[Senate Report 108-29]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                        Calendar No. 29
108th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     108-29

======================================================================



 
            THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2003

                                _______
                                

                 March 26, 2003.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                     ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 253]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 253) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt 
qualified current and former law enforcement officers from 
state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon, and 
recommends that the bill pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose..........................................................1
 II. Background on the legislation....................................2
III. Need for the legislation.........................................3
 IV. Hearings.........................................................5
  V. Committee consideration..........................................6
 VI. Section-by-section analysis and discussion.......................9
VII. Congressional Budget Office cost estimate........................9
VIII.Regulatory impact statement.....................................10

 IX. Minority views of Senator Kohl..................................11
  X. Minority views of Senator Kennedy...............................12
 XI. Changes in existing law.........................................20

                               I. Purpose

    The purpose of S. 253, the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2003,'' is to amend title 18, United States Code, 
to authorize qualified off-duty law enforcement officers and 
qualified retired law enforcement officers carrying 
photographic identification issued by a governmental agency for 
which the individual is, or was, employed as a law enforcement 
officer, notwithstanding State or local laws, to carry a 
concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in 
interstate or foreign commerce. This Act, however, does not 
seek to supersede Federal law or limit the laws of any State 
that permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict 
the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or 
prohibits or restricts the possession of firearms on any State 
or local government property, installation, building, base, or 
park.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In his Minority View, Senator Kennedy claims that S. 253 takes 
the unprecedented tack of permitting certain governmental employees the 
right to carry weapons in ``violation'' of state and local laws. He is 
mistaken in his recollection of precedent. In 1993, Congress passed the 
``Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act'', Public Law No. 103-55, which 
permitted armored car guards who have a license to carry a firearm in 
one State to continue to carry a firearm in other States while 
protecting shipments--notwithstanding the laws of the States. If 
Congress extended these benefits to private security guards, it is 
difficult to discern why we should not extend them to qualified law 
enforcement officers who have substantially more training and 
experience in using firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   II. Background on the Legislation


                           THE 107TH CONGRESS

    During the 107th Congress, the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2002,'' S. 2480, was introduced on May 8, 2002 by 
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senate Judiciary 
Committee Ranking Republican Member Hatch. Forty-one Senators--
including Senate Judiciary Committee Members Thurmond, 
McConnell, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Sessions, Brownback, 
Cantwell, DeWine and Kyl--cosponsored S. 2480 in an effort to 
make communities safer and to better protect law enforcement 
officers and their families.
    Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham first introduced 
similar legislation in the 102nd Congress as the ``National 
Police and Peace Officer Protection Act,'' H.R. 4897, which was 
cosponsored by 15 House members. It was referred to the House 
Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice 
for consideration, but the Subcommittee took no action on the 
bill.
    Representative Cunningham reintroduced versions of this 
legislation in the House in the 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th and 
107th Congresses. In the 105th Congress, as the ``Community 
Protection Act,'' this legislation was ordered to be reported, 
as amended, by voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee and 
placed on the Union Calendar. No further action, however, was 
taken on the bill in the 105th Congress. In 1999, the House of 
Representatives adopted similar legislation, by a vote of 372-
53, as a floor amendment during its juvenile justice debate 
before the overall legislation was defeated.
    In the 107th Congress, Representative Cunningham 
reintroduced the ``Community Protection Act,'' H.R. 218 on 
January 3, 2001 and it garnered 275 cosponsors. On November 11, 
2001, a motion was filed to discharge the Rules Committee from 
consideration of H. Res. 271, which provided for the 
consideration of H.R. 218. The discharge petition (No. 107-4) 
obtained 44 of the required 218 signatures for further action. 
No further action on H.R. 218 was taken by the House during the 
107th Congress.
    Chairman Leahy introduced the ``Local Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2002'' in the Senate at the request of 
the late National President of the Fraternal Order of Police 
(FOP), Lieutenant Steve Young of Ohio. Lt. Young and the FOP 
have long dedicated themselves to this matter, and led the 
campaign to focus Congress on this measure that will help make 
our communities safer and protect those who are sworn to guard 
and serve the American public.

                           THE 108TH CONGRESS

    During the 108th Congress, on January 30, 2003 Senator 
Campbell, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy and 
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch introduced the ``Law 
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003''. Forty Senators--
including Senate Judiciary Committee Members Grassley, Kyl, 
DeWine, Sessions, Feinstein, Schumer, Craig, Edwards, Graham 
and Cornyn--have cosponsored the bill in an effort to make 
communities safer and to better protect law enforcement 
officers and their families. The bill, S. 253, was introduced 
in the same form as reported out of the Senate Judiciary 
Committee during the 107th Congress.
    Again, during the 108th Congress, Representative Cunningham 
introduced the companion to this bill, H.R. 218, in the House 
of Representatives with one-hundred fifty eight cosponsors.

