[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 88 (Wednesday, June 23, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4811-H4818]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2003
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass
the bill (H.R. 218) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt
qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws
prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 218
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2003''.
[[Page H4812]]
SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM
STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF
CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the
following:
``Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law
enforcement officers
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who
is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying
the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a
concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or
limit the laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their
property; or
``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property, installation,
building, base, or park.
``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law
enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental
agency who--
``(1) 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;
``(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;
``(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency;
``(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency
which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of
a firearm;
``(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another
intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
``(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a
firearm.
``(d) The identification required by this subsection is the
photographic identification issued by the governmental agency
for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement
officer.
``(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not
include--
``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the
National Firearms Act);
``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of
this title); and
``(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of
this title).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to
section 926A the following:
``926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement
officers.''.
SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE
CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) In General.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States
Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the
following:
``Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified
retired law enforcement officers
``(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any
State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who
is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is
carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may
carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to
subsection (b).
``(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or
limit the laws of any State that--
``(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or
restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their
property; or
``(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on
any State or local government property, installation,
building, base, or park.
``(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired
law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
``(1) retired in good standing from service with a public
agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons
of mental instability;
``(2) before such retirement, was 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 had statutory powers of
arrest;
``(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as
a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 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;
``(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) is not under the influence of alcohol or another
intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
``(7) 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
``(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.
``(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not
include--
``(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the
National Firearms Act);
``(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of
this title); and
``(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of
this title).''.
(b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for such
chapter is further amended by inserting after the item
relating to section 926B the following:
``926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law
enforcement officers.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, is it the committee position to pass
this bill?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, the committee position is to pass the
bill, and I have made the motion to do so.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, is it the intent to
divide time equally for and against the bill?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further,
it is the intent of the chairman of the committee to divide time based
upon requests that are made by Republican Members on this side. I have
no idea how time on the Democratic side will be divided, since I would
assume that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the ranking member
of the subcommittee, will be recognized for 20 minutes to manage the
time on the Democratic side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In answer to the gentleman's previous
inquiry, a motion that the House suspend the rules is debatable for 40
minutes, one-half in favor of the motion, one-half in opposition
thereto.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. Since the
chairman of this committee is opposed to his own committee's position,
is it not uncommonly unfair to allow someone opposed to the bill, A, to
manage the bill, and also to close? I understand the right to close at
the end of the bill in favor of the committee position.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chairman of the committee offered the
motion to pass the bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I find this uncommonly unfair.
General Leave
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 218, as amended.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Wisconsin?
There was no objection.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the subcommittee hearing and as I said at
the full committee hearing, and as I will
[[Page H4813]]
reiterate today, reasonable men and women have adamantly supported this
bill before us, and reasonable men and women have adamantly opposed it.
So that is where we are.
Today I rise in support of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Enhancement Act of 2003. H.R. 218 would exempt qualified current
and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the
carrying of concealed firearms.
Currently, most States do not recognize within their borders
concealed carry permits issued in other States. This legislation, Mr.
Speaker, would allow active and retired law enforcement officers to
carry a concealed weapon in any of our 50 states. There are important
provisions in the bill that require such officers to maintain
appropriate firearms training and to carry identification recognizing
their affiliation with a law enforcement agency.
Further, the bill has garnered tremendous bipartisan support, and
recently passed the House Committee on the Judiciary by a vote of 23 to
9. On June 15, the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security held a legislative hearing on H.R. 218, and some concerns were
raised regarding States' rights, coordinating adequate training
standards and the liability problems that may arise by having law
enforcement officers using firearms outside of their respective
jurisdictions.
While there may be room for improvement, I do believe that the bill
before us is a positive step toward ensuring that law enforcement
officers have the means to defend themselves and other innocent victims
from potential acts of violence and crime.
Mr. Speaker, having said that, I would, at this time, like to engage
in a colloquy with my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Scott), who is the ranking member on the Committee on the
Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) authored an amendment which
passed the full committee, and which I supported, and I think which was
supported in toto by the membership and which is included in the
version of the bill we are considering today, that would exclude
someone from the definition of qualified law enforcement officer if
that person is under the influence of alcohol or any other intoxicating
or hallucinatory drug. As I said, I supported the amendment.
