[Senate Report 110-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 341
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-150

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



 
              LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

               September 5, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 376]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the 
bill (S. 376), to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed 
weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon and 
recommends that the bill do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Need for S. 376......................................1
 II. Legislative History and Committee Consideration..................4
III. Section-by-Section Summary.......................................4
 IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................5
  V. Regulatory Impact Statement......................................6
 VI. Conclusion.......................................................6
VII. Minority Views of Senator Kennedy................................7
VIII.Changes in Existing Law.........................................12


                     I. Purpose and Need for S. 376


                               A. SUMMARY

    The purpose of S. 376, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety 
Act of 2007 is to amend current law to improve the processes by 
which retired officers can receive certification to carry 
concealed firearms across State lines, to refine the 
eligibility requirements for retired law enforcement officers, 
and to clarify that officers employed by both Amtrak and the 
executive branch are covered by LEOSA's provisions.

                 B. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    On January 24, 2007, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick 
Leahy introduced the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2007, S. 376, to make amendments to the existing law (18 U.S.C. 
Sec. Sec. 926B, 926C). Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Arlen 
Specter, and Senators John Cornyn and Jon Kyl are original 
cosponsors of the bill. Senators Max Baucus, Chuck Grassley, 
Jeff Sessions, Kent Conrad, Pete Domenici, and Gordon Smith 
joined as cosponsors.
    Since the enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety 
Act of 2003, varying State laws and regulations have hindered 
the consistent and effective implementation of the law, 
particularly with respect to qualified retired law enforcement 
officers. Under current law, qualified retired law enforcement 
officers must carry photographic identification issued by the 
agency at which they were employed and documentation that 
certifies they have met, within the most recent 12-month 
period, the active duty law enforcement standards for 
qualification for a firearm of the same type as the one they 
intend to carry. Currently, the certification component of this 
document must be issued by the retired officer's former agency 
or by the State in which the retired officer resides.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(1) & (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adding to the uncertainty in this regard was a memorandum 
issued on January 31, 2005 by then-Attorney General of the 
United States John Ashcroft. In his memorandum to all law 
enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice,\2\ 
Attorney General Ashcroft directed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives; Drug 
Enforcement Administration; Federal Bureau of Investigation; Federal 
Bureau of Prisons; The Inspector General; United States Marshals 
Service.

          Individual components shall not themselves train or 
        qualify retired employees to carry a firearm, as 
        authorized under the law. In order to be authorized 
        under the Act to carry a firearm, a retired qualified 
        LEO from a DOJ component must qualify pursuant to 18 
        U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(2)(B), and in accordance with state 
        standards for active LEOs.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Memorandum from the Attorney General, January 31, 2005, 
available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/agmemo01312005.pdf (last visited 
July 9, 2007).