                   III. Need for the Legislation \2\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to S. 253 to prohibit 
certain sales of armor piercing ammunition. This Trojan horse amendment 
did not command the support of the Judiciary Committee. To the 
contrary, a decided majority of members concluded that such a ban would 
do little to protect law enforcement officials, and would unnecessarily 
bog down the overwhelming bipartisan support for S. 253. Indeed, the 
data cited by Sen. Kennedy--Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics 
which show that nineteen law enforcement officers have been killed when 
their body armor was pierced--did not remotely support his proposed 
amendment. Each of these 19 reprehensible murders was committed with a 
rifle--a high-powered weapon against which standard body armor offers 
little protection. Indeed, many of these murders did not even involve 
armor piercing ammunition. See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/
2001leoka.pdf, Table 11. Notably, Senator Kennedy offers not a single 
example where law enforcement officers were killed with armor piercing 
ammunition that was fired from a handgun.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Law enforcement officers are never ``off-duty.'' They are 
dedicated public servants trained to uphold the law and keep 
the peace. When there is a threat to the peace or to our public 
safety, law enforcement officers are sworn to answer that call. 
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 enables law 
enforcement officers nationwide to be armed and prepared when 
they answer that call, no matter where, when, or in what form 
it comes.
    There are approximately 740,000 sworn law enforcement 
officers currently serving in the United States. Since the 
first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 
16,300 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. A 
total of 1,800 law enforcement officers died in the line of 
duty over the last decade, an average of 180 deaths per year. 
In 2001 alone, there were 232 police deaths, representing a 49 
percent increase from the 156 officers who died in 2000. 
Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed while taking 
law enforcement action in an off-duty capacity. On average, 
more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each 
year, resulting in some 21,000 injuries.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc.'' See http://
www.odmp.org/. See also ``Law Enforcement Officers Killed and 
Assaulted--2001 (Preliminary).'' United States Department of Justice, 
Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While a police officer may not remember the name and face 
of every criminal he or she has locked behind bars, criminals 
often have long and exacting memories. A law enforcement 
officer is a target in uniform and out; active or retired; on 
duty or off.
    The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, S. 253, is 
designed to protect officers and their families from vindictive 
criminals, and to allow thousands of equipped, trained and 
certified law enforcement officers, whether on-duty, off-duty 
or retired, to carry concealed firearms in situations where 
they can respond immediately to a crime across state and other 
jurisdictional lines.
    As Lt. Steve Young stated in his testimony before the 
Senate Judiciary Committee:

          Among the many tools of a professional law 
        enforcement officer are the badge and the gun. The 
        badge symbolizes the officer's authority and, in worst-
        case scenarios, the gun enforces that authority. These 
        tools are given to the officer in trust by the public 
        to enforce the peace and fight crime. In asking 
        Congress to pass this bill, we seek a measured 
        extension of that trust. In certain emergency 
        circumstances, an officer's knowledge and training 
        would be rendered virtually useless without a firearm, 
        as would his ability to provide for his own self-
        defense or that of his family. This bill will provide 
        the means for law enforcement officers to enforce the 
        law, keep the peace and respond to crisis situations by 
        enabling them to put to use that training and answer 
        the call to duty when need arises.

    Today, a complex patchwork of Federal, state and local laws 
govern the carrying of concealed firearms for current and 
retired law enforcement officers. Many members of the law 
enforcement community, including the FOP, the National 
Association of Police Officers (NAPO), Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association (FLEOA), and International Brotherhood of 
Police Officers (IBPO), believe that national legislation is 
necessary because of this patchwork of concealed-carry laws. 
This bill addresses this need by establishing national measures 
of uniformity and consistency to permit law enforcement 
officers to respond immediately to a crime when off duty, as 
well as to protect officers and their families from vindictive 
criminals.
    The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 creates a 
mechanism by which law enforcement officers may travel 
interstate with a firearm. Qualified active-duty law 
enforcement officers will be permitted to travel interstate 
with a firearm, subject to certain limitations, provided that 
officers are carrying their official badges and photographic 
identification.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Senator Kennedy imagines that this legislation will undermine 
discipline and control within police departments. This is so, he 
contends, because S. 253 will strip the ability of police departments 
to enforce the rules and policies regarding what weapons officers may 
carry while on-duty. Nothing of the sort is true. S. 253 imposes no 
restriction on what weapons local police departments can require its 
officers to carry--or not carry--while on-duty. It is settled law, 
moreover, that local police departments have the authority to regulate 
certain legally protected activities while officers are on duty. Not 
surprisingly, police departments can require its officers to wear 
certain uniforms and bar its officers from carrying certain equipment--
even though the officers are free to wear and carry whatever they want 
on their own time. See Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238 (1976) 
(upholding police uniform and grooming standards); Daniels v. City of 
Arlington, 246 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2001). The right supplied by S. 253 
simply does not bar the authority of local police departments to govern 
the duty standards of its officers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generally, an active-duty officer is qualified to carry a 
concealed firearm under S. 253 if he or she is authorized to 
engage in or supervise any violation of law, is authorized to 
carry a firearm, is not subject to any disciplinary action by 
the agency, and meets any agency standards with respect to 
qualification with a firearm. In his or her official capacity, 
though, a law enforcement officer is permitted to carry weapons 
whenever Federal, state, or local law allows. This bill is not 
intended to interfere with any law enforcement officer's right 
to carry a concealed firearm, on private or government 
property, while on duty or in the course of official business.
    Off-duty and retired officers should also be permitted to 
carry their firearms across State and other jurisdictional 
lines, at no cost to taxpayers, in order to better serve and 
protect our communities. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety 
Act of 2003 would permit qualified law enforcement officers and 
qualified retired law enforcement officers across the nation to 
carry concealed firearms in most situations. It also preserves, 
however, any State law that permits citizens from restricting a 
concealed firearm on private property and any State law that 
restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local 
government property.
    In order to qualify for the bill's exemptions to permit a 
qualified off-duty law enforcement officer to carry a concealed 
firearm, notwithstanding the law of the state or political 
subdivision of the state, he or she must have authority to use 
a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or she works; 
not be subject to any disciplinary action; satisfy every 
standard of the agency to regularly use a firearm; not be 
prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm; and carry a 
photo identification issued by the agency. The bill preserves 
any State law that restricts concealed firearms on private 
property, and preserves any State law that restricts the 
possession of a firearm on State or local government property 
or park.
    For a retired law enforcement officer to qualify for 
exemption from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed 
firearms, he or she must have retired in good standing; have 
been qualified by the agency to carry or use a firearm; have 
been employed at least fifteen years as a law enforcement 
officer unless forced to retire due to a service-connected 
disability; have a non-forfeitable right to retirement plan 
benefits of the law enforcement agency; meet the same state 
firearms training and qualifications as an active officer; not 
be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm; and be 
carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This 
section preserves any State law that permits restrictions of 
concealed firearms on private property and preserves any State 
law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or 
local government property or park.