I just want to clarify that the amendment only applies during the
time that the officer involved is actually under the influence of the
alcohol or drug. In other words, as an example, if an officer is going
on a 3-day trip, for example, out of his home State, and he is going to
be under the influence of alcohol or a drug during 2 hours of that
trip, let us say, then he would only lose his coverage under this bill
for that 2 hour period and not for the entire 3-day trip.
I just want to clarify that if he does carry his weapon during that
2-hour period, he would not be subject to any special penalty as a
result of this law, but rather would just be subject to whatever the
penalty is under the applicable local law.
I would ask my friend from Virginia, the ranking member, if that is
his understanding as well.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has correctly
stated the intent of my amendment.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 218. This bill authorizes
so-called qualified active and retired Federal and State law
enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons interstate without
regard to State and local laws prohibiting or regulating such carriage.
``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.
{time} 1445
In the past, we have considered this bill under the title, Community
Protection Act. The rhetoric surrounding the bill was an indication
that its purpose was to aid in protecting the public by putting tens of
thousands of additional armed law enforcement officers in a position to
protect the public as officers travel from State to State and
jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
From the name of the current bill, it appears that the emphasis now
is on the safety of the officers as they travel. Yet the language is
exactly the same.
One of the problems with even suggesting that 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
Now, most organizations representing policymakers in law enforcement,
like police chiefs, have opposed this legislation. Congress should not
usurp State and local control of law enforcement activities, as this
bill will do. So we should oppose this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Keller).
Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner) for yielding me this time.
[[Page H4814]]
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.
For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation
and was a vocal advocate in passing the bill through the Committee on
the Judiciary in a clean form. It is a very popular bill. It has 296
cosponsors in the House. It passed the Senate by a vote of 90 to 8 as
an amendment to another piece of gun legislation. It is supported by
police officers and other organizations across the U.S.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill, and I urge my
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 218.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a
distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a highly
respected district attorney from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Scott) for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to this
proposal, which I consider dangerous as well as irresponsible. I guess
the question that I would pose is, what has happened to States' rights?
The gentleman from Florida indicated that criminals do not respect
jurisdictional lines. That is true, they do not. However, the United
States Constitution respects State lines and State boundaries, because
the Founders believed that Federalism was an important concept in our
democracy. It seems that the evolution of the fundamental principle of
the Reagan revolution is no longer operative in this Chamber. I would
suggest that a true conservative should deplore what this proposal does
to that core American concept of Federalism.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the chairman of the full committee,
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for his opposition to
this bill. I agree with his statement that it is an affront to State
sovereignty and the Constitution. In fact, what we are doing is
undermining the 10th amendment, which reserves so many rights to the
States. We are doing it daily in this Chamber, and we are doing it in a
way that should cause every American citizen, and particularly those
who call themselves conservative, should cause them profound concern.
I can remember before I ran for office to this branch, in the
previous election there was much to-do about a so-called Contract With
America. Well, that contract seems to have been discarded. It no longer
has value, presumably, at least political value. It is clear that
States' rights and local control are no longer in vogue today.
Washington knows best. I guess that is the current refrain. The new
term is ``preemption.'' Preemption of States' rights. Preemption is a
word we have heard a lot about. It does not just apply to our foreign
policy, I would suggest. It now applies to American democracy.
This bill represents a quantum leap, if you will, in terms of the
erosion of the rights granted to States under the 10th amendment. It
would amend title XVIII to exempt current and retired law enforcement
officers from State and local laws that prohibit the carrying of
concealed weapons. As the ranking member indicated, I served as the
chief law enforcement officer, the elected district attorney in
metropolitan Boston, for more than 20 years; and I cannot understand
why Congress believes that it is in a better position than State and
local law enforcement to make decisions as to what is best in their
jurisdictions. It was the former Chair of the Committee on the
Judiciary, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), who made the
statement a while back that the best decisions on fighting crime are
made at the local level, not here in Washington.
