 

decision by Congress and this administration to deny level funding for 

the successful Community Oriented Policing program is a betrayal of the 

very communities that the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act is 

designed to protect. Though there is much to be gained by supplementing 

community security with armed and trained citizens, there is also much 

to be lost by law enforcement entities are not fully funded.

  I intend to support the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act. It is 

my hope that this is only the first step to giving those responsible 

for our protection the tools and resources that are necessary to uphold 

their oath.



                          ____________________