                              IV. Hearings

    On July 23, 2002 during the 107th Congress, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee held one hearing on ``The Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2002, S. 2480.'' Testimony was received 
from six witnesses, including Senator Max Baucus of Montana and 
Representative Cunningham. The other witnesses were: Lieutenant 
Steve Young, National President of the Fraternal Order of 
Police; Mr. Arthur Gordon, a National Executive Board Member of 
the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Deputy Chief 
of Police David Johnson of the Cedar Rapids Police Department 
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and Colonel Lonnie J. Westphal, Chief of 
the Colorado State Patrol.

                       V. Committee Consideration


 THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS

    The Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, met 
in open session for an executive business meeting on September 
19, 2002, to consider S. 2480, the ``Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2002.''
    The Committee approved by voice vote an amendment 
introduced by Senator Durbin. The Durbin amendment increased 
the service requirement for a retired officer to qualify to 
carry a concealed firearm under the bill from 5 years to 15 
years of regular employment for a law enforcement agency. The 
Durbin amendment also required retired officers to meet the 
same firearms training qualifications as active law enforcement 
officers. Finally, the Durbin amendment explicitly provided 
that an active officer does not qualify under the bill if he or 
she is prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm.
    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to bar officers from 
carrying a concealed firearm into another state unless they 
were permitted to carry that particular firearm while on active 
duty. The Committee, on a 9-9 roll call vote, defeated this 
amendment. The Committee did not complete consideration of S. 
2480 on September 19.
    On October 8, 2002, the Committee resumed consideration of 
S. 2480, but no amendments were offered, and the Committee did 
not complete consideration of the bill.
    On November 14, 2002, the Committee adopted, without 
objection, an amendment by Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch to 
clarify that the legislation does not cover any machinegun (as 
defined in section 5845 of title 26), any firearm silencer (as 
defined in section 921 of title 18) and any destructive device 
(as defined in section 921 of title 18). The Committee then 
ordered the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 to be 
reported favorably to the full Senate, with Senator Kennedy 
dissenting, with a recommendation that the bill do pass.

            VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS

    The Committee approved by voice vote the amendment by 
Senator Durbin.
    The rollcall vote on the amendment by Senator Kennedy 
barring officers from carrying any concealed firearm unless the 
officer was authorized and qualified to carry that same firearm 
was as follows:

Tally: 9 Yes, 9 No, 1 Not Voting

        Democrats (10)                Republicans (9)
N  Leahy (Vt.)                      N  Hatch (Utah)
Y  Kennedy (Mass.)                  N  Thurmond (S.C.)
Y  Biden (Del.)                     N  Grassley (Iowa)
Y  Kohl (Wis.)                      Y  Specter (Pa.)
Y  Feinstein (Calif.)               N  Kyl (Ariz.)
Y  Feingold (Wis.)                  N  DeWine (Ohio)
Y  Schumer (N.Y.)                   N  Sessions (Ala.)
Y  Durbin (Ill.)                    N  Brownback (Kan.)
Y  Cantwell (Wash.)                 N  McConnell (Ky.)
NV  Edwards (N.C.)