Congress has never passed a bill that gives anyone a right to carry
weapons in violation of State and local laws until now, in our entire
constitutional history. Purportedly, involving public safety, this bill
will allow people from out of State to come into my home State with a
loaded, concealed weapon without the duty to notify public safety
officials in Massachusetts or in Boston or in any community in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The reality is that this legislation will preempt, if you will, or
supersede, the laws of 31 States that currently restrict carrying a
concealed weapon to on-duty officers. That is the law in 31 States. Yet
Washington knows best. Let us just discard those 31 State laws that
regulate the carrying of concealed weapons by on-duty officers in their
jurisdictions. Of course, it also disregards State laws that oppose
conditions on how and when retired officers may carry a concealed
weapon. And it ignores the reality that there has been constructive and
thoughtful deliberative efforts by other State legislatures, as well as
the State of New Jersey, that have addressed exactly these issues.
These issues have been addressed in a thoughtful and deliberative way
at the State and local level.
This bill does not limit the weapons that officers can carry, like
some States do. This bill also does not limit the maximum age for an
officer carrying a concealed weapon, like some States do. And this bill
does not allow local departments to deny permits to retirees no matter
where they come from, like some States do. Under this proposal, a
retired Customs inspector from Alabama can come into Massachusetts
carrying a concealed weapon, and my local sheriff or my local police
chief can do nothing about it.
With the passage of this bill, Congress will enable officers who
retire or resign, or resign while under investigation for domestic
abuse, racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse to be
eligible for a concealed weapon permit. It is all too easy to imagine a
scenario where there will be a tragedy under these circumstances, and
we will be responsible for it. The rationale often in support of this
proposal is that law enforcement officers, whether active or retired,
are never off duty.
Now, I have profound respect for the hard work of law enforcement
officials everywhere. I was part of them. I know them. But when they go
off duty and travel to my State and to my hometown, they should respect
the rules and policies of the local police departments and the
communities where I live and where they are visitors. The Federal
Government should not strip sheriffs and police officers of the
authority and discretion to determine who can carry concealed weapons
within their jurisdictions. Why should Congress, of all places, why
should Congress decide if an off-duty or retired police officer from
another State can carry a hidden firearm into my community or into your
community?
Mr. Speaker, by no means does this bill reflect Federal support for
State and local law enforcement. It will not reduce violence; and I
dare say, to the contrary, it very well may undermine public safety.
{time} 1500
So, for all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to defeat this
proposal.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Cunningham), the author of the bill.
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been a long time coming.
[[Page H4815]]
And for those to say that this violates States rights, when they
themselves have voted for hundreds of bills on this floor against
States rights, I think is an oxymoron.
I also believe that one can spend this any way they want if one is
opposed to it. But look who is for it. A super majority in the Senate
has already passed this bill, this House floor, over 300 votes, on this
floor.
We have policemen in D.C. that gave their lives to save Members of
Congress and they are waiting outside for the passage of this bill, Mr.
Speaker. They are so excited. This is the number one legislative act
for law enforcement, the number one. During Memorial Day, we mourned
our law enforcement agents that we lost. They had us up on the stage
that support this bill as recognition. Those in opposition can spin
this any way they want.
Who else supports this bill? The ranking member and the chairman in
the subcommittee and the committee were overridden by their own
committee on the amendments. The Scott amendment, which is good, and I
think it improves the bill, and it does. I wish I had thought of it.
But in this body to override a chairman and a ranking minority in their
own committee takes guts, and it is guts because it supports the right
thing.
We all say we support law enforcement. Well, they support this, even
the Retired Chiefs of Police. We had a chief of police oppose this, but
the Retired Chiefs of Police support this bill.
If one looks at what this bill does, the training that is required,
all of the access to anyone that would use this bill is in the bill.