    The effect of the Attorney General's memorandum was to 
preclude officers who had retired from service with a 
Department of Justice component from certification pursuant to 
18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(1),\4\ which provides that a qualified 
retired officer may satisfy the law with a single 
identification card from their agency denoting both prior 
service with the agency and firearms testing within one year 
prior to the date of carriage. The practical result of the 
Attorney General's directive was to subject officers who had 
retired from Federal law enforcement to varying State 
procedures in order to satisfy the firearms testing requirement 
of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\(d) The identification required by this subsection is--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        (1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from 
        which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement 
        officer that indicates that the individual has, not less 
        recently than one year before the date the individual is 
        carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found 
        by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency 
        for training and qualification for active law enforcement 
        officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed 
        firearm; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To remedy the difficulties that have arisen in some 
jurisdictions for retired law enforcement officers, S. 376 
provides that a ``certified firearms instructor'' may conduct 
testing and qualify retired law enforcement officers using the 
active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as 
established by the State. Moreover, S. 376 also provides that 
if the State has not established such standards, the qualified 
instructor may conduct testing pursuant to standards set by any 
law enforcement agency within that State.
    This change would enable any certified firearms instructor 
to qualify a retired officer using either the standards set by 
the State in which the instructor is certified and the officer 
resides, or in the absence of such standards--or the 
recognition thereof--the standards of any law enforcement 
agency in the State.
    The legislation would also make clear that those active and 
retired law enforcement officers who are or were employed by 
the Amtrak Police Department meet the definition of ``qualified 
active law enforcement officer'' and ``qualified retired law 
enforcement officer.''\5\ Under current law, because Amtrak is, 
under Title 49, ``not a department, agency, or instrumentality 
of the United States Government,''\6\ police officers employed 
by Amtrak do not meet the definition in LEOSA, which requires 
them to be an ``employee of a governmental agency.''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 926B(c) & 926C(c).
    \6\49 U.S.C. Sec. 24301(a)(3).
    \7\18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Amtrak Police Department, first accredited in 1992, has 
been reaccredited twice--in 1997 and 2002 by the Commission on 
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA). The 
department has a K-9 team, a Drug Enforcement Unit, an Aviation 
Unit, and a Mobile Command Center. Amtrak police officers are 
assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Joint 
Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) and Joint Operations Center in 
Washington, D.C. In 1999, Congress amended the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to allow railroad police 
officers to attend the FBI's National Academy for Law 
Enforcement Training.\8\ To date, several Amtrak officers have 
successfully completed that program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\42 Sec. U.S.C. Sec. 3771(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, in the most recent report on Federal law 
enforcement officers available, entitled Federal Law 
Enforcement Officers, 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Bureau of Justice Statistics listed the Amtrak Police 
Department as a Federal law enforcement agency.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin, Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers, 2004, July, 2006, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
pub/pdf/fleo04.pdf (last visited July 18, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of the fact that the officers of the Amtrak Police 
Department are Federal law enforcement officers and, but for 
the language in Title 49, would clearly meet the definition in 
LEOSA, it is appropriate for these officers to be eligible for 
the benefits of LEOSA. For these reasons, S. 376 expands the 
definitions in 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 926B and 926C to include the 
officers employed by the Amtrak Police Department.
    The bill also addresses two other issues that have unduly 
restricted retired officers from being eligible for the 
privileges conferred under LEOSA. The bill reduces the required 
years of service, from 15 to 10, that a retired officer must 
have in order to be eligible for LEOSA certification. This 
change is responsive to the reality that some law enforcement 
officers enter the field as a second career, often subsequent 
to military service. This change is intended to include those 
officers who entered the law enforcement field later in their 
careers, but who are no less dedicated to the profession.
    The bill also removes the requirement in existing law that 
a retired officer be entitled to ``non-forfeitable'' retirement 
benefits. Some small State and local law enforcement agencies 
do not provide these benefits, and this requirement had the 
effect of disqualifying otherwise eligible retired officers.

          II. Legislative History and Committee Consideration

    In 2004, Congress passed, and President Bush signed into 
law the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 (PL 108-
277). The Senate version of that bill (S. 253) was co-sponsored 
by 70 senators and was reported out of the Judiciary Committee 
on March 6, 2003 by a vote of 18-1. It was agreed to in the 
House of Representatives by a voice vote on June 23, 2004, and 
passed by unanimous consent in the Senate on July 7, 2004. The 
President signed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2003 into law on June 22, 2004.
    The history of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 
2003 is recounted in Senate Report 108-029.
    Chairman Leahy introduced S. 376 on January 24, 2007, and 
the bill was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The 
bill was first listed on the Committee's agenda on March 1, 
2007. The measure was held over for a number of weeks, until 
May 15, 2007, when the Committee met in open session and 
reported the bill favorably by voice vote and without 
amendment.

                    III. Section-by-Section Summary

    Section 1 designates the short title of the bill as the 
``Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007''.
    Section 2(a) adds a subsection to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926B 
making explicit that Amtrak police and executive branch law 
enforcement officers are included under the statute regulating 
concealed weapons carrying by active duty officers.
    Section 2(b)(1)(A) amends 18 U.S.C. Sec. 926C to reduce to 
10 years, from 15 years, the duration of service as a law 
enforcement officer required in order to be qualified to carry 
a concealed weapon once retired. Section 2(b)(1)(B) eliminates 
the requirement that a ``qualified retired law enforcement 
officer'' have a non-forfeitable right to retirement benefits 
and expands the list of organizations qualified to certify the 
retired officer's firearms training. Section 2(b)(1)(C) 
renumbers certain paragraphs.
    Section 2(b)(2)(A) clarifies language describing the 
identification retired officers with concealed weapons are 
required to carry. Section 2(b)(2)(B) allows instructors who 
conduct firearms qualification tests on active duty officers to 
also certify retired officers.
    Section 2(b)(3) adds a subsection making explicit that 
Amtrak police and executive branch law enforcement officers are 
included under the statute regulating concealed weapons 
carrying by retired officers.