    The Committee approved without objection the amendment by 
Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch regarding the types of 
firearms covered by the legislation.
    The Committee then ordered the Law Enforcement Officers 
Safety Act of 2002, as amended, to be reported favorably to the 
full Senate, with Senator Kennedy dissenting, with a 
recommendation that the bill do pass. The full Senate took no 
action on S. 2480 during the 107th Congress.

 THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION DURING THE 108TH CONGRESS

    The Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, met 
in open for an executive business meeting on March 6, 2003, to 
consider S. 253, the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2003.''
    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to clarify that the 
bill does not interfere with the ability of State or local law 
enforcement agencies from regulating the conditions under which 
their officers may carry firearms.
    The Committee, on a 16-3 rollcall vote, tabled this 
amendment. The vote to table this amendment was as follows:

Tally: 16 Yes, 3 No

        Republicans (10)              Democrats (9)
Y  Hatch (Utah)                     Y  Leahy (Vt.)
Y  Grassley (Iowa)                  N  Kennedy (Mass.)
Y  Specter (Pa.)                    Y  Biden (Del.)
Y  Kyl (Ariz.)                      Y  Kohl (Wis.)
Y  DeWine (Ohio)                    Y  Feinstein (Calif.)
Y  Sessions (Ala.)                  N  Feingold (Wis.)
Y  Graham (S.C.)                    Y  Schumer (N.Y.)
Y  Craig (ID)                       N  Durbin (Ill.)
Y  Chambliss (Ga.)                  Y  Edwards (N.C.)
Y  Cornyn (Tex.)

    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to expand the 
definition of armor piercing ammunition and to require the 
Attorney General to promulgate standards for the uniform 
testing of projectiles against body armor.
    The Committee, on a 10-6-3 rollcall vote, tabled this 
amendment. The vote to table this amendment was as follows:

Tally: 10 Yes, 6 No, 3 not voting

        Republicans (10)              Democrats (9)
Y  Hatch (Utah)                     Y  Leahy (Vt.)
Y  Grassley (Iowa)                  N  Kennedy (Mass.)
Y  Specter (Pa.)                    NV  Biden (Del.)
Y  Kyl (Ariz.)                      N  Kohl (Wis.)
NV  DeWine (Ohio)                   NV  Feinstein (Calif.)
Y  Sessions (Ala.)                  N  Feingold (Wis.)
Y  Graham (S.C.)                    N  Schumer (N.Y.)
Y  Craig (ID)                       N  Durbin (Ill.)
Y  Chambliss (Ga.)                  N  Edwards (N.C.)
Y  Cornyn (Tex.)

    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to permit individual 
States to opt out from the provisions of the Act.
    The Committee, on a 15-4 rollcall vote, tabled this 
amendment. The vote to table this amendment was as follows:

Tally: 15 Yes, 4 No

        Republicans (10)              Democrats (9)
Y  Hatch (Utah)                     Y  Leahy (Vt.)
Y  Grassley (Iowa)                  N  Kennedy (Mass.)
Y  Specter (Pa.)                    Y  Biden (Del.)
Y  Kyl (Ariz.)                      N  Kohl (Wis.)
Y  DeWine (Ohio)                    Y  Feinstein (Calif.)
Y  Sessions (Ala.)                  N  Feingold (Wis.)
Y  Graham (S.C.)                    Y  Schumer (N.Y.)
Y  Craig (ID)                       N  Durbin (Ill.)
Y  Chambliss (Ga.)                  Y  Edwards (N.C.)
Y  Cornyn (Tex.)

    Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to clarify that the 
bill does not supersede State or local laws that prohibit or 
restrict the possession of concealed firearms in various public 
places.
    The Committee, on a 14-4 rollcall vote, tabled this 
amendment. The vote to table this amendment was as follows:

Tally: 14 Yes, 4 No, 1 not voting

        Republicans (10)              Democrats (9)
Y  Hatch (Utah)                     Y  Leahy (Vt.)
Y  Grassley (Iowa)                  N  Kennedy (Mass.)
Y  Specter (Pa.)                    Y  Biden (Del.)
Y  Kyl (Ariz.)                      N  Kohl (Wis.)
NV  DeWine (Ohio)                   Y  Feinstein (Calif.)
Y  Sessions (Ala.)                  N  Feingold (Wis.)
Y  Graham (S.C.)                    Y  Schumer (N.Y.)
Y  Craig (ID)                       N  Durbin (Ill.)
Y  Chambliss (Ga.)                  Y  Edwards (N.C.)
Y  Cornyn (Tex.)

    The Committee then ordered S. 253, the Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2003, to be reported favorably to the 
full Senate with a recommendation that the bill do pass on a 
vote of 18-1, Senator Kennedy dissenting. The Committee vote on 
S. 253 was as follows:
        Republicans (10)              Democrats (9)
Y  Hatch (Utah)                     Y  Leahy (Vt.)
Y  Grassley (Iowa)                  N  Kennedy (Mass.)
Y  Specter (Pa.)                    Y  Biden (Del.)
Y  Kyl (Ariz.)                      Y  Kohl (Wis.)
Y  DeWine (Ohio)                    Y  Feinstein (Calif.)
Y  Sessions (Ala.)                  Y  Feingold (Wis.)
Y  Graham (S.C.)                    Y  Schumer (N.Y.)
Y  Craig (ID)                       Y  Durbin (Ill.)
Y  Chambliss (Ga.)                  Y  Edwards (N.C.)
Y  Cornyn (Tex.)