The liability itself is in this bill. And I would say that if one takes
a look also at who supports these positions, they wrote this, the law
enforcement agencies helped over the years write this bill. It helps
them. If one looks to Law Enforcement Alliance of America, LEAA, the
National Association of Police, NAPO, the National Law Enforcement
Council, and FOP, all of them support this bill, Mr. Speaker.
Very rarely can we come across and have a bill that is passed out of
the committee over the objection of the chairman and the ranking member
to make it to the floor, and that time be controlled by both the people
that are opposed to this bill.
Now, the chairman granted me 5 minutes. I thank the chairman for
that. But I also think it is unfair for someone that is opposed to the
bill be on the floor closing, because that is usually in the committee
position. The committee position is to pass this bill. Even though the
chairman purported the bill to pass it, he is speaking against it. He
wants to close, which I do not think is fair.
And who is it not fair for? It is not fair for the millions of law
enforcement agents that risk their lives every day. They give their
lives for us, almost as many of those have been lost in Iraq. When they
arrest somebody that is not always a good guy, their families are
getting killed when they retire. And they said, hey, we want
protection. Give us protection against the bad guys. Because they do
carry weapons.
I would like to submit, Mr. Speaker, the letter from the President of
the United States. And I will read, ``I am pleased to offer my support
for the Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act. Our Nation relies upon
the men and women in law enforcement to keep the streets and
neighborhoods safe. This legislation will better protect our Nation
from danger by ensuring that these first responders are ready to handle
an emergency, regardless of their location and duty status.''
The President is saying this helps us in homeland security. We will
be struck, Mr. Speaker, by some terrorist act. I think it is
inevitable. And we want the people that are highly trained that protect
us every day, to have the right to speak.
Mr. Speaker, I think we owe it to the very people what support this
bill across the land. They are waiting outside. I am not supposed to
speak about who is in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, but I was if allowed to
do that, I would say that law enforcement agents are there to support
this bill. And I do not know what I can do to have a position supported
by the Senate super majority, a super majority of this body, a super,
super majority of law enforcement agents, and someone to oppose it is
just wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his courtesy of the 5 minutes
and extra minute, but I also would submit my disappointment that the
controlling of the time was not by the subcommittee as originally set,
agreed upon, and that the right to close does not fall on someone that
supports this bill.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I will insert the letter that I referred
to earlier in the Record.
The White House,
Washington, DC, June 18, 2004.
Mr. Chuck Canterbury,
National President, Fraternal Order of Police, Grand Lodge,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chuck:
I am pleased to offer my support for the Law Enforcement
Officers' Safety Act. Our Nation relies upon the men and
women in law enforcement to keep the streets and
neighborhoods safe. This legislation will better protect our
Nation from danger by ensuring that these first responders
are ready to handle an emergency regardless of their location
and duty status.
I am particularly pleased that the Senate sponsors named
this provision after our mutual friend, Steven Young. I know
how hard you and Steve worked for passage of this bill, and I
look forward to honoring his memory by signing it.
Sincerely,
George W. Bush.
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and urge my
colleagues to vote against it.
I would ask my colleagues to ignore the list of organizations that
have supported the bill and read what the bill does. In Federalist
Paper number 45, James Madison, in explaining the division of power
between the States and the Federal Government envisioned, stated, ``The
powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which,
in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and
properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and
prosperity of the State.''
This legislation takes away the ability of the 50 States to govern
their internal order. Just look at the title of the bill: ``To amend
title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former
law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of
concealed weapons.'' In exercising its authority to keep internal
order, the State has traditionally controlled who, within its borders,
may carry concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry
firearms.
This legislation undermines the power of the individual states and
frustrates the principles of Federalism. As long as they do not
infringe on the rights granted under the second amendment to the
Constitution, laws regulating the carrying of concealed firearms should
remain within the jurisdiction of the State government where they can
be more effectively monitored and enforced.
Currently Federal law is silent on the issue of allowing State and
local law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across State
lines, allowing each individual State to decide whether or not it
wishes and to what extent to allow this practice.