             IV. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI, of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee sets forth, with 
respect to the bill, S. 1140, the following estimate prepared 
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under 
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 29, 2007.
Hon. Patrick J. Leahy,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 376, the Law 
Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007. If you wish further 
details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. 
The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure.

S. 376--Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007

    Current law exempts certain active and retired law 
enforcement officers from most state and local laws prohibiting 
the carrying of concealed firearms. S. 376 would clarify that 
officers of the Amtrak Police Department and the executive 
branch of the federal government would qualify as individuals 
who may carry concealed firearms. The bill also would change 
the requirements that retired officers must meet to carry 
concealed firearms. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 
would result in no significant costs to the federal government. 
Enacting S. 376 would not affect direct spending or receipts.
    S. 376 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would expand 
a current mandate that preempts certain state or local laws 
prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. Currently, 
federal law allows active and retired law enforcement officers 
who meet certain requirements to carry concealed weapons; this 
authority preempts some state and local statutes that prohibit 
private citizens or law enforcement officers from carrying such 
weapons. S. 376 would increase the number of current and former 
officers who would be allowed to carry concealed weapons. CBO 
estimates that the costs, if any, to those governments would be 
insignificant and well below the annual threshold established 
in that act ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for 
inflation). S. 376 contains no new private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for federal costs), and Melissa Merrell (for the impact on 
state and local governments). This estimate was approved by 
Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget 
Analysis.

                     V. Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with rule XXVI of the standing Rules of the 
Senate, the Committee finds that no significant regulatory 
impact will result from the enactment of S. 376.

                             VI. Conclusion

    In passing the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, 
the Senate recognized that law enforcement officers are never 
off-duty. The bill the Committee reports in 110th Congress 
continues this recognition by making changes to existing law 
necessary to ensure that qualified retired officers are able to 
gain the privileges and protections Congress originally 
intended in the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.

                 VII. Minority Views of Senator Kennedy

    I strongly oppose S. 376, which amends the Law Enforcement 
Officers Safety Act of 2004 (LEOSA). The bill is a serious step 
in the wrong direction and will undermine the safety of our 
communities and our police officers by further overriding state 
and local gun-safety laws. It will also weaken the ability of 
police departments to enforce rules and policies on when and 
how their own officers can carry firearms. Because of the 
substantial danger of S. 376 to police officers and 
communities, it is vigorously opposed by the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' 
Association.

     A. S. 376 WILL FURTHER WEAKEN THE ABILITY OF STATES AND LOCAL 
         GOVERNMENTS TO REGULATE FIREARMS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES

    Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by 
guns. The devastating tragedy that occurred at Virginia Tech 
last April shocked the nation. The country was united in 
extending our deepest condolences and prayers to the students, 
faculty, and families affected by that brutal crime. Many of 
the victims were young men and women in the prime of their 
lives. They were sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, 
friends and neighbors. Yet, as part of this ill-conceived 
measure, the Committee has approved provisions to allow even 
more people to carry concealed weapons in our communities.
    The overall rate of firearm deaths among children is nearly 
twelve times higher in the United States than in other 
industrial countries. These deaths are senseless, and we all 
know that the vast majority of them could be prevented by 
sensible gun laws. It is shameful that we are not doing more in 
Congress to achieve gun safety and reduce gun violence. The 
``gun show loophole,'' which allows firearms to be purchased 
illegally at gun shows, should have been closed long ago, and 
there are many other steps that Congress should take to protect 
citizens from the scourge of gun violence.
    At the very least, Congress should refrain from interfering 
with gun-safety laws enacted by states and local governments. 
Before LEOSA was enacted in 2004, each state had the authority 
to decide what kind of concealed-carry law, if any, best fit 
the needs of its communities. But the 2004 Act took away the 
ability of state and local police departments to enforce rules 
and policies on when and how their own officers can carry 
weapons. If we are going to amend the Act, we should give back 
the power of local police to run their own departments, not 
further undermine their ability to protect their citizens.
    No evidence supported the need for the law when it was 
first enacted. States and local governments adequately met the 
interests and needs of their active duty and retired law 
enforcement officers. Consider, for example, New Jersey law. In 
1995, retired police Chief John Deventer was shot and killed 
while heroically trying to stop a robbery. His death prompted 
New Jersey to enact a law allowing retired officers to carry 
handguns under a number of conditions. In drafting this law, 
the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance 
the safety of police officers with the safety of the public, by 
including a number of important safeguards not contained in 
LEOSA. For example:
     The New Jersey law is limited to handguns. LEOSA 
is not.
     The New Jersey law has a maximum age of 70. LEOSA 
does not.
     Under New Jersey's law, retired police officers 
must file renewal applications every year. There is no 
application process under LEOSA.
     The New Jersey law requires retirees to list all 
their guns. No such record is required under LEOSA.
     The New Jersey law gives a police department the 
discretion to deny permits to retirees. No such discretion is 
provided under LEOSA.
    By enacting LEOSA, Congress essentially eliminated all of 
the safeguards in the New Jersey statute, as well as the 
judgment of other states that have considered this issue. We 
had no evidence of the need for this legislation in 2004, and 
we have none now. It is critical that our policies be guided by 
research and evaluation.
    This legislation was adopted as Title IV of the School 
Safety and Law Enforcement Improvements Act of 2007 during the 
August 2nd Judiciary Committee meeting. At that time, I 
introduced an amendment adopted by unanimous consent that 
requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct a 
study of the number of active and retired law enforcement 
officers who carry concealed firearms under the provisions 
established by LEOSA. It would have made more sense to conduct 
such a study prior to enacting legislation that puts more guns 
on the street.
    In the 1990's, Boston, New York, and other cities made 
substantial progress in the war on crime, precisely because 
they were able to pass laws that addressed the factors that 
lead to violence--including the prevalence of firearms in inner 
cities. As Congressman Henry Hyde has said, ``the best 
decisions on fighting crime are made at the local level.'' By 
overriding all local gun-safety laws, LEOSA compromised the 
ability of cities to fight crime. Congress has no business 
overriding the judgment of states and local governments in 
deciding whether concealed weapons should be prohibited.
    S. 376 neither promotes consistent training policies among 
different police jurisdictions nor limits the conditions under 
which officers may use their firearms. The idea that more 
crimes will be prevented when more concealed weapons are 
carried by untrained and unregulated out-of-state, off-duty and 
retired officers is pure fiction. The International Association 
of Chiefs of Police (IACP), one of the oldest and largest 
associations of law enforcement executives, has identified the 
dangers of this legislation in a recent letter to the 
Committee,

          ``[S. 376] would severely weaken the eligibility and 
        training requirements for retired police officers to 
        carry concealed weapons. The IACP believes that states 
        and localities should have the right to establish 
        standards that determine who is eligible to carry 
        firearms in their communities . . . Specifically, the 
        provisions of [S. 376] would mandate that, in the 
        absence of state standards, the standards set by any 
        police department within the state would become the de 
        facto standard for the entire state.
          For example, in the absence of state standards:
           The standards for Vermont could be set by 
        the Fairlee Police Department (one sworn officer);
           The standards for Pennsylvania could be set 
        by the Dauphin Police Department (two sworn officers);
           The standards for Illinois could be set by 
        the Cordova Police Department (one sworn officer);
           The standards for California could be set by 
        the Etna Police Department (two sworn officers);
           The standards for Massachusetts could be set 
        by the Brookfield Police Department (one sworn 
        officer).''

    For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that S. 376 
``would undercut the ability of state and local law enforcement 
agencies to determine what standards best meet the needs of the 
departments and the communities they serve.''
    Law enforcement leaders face extremely difficult challenges 
today. With crime rates on the rise again and new concerns 
about domestic security, police chiefs are forced to do more 
with less. The weak economy has forced cities and states to cut 
back on funding for law enforcement. The Administration's 
budget proposes to eliminate all federal funding for such vital 
programs as the COPS Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant 
Program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The 
last thing Congress should do now is pass a bill that expands 
the civil liability of police departments and nullifies the 
ability of police chiefs to regulate their own officers' use of 
firearms and maintain discipline.
    Those who want to amend LEOSA have offered no evidence that 
states and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide 
these important issues for themselves. They have offered no 
explanation why Congress is better suited than states, cities, 
and towns to decide how to best protect police officers, 
schoolchildren, church-goers, and other members of their 
communities. Congress should bolster, not undermine, the 
efforts of states and local governments to protect their 
citizens from gun violence.
    LEOSA has also jeopardized most ``safe harbor'' laws at the 
state level by essentially overriding laws that categorically 
prohibit guns in churches and other houses of worship, since 
only laws that permit private entities to post signs 
prohibiting concealed firearms on their property remain in 
force. In most states, churches are not currently required to 
post signs in order to have a gun-free zone.
    LEOSA has even preempted laws that prohibit concealed 
weapons in places where alcohol is served. Surely, it is 
reasonable for a state to prohibit individuals from bringing 
guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when 
liquor and firearms come together. Yet Congress allowed this 
legislation to go forward and now this measure will make it 
even easier for a retired officer to get a gun--regardless of 
state and local laws. We should not be compounding that mistake 
by further damaging firearms laws with the provisions contained 
in S. 376.