             VI. Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion


Section 1. Short title

    Section 1 provides that the short title of the bill shall 
be the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.

Section 2. Exemption of qualified law enforcement officers from state 
        laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms

    Section 2 would permit qualified law enforcement officers 
to carry a concealed firearm notwithstanding the law of the 
state or political subdivision of the state. A qualified law 
enforcement officer under this section must be authorized to 
use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or she 
works, not be subject to any disciplinary action, meet the 
standards of the agency to regularly use a firearm, not be 
prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be 
carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This 
section preserves any State law that restricts concealed 
firearms on private property and preserves any State law that 
restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local 
government property or park. This section does not supercede 
any other Federal law.

Section 3. Exemption of qualified retired law enforcement officers from 
        state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms

    Section 3 would permit a qualified retired law enforcement 
officer to carry a concealed firearm notwithstanding the law of 
the State or political subdivision of the State. A qualified 
retired law enforcement officer under this section must have 
retired in good standing, have been qualified by the agency to 
carry or use a firearm, have been employed at least fifteen 
years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due 
to a service-connected disability, have a non-forfeitable right 
to retirement plan benefits of the law enforcement agency, 
annually meet State firearms training and qualifications that 
are the same as active law enforcement officers, not be 
prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be 
carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This 
section preserves any state law that permits restrictions of 
concealed firearms on private property and preserves any state 
law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or 
local government property or park. This section does not 
supercede any other Federal law.

             VII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    The cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office 
estimates that implementing the bill would result in no costs 
to the federal government, would not affect direct spending or 
receipts, and would result in no direct costs to state and 
local governments.

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                    Washington, DC, March 12, 2003.
Hon. Orrin G. Hatch,
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. 253, the Law 
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark 
Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                       Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

S. 253--Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003

    S. 253 would exempt certain current and retired law 
enforcement officers from most state and local laws prohibiting 
the carrying of concealed handguns. CBO estimates that 
implementing the bill would result in no costs to the federal 
government. Enacting S. 253 would not affect direct spending or 
receipts.
    S. 253 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 
preempt certain state and local laws that prohibit carrying 
concealed weapons. CBO estimates that complying with the 
mandate would result in no direct costs to state and local 
governments, and thus would not exceed the threshold 
established by UMRA ($59 million in 2003, adjusted annually for 
inflation). S. 253 contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for federal costs), and Greg Waring (for the impact on state 
and local governments). This estimate was approved by Peter H. 
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                   VIII. Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b)(1), rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, after due 
consideration, concludes that S. 253 will not have significant 
regulatory impact.

                  IX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR KOHL

    While I supported S. 253 in the Judiciary Committee, I did 
so with one major reservation.
    Wisconsin has a 130 year old prohibition against carrying 
concealed weapons. Efforts to overturn the ban in the state 
legislature and the state courts have been denied time and time 
again. Indeed, the Wisconsin legislature addressed the issue as 
recently as March 2002.
    Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that do not 
permit concealed weapons to be carried. An overwhelming 
majority of Wisconsinites--68 percent--oppose a concealed carry 
law for private citizens. Among law enforcement officers, 48 
percent oppose permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons 
and only 45 percent support it. Additionally, the Wisconsin 
Chiefs of Police Association has consistently opposed 
legislation that would lift the ban.
    I expect that Wisconsin will have the opportunity to 
continue this prohibition on concealed carry laws if the state 
legislature chooses. We certainly trust our law enforcement 
professionals, but I would prefer that Wisconsin decide for 
itself the policy on this important issue. For this reason, I 
support S. 253, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 
with the expectation that either before it passes the full 
Senate or in conference with the House version of the bill, a 
state opt-in or state opt-out provision will be included. I 
prefer a requirement for states to decide whether or not they 
will opt-in, however under no circumstances should a bill be 
signed into law that does not take into consideration a state's 
choice to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons within 
that state.
                                                         Herb Kohl.