Additionally, current Federal law does not mandate that the States
allow both active and retired State and local law enforcement officers
to carry a concealed weapon without the permission of each specific
State. I understand that at least six States and the District of
Columbia currently forbid officers from other States to carry concealed
weapons. Thirty-one States restrict carrying a concealed weapon to an
officer off duty. And nine States allow an out-of-state officer to
carry a concealed weapon.
H.R. 218 would override State right to carry laws and mandate that
active and retired police officers could carry a concealed weapon
anywhere within the United States. Such a measure is an affront to
State sovereignty and the Constitution.
I have received letters from the National League of Cities and State
leaders around the country objecting to this legislation because it
replaces the judgment of State and local governments with the judgment
of Congress on an important safety issue. The International Association
of Police
[[Page H4816]]
Chiefs, the Major City Chiefs, and the Police Executive Research Forum
also object to this legislation. So law enforcement is not unanimous in
support of it.
The IACP testified at a hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security that H.R. 218 will create a dangerous
situation for law enforcement and citizens alike because there is so
much variation in training standards for law enforcement. In addition
to these variations, it may be difficult for officers to recognize
official badges held by legitimate officers and fake badges and fake ID
cards, which are easily obtainable on the Internet.
I am also very concerned who will bear the responsibility and
liability for potential actions that these officers might take while
out of their State. It is a real possibility that the law enforcement
agency that trained these officers could wind up being forced to defend
itself against actions taken by an off duty, out-of-state officer.
I received a letter from Joseph Polisar, president of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. And I will insert it in
the Record in total, but I would like to just read one paragraph.
``Finally, the IACP is concerned about or concerned over the
liability of law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty
officers who use or misuse their weapon while out of State. If an off-
duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in another State,
it is likely that their department will be forced to defend itself
against liability charges in another State. The resources that mounting
this defense would require could be better spent serving the
communities we represent.''
Because of all of the concerns that I have expressed, I must oppose
this legislation and ask that my colleagues join me in my opposition. I
realize this is a tough vote, but this is not a good bill. I believe
that the issues at hand could be better addressed by the States in an
appropriate manner through the use of reciprocity agreements, many of
which already exist, rather than taking away the right of the States to
legislate in this area which H.R. 218 does.
An approach of reciprocity agreements would allow individual States
to have the final say on whether or not it believes allowing out-of-
state officers to carry concealed weapons within its borders would
enhance rather than undermine public safety.
The letter previously referred to follows:
International Association of
Chiefs of Police,
Alexandria, VA, June 23, 2004.
Hon. James Sensenbrenner,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: On behalf of the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), I am
writing to express our strong opposition to H.R. 218, the Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. This bill would
authorize off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to
carry concealed weapons throughout the country.
It is the IACP's belief that states and localities should
have the right to determine who is eligible to carry firearms
in their communities. It is essential that state and local
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry
laws that best fit the needs of their communities. This
applies to laws covering private citizens as well as active
and former law enforcement personnel.
The IACP strongly believes that each state should retain
the power to determine whether they want police officers that
are trained and supervised by agencies outside of their state
carrying firearms in their jurisdictions. Why should a police
chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, a
strict standard of accountability and stringent policies be
forced to permit officers who may not meet those standards to
carry a concealed weapon in his or her jurisdiction?
However, in addition to these fundamental questions over
the preemption of state and local firearms laws, the IACP is
also concerned with the impact that this legislation may have
on the safety of our officers and our communities.
There can be no doubt that police executives are deeply
concerned for the safety of our officers. The IACP
understands that the proponents of S. 253 contend that police
officers need to protect themselves and their families while
traveling, and that undercover officers may be targets if
recognized on vacation or travel. These are considerations,
but they must be balanced against the potential dangers
involved. In fact, one of the reasons that this legislation
is especially troubling to our nation's law enforcement
executives is that it could in fact threaten the safety of
police officers by creating tragic situations where officers
from other jurisdictions are wounded or killed by the local
officers. Police departments throughout the nation train
their officers to respond as a team to dangerous situations.
This teamwork requires months of training to develop and
provides the officers with an understanding of how their
coworkers will respond when faced with different situations.
