[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 21, 2024)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E539]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            LEOSA REFORM ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. SHEILA JACKSON LEE

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, May 21, 2024

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to H.R. 
354, the LEOSA Reform Act.
  In 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officer Safety Act 
(LEOSA), permitting qualified active and retired law enforcement 
officers to carry concealed firearms and ammunition in certain places.
  Every state allows the concealed carry of firearms subject to certain 
conditions, but the original LEOSA overrode whatever permit, training, 
or other requirements might be in place--with important, commonsense 
exceptions for National Parks, playgrounds, government buildings, 
private property, and other sensitive areas.
  I should note that I was a member of the House Judiciary Committee 
when it passed the original LEOSA in 2004.
  At that time, the Committee was under Republican control, but it 
still followed regular order.
  We held a hearing on the bill in which we heard from several law 
enforcement organizations.
  Some expressed support for the bill as a way for officers to protect 
themselves and be able to respond to a dangerous situation whether they 
were in their home jurisdiction or not, on-duty or off-duty, active or 
retired.
  Other law enforcement organizations opposed the legislation, 
expressing concerns about creating confusion in the field that might 
even endanger law enforcement.
  While some of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle expressed 
concerns about the original LEOSA, I was satisfied that it struck an 
appropriate balance.
  I supported the original LEOSA because it included limits for special 
places.
  It had exceptions so that states would still have some control over 
whether retired and off-duty law enforcement officers would be allowed 
to carry concealed weapons in places like parks, playgrounds, Gun-Free 
School Zones, and state and local government buildings.
  States should be allowed to regulate these places consistent with the 
needs of the state.
  Allowing them to do so protects local law enforcement by making sure 
they know what to expect when responding to a scene.
  The original LEOSA also respected the rights of private property 
owners to prohibit concealed weapons on their property if they chose to 
do so.
  And with respect to retired officers, it ensured that they would 
continue to receive annual firearms training so that they would know 
how to safely use the concealed firearm that they were carrying.
  The legislation before us today, however, upsets the balance struck 
by the original LEOSA and it is being advanced without a hearing that 
would help us fully evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.
  While I supported the original LEOSA, I oppose the legislation before 
us today because it would allow more concealed weapons in parks, 
playgrounds, Gun-Free School Zones, local government buildings, and on 
private property even when it is contrary to the judgment of state 
leaders and private property owners.
  Today's bill also weakens the training standards for retired officers 
as set forth in the original LEOSA, which is especially concerning.
  Marksmanship is a perishable skill that must be renewed through 
practice and training.
  By relaxing the training standards, today's bill would allow retired 
officers to carry concealed firearms despite it being as many as three 
years since they last received training--and it could be that they 
retired from law enforcement more years before that.
  I respect the rights of lawful and responsible gun owners, including 
the rights of retired and off-duty law enforcement.
  We should allow these individuals to carry concealed weapons into 
many places, provided they meet certain qualifications including 
regular training.
  But this bill would allow concealed weapons to be carried by those 
who have not received recent training.
  And it would allow concealed firearms in spaces where a state may 
have a valid public safety interest in prohibiting them.
  For these reasons, I must oppose this legislation and I urge my 
colleagues to vote no on this bill.

                          ____________________