                  X. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR KENNEDY

    I oppose S. 253, the ``Law Enforcement Officers Safety 
Act.'' If we had voted on the title of this bill alone, I would 
have supported it. Day in and day out, law enforcement officers 
put their lives on the line so that we can all live more 
securely. We should do everything we can to protect their 
safety.
    This legislation, however, is a serious step in the wrong 
direction. It will undermine the safety of our communities and 
the safety of police officers by broadly overriding state and 
local gun-safety laws. It will also nullify 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 that S. 253 poses to police officers and 
communities, it is vigorously opposed by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research 
Forum, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
A. S. 253's Sweeping Override of State and Local Gun Safety Laws is 
        Unprecedented and Unwarranted
    There is no precedent for what the supporters of S. 253 
intend to accomplish. Congress has never passed a law giving 
current and former state and local employees the right to carry 
weapons in violation of controlling state and local laws. 
Congress has never passed a law interfering with the ability of 
state and local police chiefs to regulate their own officers' 
carrying of firearms.
    Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by 
guns. The 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 
our 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. 
Today, each state has the authority to decide what kind of 
concealed-carry law, if any, best fits the needs of its 
communities. Each state can make its own judgment about whether 
private citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, 
and whether on-duty, off-duty, or retired police officers 
should be included or exempted in any prohibition.
    There is no evidence that states or local governments have 
failed to consider the interests and needs of 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. This incident 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 at 
large, by including a number of important safeguards that are 
not contained in S. 253. For example:
     New Jersey's law is limited to handguns. S. 253 is 
not.
     New Jersey's law has a maximum age--70. S. 253 
does not.
     Under New Jersey's law, retired police officers 
must file renewal applications yearly. There is no application 
process under S. 253.
     New Jersey's law requires retirees to list all 
their guns. No such record is required under S. 253.
     New Jersey gives police departments discretion to 
deny permits to retirees. No such discretion is provided under 
S. 253.
    By enacting S. 253, Congress will be gutting all of the 
safeguards contained in the New Jersey statute--as well as the 
judgment of other states that have considered this issue.
    The sponsors of S. 253 have presented 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.
    In the House of Representatives, Chairman James 
Sensenbrenner has described this bill as ``an affront to state 
sovereignty and the Constitution.'' In the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, on March 6, I offered an amendment to give states 
the opportunity to opt out of the bill's broad federal mandate. 
It would have allowed state legislatures to decide for 
themselves whether they would provide special privileges for 
current and former law enforcement officers, or whether they 
will address this issue on their own terms and keep their 
existing gun-safety laws intact. The Committee voted to table 
this amendment, 15-4.
    I also offered an amendment to preserve state and local 
laws that prohibit concealed weapons in churches, schools, bars 
and other places where alcohol is served, sports arenas, 
government offices, and hospitals. In many states, cities, and 
towns, these places are singled out as deserving special 
protection from the threat of gun violence. Michigan has a law 
that prohibits concealed firearms in schools, sports arenas, 
bars, churches, and hospitals. Georgia law allows active and 
retired police officers to carry firearms in publicly owned 
buildings, but not in churches, sports arenas, or places where 
alcohol is sold. Kentucky prohibits carrying concealed firearms 
in bars and schools. South Carolina prohibits concealed 
firearms in churches and hospitals.
    S. 253 will override most such ``safe harbor'' laws at the 
state level. It will override 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 will remain in force. In 
most states, churches are not currently required to post signs 
in order to have a gun-free zone. S. 253 will also override 
laws that prohibit concealed weapons in places where alcohol is 
served. Surely, it is reasonable for a state to prohibit people 
from bringing guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger 
that results when liquor and firearms are together!
    At the local level, S. 253 inexplicably overrides all gun-
safety laws, without exception. In the 1990's, Boston, New 
York, and other cities made great strides in the fight against 
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, 
S. 253 will undermine the ability of cities to fight crime. The 
bill will indiscriminately abrogate ``safe harbor'' laws in 
Boston, New York City, Cincinnati, Columbus, Chicago, Kansas 
City, and many other cities and towns.
    Congress has no business overriding the judgment of states 
and local governments in deciding where concealed weapons 
should be prohibited. My amendment sought to preserve at least 
a few basic ``safe harbors'' from the threat of gun violence. 
The Committee voted to table this amendment, 14-4.

B. S. 253 Will Undermine the Safety of Our Communities and the Safety 
        of Police Officers

    The Committee majority argues that S. 253 is needed because 
the ``complex patchwork of Federal, state and local'' 
concealed-carry laws prevents officers from protecting 
themselves and their families from ``vindictive'' criminals. 
Supporters of this bill have distributed two lists of officers 
and prison guards who were killed while off-duty or in 
retirement. The stories of these slain men and women are 
tragic, and their killers deserve to be severely punished. But 
none of these incidents involved officers who were killed 
outside their home state. They do not demonstrate a need for a 
federal override of state and local gun-safety laws. To the 
contrary, as New Jersey's response to the tragic shooting of 
Chief Deventer shows, states and local governments are best 
equipped to implement policies, regulations, and laws that 
protect the safety of their own law enforcement officers, and 
also protect the public at large.
    The supporters of S. 253 also argue that by authorizing 
officers to carry guns across state lines, in violation of 
whatever state and local gun-safety laws would otherwise apply, 
they will be able to effectively respond to crimes and 
terrorist attacks. As the majority argues, the bill will enable 
``law enforcement officers nationwide to be armed and prepared 
when they answer that call, no matter where, when, or in what 
form it comes.'' The Committee apparently envisages a nation-
wide unregulated police force, consisting of retired officers 
and off-duty officers who are armed while on vacation or 
traveling outside their home jurisdictions.
    This bill is no way for the federal government to support 
state and local law enforcement. Congress should be providing 
full funding for first responders employed by state and local 
governments; communications gear and other law enforcement 
technology; and specific assistance programs such as the COPS 
Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant program, and the 
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. Congress should also 
enact needed gun-safety measures to protect the safety and 
security of all Americans. We should strengthen Brady Law 
criminal background checks for gun purchases, close the ``gun 
show loophole,'' reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and amend 
federal law to ensure that all ``cop killer'' bullets are 
banned.
    On this last issue, at the Judiciary Committee's meeting on 
March 6, I offered an amendment to close the loopholes in the 
federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition. Current law lacks a 
``performance based'' standard for handgun ammunition that can 
penetrate body armor. Even more important, there are no 
restrictions on armor-piercing ammunition used in centerfire 
rifles. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
nineteen law enforcement officers were murdered in the last 
decade after bullets penetrated their armored vests. Fourteen 
of these officers were killed by bullets fired from .223 
caliber rifles or 7.62 caliber assault weapons--and armor-
piercing bullets for these weapons continue to be marketed on 
web sites today. Because it has no place in our society, I 
offered an amendment banning all such armor-piercing 
ammunition. The Committee defeated my amendment by a vote of 
10-6, with three members not voting.
    S. 253 stands in stark contrast to such needed gun-safety 
legislation. Allowing 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 dated 
February 12, 2003:

          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.

    S. 253 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.
    It is important to note that in giving off-duty and retired 
police officers broad authority to nullify state and local gun-
safety laws, S. 253 is not limited to the carrying of officers' 
authorized weapons. In most police departments, officers may 
seek authorization to carry a range of weapons. If an officer 
wants to carry a weapon other than his service weapon 
(typically, a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol), he must 
prove that he is qualified before the department will authorize 
him to carry it. To become qualified, the officer must 
demonstrate that he can handle that weapon safely.
    Rather than limiting its provisions to authorized weapons, 
the initial version of this bill provided that as long as an 
officer received authorization to carry a particular kind of 
firearm (such as his service weapon), he could carry concealed 
any other kind of firearm while off-duty or retired--even if he 
never received authorization from his own police department to 
carry that other weapon. Because the term ``firearm'' is 
defined very broadly under federal law, see 18 U.S.C. 
Sec. 921(a)(3), as long as an officer was authorized to use his 
service weapon on the job, the initial version of this bill 
would have allowed him to carry a concealed bomb or grenade 
while off-duty or in retirement.
    In the 107th Congress, I introduced an amendment providing 
that an off-duty or retired officer could carry a concealed 
firearm only if he had been authorized to carry that firearm by 
the agency he works for, or if he had been so authorized at the 
time of his retirement. The Committee rejected this amendment 
by a 9-9 vote. The Committee later adopted an amendment 
providing that the bill does not authorize the carrying of 
machine guns, silencers, and destructive devices such as bombs 
and grenades. This subsequent amendment took a step in the 
direction of common sense. Clearly, no civilian--not even an 
off-duty or retired police officer--needs to carry a machine 
gun, bomb, or grenade. It is equally clear, however, that off-
duty and retired officers do not need to carry concealed 
shotguns, sniper rifles, or other weapons that their own police 
departments have not authorized them to carry. The Committee's 
failure to limit the bill to authorized police weapons--or even 
to handguns, as New Jersey law provides--will further undermine 
the safety of American communities.
    Serious safety problems are also raised by the bill's 
override of gun-safety laws for retired officers, a category 
that is defined to include anyone who has served in a law 
enforcement capacity for fifteen years ``in the aggregate'' 
before retiring or resigning and taking a different job. There 
is no requirement under S. 253 that a retiree demonstrate a 
special need for a firearm. While S. 253 provides that an 
officer must have technically left law enforcement in ``good 
standing,'' it is well known that sub-par government employees 
are 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. As the International Association of Chiefs of Police has 
observed:

          This 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.

    Although Senator Durbin's amendment, approved by the 
Committee in the 107th Congress and incorporated into the 
current bill, clarified the firearms training standards that 
retired officers must meet, these officers will not be subject 
to any continuing police department policies or guidelines. 
Section C, below, discusses the fact that S. 253 is likely to 
nullify the ability of police departments to enforce rules and 
policies on when and how their own officers can carry firearms. 
Even if courts interpret this legislation as not overriding 
police rules for active-duty officers, however, such rules will 
still not apply to retired officers. In that event, Congress 
will be perversely extending to former police officers greater 
authority to carry concealed weapons than it extends to active 
police officers. Community safety will be the casualty.