Injecting an armed, unknown officer, who has received
different training and is operating under different
assumptions, can turn an already dangerous situation deadly.
In addition, the IACP is concerned that the legislation
specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a
disciplinary action is eligible. This provision raises
several concerns for law enforcement executives. For example,
what types of disciplinary actions does this cover? Does this
provision apply only to current investigations and actions?
How would officers ascertain that an out-of-state law
enforcement officer is subject to a disciplinary action and
therefore ineligible to carry a firearm?
Additionally, while the legislation does contain some
requirements to ensure that retirees qualify to have a
concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be
difficult to implement. The legislation fails to take into
account those officers who have retired under threat of
disciplinary action or dismissal for emotional problems that
did not rise to the level of ``mental instability.'' Officers
who retire or quit just prior to a disciplinary or competency
hearing may still be eligible for benefits and appear to have
left the agency in good standing. Even a police officer who
retires with exceptional skills today may be stricken with an
illness or other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry
a concealed weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police
management structure that identifies such problems in current
officers.
Finally, the IACP is also concerned over the liability of
law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty officer
who uses or misuses their weapon while out of state. If an
off-duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in
another state, it is likely that their department will be
forced to defend itself against liability charges in another
state. The resources that mounting this defense would require
could be better spent serving the communities we represent.
The IACP understands that at first glance this legislation
may appear to be a simple solution to a complex problem.
However, a careful review of these provisions reveals that it
has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the
safety of our communities and our officers.
Again, the IACP is strongly opposed to this legislation and
we urge you to oppose it as well.
Thank you for attention to this important issue to law
enforcement executives.
Sincerely,
Joseph Polisar,
President.
Mr CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge Members to
vote ``yes'' on my bill, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of
2003 (H.R. 218) to allow qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement
officers to carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction. The bill has
broad bipartisan support with 296 cosponsors.
The benefits of the legislation are twofold--officer safety and
improved public safety. Many jurisdictions do not allow off-duty
officers to carry concealed weapons. Due to the unique responsibilities
and dangers that come with law enforcement, off-duty officers are at a
greater risk than most Americans. It is not uncommon for off-duty
officers to run into people they have arrested or helped to
incarcerate. There have been documented instances where felons have
sought retribution against officers who helped to put them in jail or
prison. It is only right that the men and women who put their lives on
the line everyday when they go to work be afforded the right to protect
their families and themselves while they are off duty.
These concerns apply not only to off-duty officers, but to retired
officers as well. A criminal who is seeking retribution does not care
that the officer who put them away is retired. It is a disservice to
those men and women who risked their lives to perform a public service
to be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their families
simply because they retired.
Legal issues are also posed when neighboring jurisdictions have
different regulations for carrying concealed weapons. An off-duty
officer is faced with a problem when he is traveling state to state or
even city to city. In a circumstance where his/her home jurisdiction
requires off-duty officers to carry, but he is traveling to a
jurisdiction where the law prohibits carrying concealed weapons, the
officer is forced to choose which law to break. Does he leave his gun
at home and break the law in his home jurisdiction, or take it with him
and break the law when he enters the next jurisdiction?
Aside from the issues of self-defense and jurisdictional conflicts,
H.R. 218 provides additional officers to prevent crime, without the
cost. There are countless stories of retired and off-duty officers who
have prevented crime and protected everyday citizens because they were
allowed to carry concealed weapons. In
[[Page H4817]]
this time of heightened security, it seems only logical that additional
means to prevent crime and even terrorism be implemented. Off-duty and
retired law enforcement officers have the training to recognize
suspicious activity and prevent crime. When qualified off-duty and
retired police officers are allowed to carry, more law enforcement
officers are put on the street at zero cost to taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a minute to read some stories from
around the United States where off-duty officers have prevented crimes,
in part, because they were allowed to carry their firearm. The first
story is from my hometown of San Diego.
Officer Finds Work on Her Day Off
(By Joe Hughes)
Hillcrest.--For San Diego police Officer Sandra Oplinger,
it was anything but an off day. Olinger ended up capturing a
suspected bank robber at gunpoint on her day off yesterday.