 B. S. 376 WILL UNDERMINE THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE SAFETY 
                           OF POLICE OFFICERS

    S. 376 will also allow less qualified retired officers to 
carry concealed weapons. The provision changes the service 
requirement from a retired officer who was regularly employed 
for an aggregate of fifteen years or more to a retired officer 
who served for ten years. The measure also strikes the 
provision that requires a retired officer to have obtained a 
non-forfeitable right to benefits under the agency's retirement 
plan. These changes erode the few safeguards in the original 
Act. Greater numbers of less qualified officers will now be 
able to legally carry concealed weapons, making local 
communities even more dangerous.
    I introduced an amendment at the August 2nd Judiciary 
Committee meeting to Title IV of the School Safety and Law 
Enforcement Improvements Act of 2007, which emphasized that 
nothing in LEOSA should be construed to limit or supersede 
state or local laws that prohibit or restrict the possession of 
a concealed firearm by an officer who has retired under threat 
of disciplinary action, who has been dismissed for emotional 
problems, who leaves the force prior to a disciplinary or 
competency hearing, or who, after retiring, becomes unfit to 
carry a concealed weapon. Unfortunately, the Committee rejected 
this amendment by a vote of 9 to 10.
    Make no mistake. There are numerous cases in which both 
active duty and retired officers have used firearms with deadly 
consequences. Recently, a Prince George's County police officer 
and former Homeland Security official was indicted in August 
2007 on charges of murder and attempted-murder. The officer 
fired on two unarmed delivery men last January, killing one and 
seriously wounding the other. The same officer was charged in a 
second gun-related case after he pulled a gun on a real estate 
appraiser who accidentally knocked on his door. In another 
disturbing case, a retired New York Police Department police 
officer was charged with shooting and killing his ex-wife. 
There's no question that such incidents will increase if this 
legislation becomes law and allows less qualified officers who 
do not receive ongoing training to carry concealed weapons. As 
the National Sheriff's Association pointed out in a letter of 
February 28, 2007, ``. . . carrying a firearm is a privilege 
that is bestowed upon those retired law enforcement officers 
that have dedicated their lives to protect the safety of our 
citizens, and when considering the expansion of such a 
privilege we must not act hastily.''
    There is not even a requirement in S. 376 that a retiree 
demonstrate a special need for a firearm. The legislation 
provides only that an officer must have technically left law 
enforcement in ``good standing.'' It is clear, however, that 
sub-par government employees are often routinely released from 
their positions without a formal finding of misconduct. The 
bill does not draw a distinction between officers who served 
ably and those who did not. Officers who retire in ``good 
standing'' while under investigation for domestic violence, 
racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could 
still qualify for broad concealed-carry authority for the 
remainder of their lives.
    Congress should also support emerging technologies, such as 
microstamping, which can allow law enforcement to make more 
effective use of evidence found at crime scenes. Microstamping 
uses lasers to make precise, microscopic engravings on the 
firing pin and chamber of a weapon, which are transferred onto 
the cartridge casing when the weapon is fired. The process 
transfers the gun's make, model and serial number to the 
casing, and can yield important information to law enforcement 
officers investigating crimes. This technology will 
substantially improve law enforcement's ability to act quickly 
to identify and link shell casings found at a crime scene to 
the individual handgun from which it was fired. In fact, 
microstamping may have enabled investigators of the Virginia 
Tech shooting to identify the perpetrator more quickly, by 
analyzing microstamped markings on the casings left behind at 
the first crime scene.
    I also introduced an amendment at the August 2nd Judiciary 
Committee meeting to require stricter standards, so that only 
truly competent persons could qualify to carry concealed 
firearms. The Committee rejected the amendment by a vote of 6 
to 13. I also offered an amendment to require certain firearms 
manufactured, imported or sold by Federal firearms licensees to 
be capable of microstamping ammunition. The Committee failed to 
approve the amendment by a vote of 8 to 11.