C. S. 253 Will Undermine Discipline and Control within Police 
        Departments

    Perhaps the most troubling aspect of S. 253 is its 
potential to undermine the effective and safe functioning of 
police departments throughout the nation. The bill removes the 
ability of police departments to enforce rules and policies on 
when and how their own officers can carry firearms. Police 
chiefs will lose the authority to prohibit their own officers 
from carrying certain weapons on-duty or off-duty.
    Section 2 of the bill provides that regardless of ``any 
other provision of the law of any State or any political 
subdivision thereof,'' any individual who qualifies as a law 
enforcement officer and who carries photo identification will 
be authorized to carry any firearm. In a variety of contexts, 
including the federal preemption of state law, courts have 
interpreted the term ``law'' to include agency rules and 
regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled that this term 
specifically includes contractual obligations between employers 
and employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices 
promulgated by state and local police departments. See Norfolk 
& Western Ry. Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers' Assoc., 499 U.S. 
117 (1991).
    As discussed in Section B, above, there is no requirement 
in S. 253 that active-duty officers be authorized to carry each 
firearm that they wish to carry concealed. All that subsection 
(c)(2) requires is that an officer be authorized to carry ``a 
firearm.'' Pursuant to subsection (c)(4), the officer need only 
satisfy the agency's standards with respect to ``a firearm.'' 
In other words, once an officer qualifies to carry a service 
weapon, he will have the right under this bill to carry any 
gun, on-duty or off-duty--even if doing so violates his own 
police department's rules.
    Thus, if Congress enacts this legislation, police chiefs 
will be stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, 
for example, that they cannot bring guns into bars while off-
duty; that they cannot carry their service weapons on vacation; 
or that they cannot carry certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns 
on the job.
    As the International Association of Chiefs of Police stated 
in a letter to the Committee, ``under the provisions of S. 253, 
police chiefs and local governments would lose the authority to 
regulate what type of firearms the officers they employ can 
carry even while they are on duty.''

          As a result, the legislation would effectively 
        eliminate the ability of a police department to 
        establish rules restricting the ability of officers to 
        carry only department-authorized firearms while on 
        duty. The prospect of officers carrying unauthorized 
        firearms while on duty is very troubling to the IACP 
        for several reasons.
          First, an unauthorized weapon is unlikely to meet 
        departmental standards. This in turn means that the 
        officer will not have received approved departmental 
        training in its use, and will not have qualified with 
        the weapon under departmental regulations. Carrying an 
        unauthorized weapon thus presents a risk of injury to 
        the officer, fellow officers, and citizens, for the 
        weapon itself may be unsafe or otherwise unsuitable for 
        police use, and the officer may not be sufficiently 
        proficient with its use to avoid adverse consequences.
          In addition to the risk of injury involved, the 
        carrying of unauthorized weapons is a major source of 
        police civil liability in the U.S. today. An officer 
        who fires an unauthorized weapon in the line of duty 
        risks civil liability for the officer and for the 
        department, even though the shooting may have been 
        otherwise legally justified. A number of civil-suit 
        plaintiffs have contended that the mere fact that the 
        weapon that caused the plaintiff's injury was 
        unauthorized is, in itself, sufficient legal grounds 
        for a finding of liability.

For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that S. 253 
``has the potential to significantly and negatively impact the 
safety of our communities and our officers.''
    Law enforcement executives face extremely difficult 
challenges today. As crime rates have started to rise again and 
new concerns about domestic security have emerged, 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 critical 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 to maintain discipline. At the Committee's 
meeting on March 6, I offered an amendment providing that S. 
253 would not supersede or limit the rules, regulations, 
policies, and practices of any state or local law enforcement 
agency. The Committee defeated this amendment by a vote of 16-
3. By denying police chiefs the right to run their own 
departments, the Committee dealt a blow to common sense and 
public safety.

D. 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.''
    S. 253 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 adopt the amendments that I offered 
to correct the bill's most serious flaws. The nation will be 
better served if Congress puts this misguided legislation 
aside, and turns its attention to measures that we know will 
reduce crime and enhance the safety of police officers and all 
Americans.
                                                 Edward M. Kennedy.

                      XI. Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
S. 253, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman);

UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Part                                                             Section
    I. CRIMES.................................................         1
     * * * * * * *

                             PART I--CRIMES

Chapter                                                          Section
    1. General provisions.....................................         1
     * * * * * * *
    44. Firearms..............................................       921
     * * * * * * *

                          CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec.
921. Definitions.
     * * * * * * *
926. Rules and regulations.
926A. Interstate transportation of firearms.
926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement 
          officers.
926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law 
          enforcement officers.
     * * * * * * *

Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms

    Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule 
or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, 
any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from 
transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be 
entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any 
place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to 
any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such 
firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, 
and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is 
readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger 
compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the 
case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the 
driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be 
contained in a locked container other than the glove 
compartment or console.

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; and
          (5) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
        firearm.
    (d) The identification required by this subsection is the 
photographic identification issued by the government agency for 
which the individual is, or was, employed as a law enforcement 
officer.
    (e) Defined Term.--As used in this section, the term 
``firearm'' does not include--
          (1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of 
        title 26);
          (2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); 
        and
          (3) any destructive device (as defined in section 
        921).

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; and
          (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a 
        firearm.
    (d) The identification required by this subsection is 
photographic identification issued by the agency for which the 
individual was employed as a law enforcement officer.
    (e) Defined Term.--As used in this section, the term 
``firearm'' does not include--
          (1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of 
        title 26);
          (2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); 
        and
          (3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                