She happened to be in the area of Home Savings Of America
on Fifth Avenue near Washington Street about 12:30 p.m. when
she saw a man running from the bank, a trail of red smoke
coming from an exploded red dye packet that had been inserted
into a wad of the loot.
With her gun drawn, she tracked down and caught the man.
Citizens helped by gathering up loose bank cash. The incident
began when a man entered the bank and asked a teller if he
could open an account. The teller gave him a blank form and
he left. He returned 10 minutes later, approached the same
teller and declared it was a robbery, showing a weapon and a
demand note he had written on the same form the teller had
given him.
He then grabbed some money and ran out the door. The dye
pack exploded outside, leaving a trail of smoke that
attracted Oplinger's attention and led to the suspect's
arrest.
The names of the man and a possible accomplice in a nearby
car were not immediately released. A gun was recovered.
Deputy Apparent Target of Robbery, Carjacking
Gunfire was exchanged on Milwaukee's north side Wednesday
during an attempted robbery and carjacking.
An off-duty Milwaukee County Sheriff's deputy was the
victim of an attempted robbery and carjacking Wednesday
afternoon as he was leaving the Advance Auto Parts store near
Teutonia and Hampton Avenues, WISN 12 News reported Ben Tracy
said. The deputy, who had a gun exchanged fire with one of
the suspects. No one was injured or hit by gunfire, Tracy
reported. Milwaukee Police and Milwaukee County Sheriff's
deputies were on the scene. They were examining a car they
believe belongs to the suspects. They were searching for two
suspects.
Off-duty Officer Shoots Attacker
An off-duty Houston police officer shot a man in southwest
Houston early Sunday.
The officer, whose identity was not released, was working
in the parking lot of a reception hall in the 9500 block of
Wilcrest. About 3 a.m., he repeatedly asked two men who were
talking to two women to leave the parking lot and go inside
the building, officials said.
The men refused to leave and confronted the officer. The
confrontation escalated to an assault, according to the
Houston Police Department, with one of the men knocking off
the officer's eyeglasses.
The officer, whose vision was impaired after being hit,
said he saw a man approaching him with his arms near his
pockets, police said. They said the officer asked him to
stop, when he didn't, the officer drew his weapon and fired.
Daryl D. Gorman, 30, was taken to Ben Taub Hospital with
gunshot wounds to the hip and left side investigators said.
He was listed in fair condition Sunday.
The officer, a 16-year veteran of the Fondren division,
received facial injuries. No charges had been filed Sunday.
Off-duty Police Officer, Suspected Robber Shoot Each Other
South Gate, CA. (AP).--An off-duty police officer exchanged
gunfire with a would-be robber early Saturday morning. Both
men were wounded but were expected to survive, police said.
Fabian Mejia, a three-year veteran of the Calexico Police
Department, was using a corner pay phone shortly after
midnight when a 19-year-old gunman demanded money from him,
said Lt. Darren Sullivan of the South Gate Police Department.
After the men shot each other, the suspect got in a car and
left as Mejia called 911. Police arrested the gunman and an
18-year-old woman with him after they arrived at a nearby
hospital, Sullivan said. Their names were not immediately
released. Mejia was in stable condition at a hospital while
the suspected robber was in serious but stable condition,
said Sullivan.
Mejia was in South Gate, just southwest of Los Angeles, to
visit his parents, Sullivan said.
Officer Shoots at Yard-Statue Thieves
(By Peggy O'Hare)
An off-duty Houston police officer followed two men who
stole concrete statues from his front yard Tuesday and fired
at the driver when he pointed a gun at him, authorities said.
Officer J.H. Lynn said two men forced their way through his
front yard's locked gate at 12:45 p.m., took two statues from
the lawn and drove off.
The officer followed the thieves to get their license plate
number. When they reached the 1000 block of West 25th, they
turned around and drove toward Lynn, with the driver pointing
a handgun at the officer.