                             C. CONCLUSION

    Each state and local government should be allowed to make 
its own judgment as to when citizens and out-of-state visitors 
may carry concealed weapons--and whether active or retired law 
enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any 
prohibition. In the words of the International Association of 
Chiefs of Police, it is ``essential that state and local 
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry 
laws that best fit the needs of their communities.''
    Allowing greater numbers of less qualified off-duty or 
retired officers with concealed weapons to go into other 
jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for 
police officers and civilians. As the Executive Director of the 
IACP explained in a letter of March 7, 2007:

          The ability of law enforcement agencies to establish, 
        implement, and maintain firearms standards and training 
        requirements varies greatly from state to state and 
        from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions 
        have developed rigorous training programs and have 
        established strict standards of accountability and 
        stringent firearms policies while other jurisdictions 
        have not. This legislation would undercut the ability 
        of state and local law enforcement agencies to 
        determine what standards best meet the needs of the 
        departments and the communities they serve.

    LEOSA will unnecessarily damage the efforts of states and 
local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence. 
It will also expose state and local governments to unnecessary 
liability and nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain 
discipline and control within their own departments. I regret 
that the Committee did not correct the bill's most serious 
flaws. The nation will be better served if Congress puts aside 
this misguided effort to further weaken state and local control 
over concealed carry laws, and turns its attention instead to 
measures we know will reduce crime and improve the safety of 
police officers and all Americans.

                     VIII. Changes in Existing Law

    Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law 
made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing 
law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

       Title 18, United States Code, Part I, Chapter 44. Firearms

    * * *

SEC. 926B. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT 
                    OFFICERS.

    * * *
    (f) For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer 
of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police 
officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government 
qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who is 
authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, 
detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the 
incarceration for, any violation of the law, and has statutory 
powers of arrest
    * * *

SECTION 926C. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW 
                    ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

    * * *
    (c) As used in this section, the term ``qualified retired 
law enforcement officer'' means an individual who--
    * * *
          (3)(A) before such retirement, [was regularly 
        employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate 
        of 15 years or more] served as a law enforcement 
        officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more; or
          (B) retired from service with such agency, after 
        completing any applicable probationary period of such 
        service, due to a service-connected disability, as 
        determined by such agency;
          (4) [has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the 
        retirement plan of the agency] during the most recent 
        12-month period, has met, at the expense of the 
        individual, the standards for qualification in firearms 
        training for active law enforcement officers as set by 
        the former agency, the State in which the officer 
        resides or a law enforcement agency within the State in 
        which the officer resides;
          [(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, 
        at the expense of the individual, the State's standards 
        for training and qualification for active law 
        enforcement officers to carry firearms;]
          [(6)] (5) is not under the influence of alcohol or 
        another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or 
        substance; and
          [(7)] (6) is not prohibited by Federal law from 
        receiving a firearm.
    (d) The identification required by this subsection is--
          (1) a photographic identification issued by the 
        agency from which the individual retired from service 
        as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the 
        individual has, not less recently than one year before 
        the date the individual is carrying the concealed 
        firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency 
        [to meet the standards established by the agency for 
        training and qualification for active law enforcement 
        officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the 
        concealed firearm; or] to meet the active duty 
        standards for qualification in firearms training as 
        established by the agency to carry a firearm of the 
        same type as the concealed firearm or
          (2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the 
        agency from which the individual retired from service 
        as a law enforcement officer; and
          (B) a certification issued by the State in which the 
        individual resides that indicates that the individual 
        has, not less recently than one year before the date 
        the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been 
        tested or [otherwise found by the State to meet the 
        standards established by the State for training and 
        qualification for active law enforcement officers to 
        carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed 
        firearm.] Otherwise found by the State or a certified 
        firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a 
        firearms qualification test for active duty officers 
        within that State to have met--
                  (i) the active duty standards for 
                qualification in firearms training as 
                established by the State to carry a firearm of 
                the same type as the concealed firearm; or
                  (ii) if the State has not established such 
                standards, standards set by any law enforcement 
                agency within that State to carry a firearm of 
                the same type as the concealed firearm.
    * * *
    (f) In this section, the term `service with a public agency 
as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law 
enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or as a law 
enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the 
Federal Government.

                                  