Lynn fired his duty weapon one time at the driver, but the
pair drove through a ditch and sped away.
Tulsa Policeman Shoots Intruder
(By Mick Hinton)
Tulsa.--A month after joining the Tulsa police force, Mark
Sole shot the hand of an intruder early Monday in the front
yard of the officer's home. The intruder and an accomplice
are suspected of breaking into Sole's garage. Sole and his
wife were awakened about 6 a.m. by noises coming from their
garage. Sgt. Wayne Allen said. The officer found two men in
his garage. Allen said one man ran, but Sole held the other
at gunpoint in his front yard. ``He ordered the suspect to
take his hands out of his pocket, and the suspect had a dark
metallic object,'' Allen said. The officer apparently thought
it was a weapon and shot the man in the hand, Allen said.
Police arrested John Warren Kays, 29, of Tulsa and took him
to Tulsa Regional Medical Center, where he was being treated,
Allen said.
Cop Saves Teens From Pit Bulls
(By Bradley Cole)
East Chicago.--An East Chicago police officer shot and
killed two pit bulls Tuesday as he came to the rescue of two
local teens who faced serious injury. Police Officer John
Mucha was asleep Tuesday afternoon after working a midnight
shift when the piercing scream of a 16-year-old boy woke him
up. Mucha ran to the window and saw two pit bulls attacking a
young man in the 5000 block of Tod Avenue. Before he could
react, Mucha watched as the boy, with the pit bulls chasing
him, jumped a fence to safety. Then he heard a second scream.
As Mucha turned to the window again, he saw the pit bulls pin
a 14-year-old girl to the sidewalk and begin mauling her.
East Chicago Sgt. Joe De La Cruz said Mucha, in his
underwear and T-shirt, grabbed his gun and ran barefoot into
the street. As Mucha approached the girl, the two pit bulls
turned their attention toward him, De La Cruz said. ``Officer
Mucha then positioned himself between the girl and the pit
bulls,'' De La Cruz said. ``The dogs made a pass at him, then
attacked. He shot at the dogs, wounding them both, before
they ran off.'' De La Cruz said Mucha took after the first
dog, which he managed to corner. He said the dog tried to
attack Mucha again, he shot it and killed it.
Within seconds, Mucha ran after and spotted the second dog
on a nearby porch. Once again, as Mucha approached the dog,
it tried to attack and was shot to death.
Police said the boy wasn't seriously injured, but the girl
was taken to St. Catherine Hospital in East Chicago, where
she was treated and released. De La Cruz said the dogs'
owner, Anna Gonzalez, 24, of 5013 Tod Ave., received numerous
tickets from East Chicago dog warden Steve Ruiz before the
incident. He said she also received numerous tickets
afterward and has prompted the city to once again crack down
on pit bulls. ``We passed an ordinance 10 years ago that
anyone who owns a pit bull must have $1 million in
insurance,'' De La Cruz said. ``All pit bulls must be
registered at City Hall. They must be on a leash and muzzled
when they're walked.'' De La Cruz said pit bulls are becoming
a problem again, and the city plans to step up its efforts to
ensure that pit bull owners are complying with the law.
Mucha will receive an official commendation from East
Chicago Police Chief Frank Alcala for his bravery, De La Cruz
said.
H.R. 218 is strongly supported by the Law Enforcement Alliance of
America, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Troopers
Coalition, the National Association of Police Organizations, the
International Brotherhood of Police Officers, and many others. In most
cases, H.R. 218 is their #1 legislative priority. These groups have
worked tirelessly for over 10 years to see the passage of this
legislation. I want to thank them for all their hard work and diligence
in seeing H.R. 218 come to the Floor.
I also want to thank the 296 members who cosponsored H.R. 218 this
year. Their support has been crucial in getting a vote on this bill
this year.
During this time of heightened security, it makes sense to put more
qualified officers in a position to prevent crime. Mr. Speaker, I
strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' today on this crucial piece
of legislation. I thank Members and so will their cops.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time,
and ask for a no vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Terry). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 218, as amended.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
[[Page H4818]]
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________