[House Report 119-80]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 119-80
======================================================================
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SERVICE WEAPON PURCHASE ACT OF 2025
_______
April 28, 2025.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2255]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 2255) to allow Federal law enforcement officers to
purchase retired service weapons, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Committee Consideration.......................................... 3
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 9
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 9
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 9
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 10
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 10
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 10
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 10
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 11
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 11
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 11
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 11
Dissenting Views................................................. 11
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Federal Law Enforcement Officer
Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025''.
SEC. 2. PURCHASE OF RETIRED FIREARMS BY FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICERS.
(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of
this Act, the Administrator of General Services shall establish a
program under which a Federal law enforcement officer may purchase a
retired firearm from the Federal agency that issued the firearm to such
officer.
(b) Limitations.--A Federal law enforcement officer may purchase a
retired firearm under subsection (a) if--
(1) the purchase is made during the six-month period
beginning on the date the firearm was so retired; and
(2) with respect to such purchase, the officer is in good
standing with the Federal agency that employs or employed such
officer.
(c) Cost.--A firearm purchased under this section shall be sold at
the salvage value for such firearm taking into account the age and
condition of the firearm.
(d) Definitions.--In this section--
(1) the term ``Federal law enforcement officer'' has the
meaning given that term in section 115(c)(1) of title 18,
United States Code, and includes a retired Federal law
enforcement officer;
(2) the term ``firearm'' has the meaning given that term in
section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, excluding any
machinegun (as defined in section 921(a)(24) of such title) not
lawfully possessed before section 922(o) of such title took
effect;
(3) the term ``retired firearm'' means any firearm that has
been declared surplus by the applicable agency; and
(4) the term ``salvage value'' means the value of an asset
after it has become useless to the owner or the amount expected
to be obtained when a fixed asset is disposed of at the end of
its useful life.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service
Weapon Purchase Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Russell Fry (R-
SC), would allow current and retired federal law enforcement
officers to purchase retired service weapons that have been
issued to them during their service life at salvage value.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Under current policy, federal agencies are required to
destroy retired firearms by ``crushing, cutting, breaking, or
deforming each firearm to ensure that they are rendered
completely inoperable and incapable of being made operable for
any purpose except the recovery of basic material for
reuse.''\1\ Additionally, ``destruction of firearms must be
performed by an entity authorized'' by the head of an agency,
and the destruction ``must be witnessed by two additional
agency employees authorized by the agency head or
designee.''\2\ These actions all come at a cost to the American
taxpayer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\41 C.F.R. Sec. 102-40.175(f).
\2\41 C.F.R. Sec. 102-40.175(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, in 2022, the Fraternal Order of Police
notified Congress that multiple federal law enforcement
agencies were in the process of replacing their service
weapons.\3\ These transitions accounted for the destruction of
approximately 20,000 firearms, costing the taxpayer roughly $8
million.\4\ These disposal costs are in addition to the
millions of dollars spent to acquire the firearms in the first
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Letter to Sen. Cornyn et. al. from Patrick Yoes, National
President Fraternal Order of Police (May 18, 2022). https://fop.net/
letter/s-4150-the-federal-law-enforcement-service-weapon-
purchase-act/.
\4\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon
Purchase Act, the Administrator of the General Services would
be required to establish a program to allow current and retired
federal law enforcement officers to purchase a retired firearm
from the agency that issued the firearm to that officer.\5\ In
order to be eligible to participate in the program, the officer
must be in good standing with the agency and any firearm sold
through the program must be sold within six months of the date
when the firearm was retired.\6\ The firearm must also be sold
for salvage value.\7\ Not only would this legislation cause
agencies and taxpayers to avoid the cost of disposing of these
firearms, it would also recoup some of the taxpayer dollars for
the initial purchase of the firearm. Finally, the bill would
allow current or retired federal law enforcement officers who
used these firearms in the course of their official duties to
purchase the firearms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\H.R. 2255, Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon
Purchase Act, Sec. 2, 119th Cong. (2025).
\6\Id.
\7\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearings were used to develop H.R. 2255: ``The
Right to Self Defense'' a hearing held on March 4, 2025, before
the Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance
of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee heard
testimony from the following witnesses:
Doug Ritter, Founder and Chair of Knife
Rights, Inc. and Knife Rights Foundation;
Diana Muller, Founder of Women for Gun
Rights;
Dave McDermott, Founding Partner of
McDermott Law Group and USCCA Network Attorney; and
Gregory Jackson, Jr., Former Deputy
Director, White House Office of Gun Violence
Prevention.
The hearing examined the individual's right to self-defense,
protected by the Second Amendment, and also examined the
efficacy of gun control policies and the related effect on
public safety. In particular, Ms. Muller, a retired law
enforcement officer, testified about how law enforcement
officers are unable to purchase their service weapons when they
retire.
Committee Consideration
On March 25, 2025, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 2255, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute by a roll call vote of
14-9, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 2255:
1. Vote on amendment #1 to the H.R. 2255 ANS, offered
by Mr. Goldman--failed 10 ayes to 15 nays.
2. Vote on amendment #2 to the H.R. 2255 ANS, offered
by Mr. Raskin--failed 11 ayes to 14 nays.
3. Vote on amendment #4 to the H.R. 2255 ANS, offered
by Mr. Raskin--failed 9 ayes to 15 nays.
4. Vote on favorably reporting H.R. 2255, as
amended--passed 14 ayes to 9 nays.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives does not apply where a cost estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974 has been timely submitted prior to filing of the report
and is included in the report. Such a cost estimate is included
in this report.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has
received the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2255 from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
H.R. 2255 would allow federal law enforcement officers to
purchase their retired handguns at salvage value from the
federal agency that issued their handgun. Salvage value is the
value of an asset that is no longer of use or the estimated
value of a disposed asset at the end of its useful life.
CBO expects that implementing the bill would increase
administrative costs both for the General Services
Administration to develop regulations to implement the program
and for law enforcement agencies to participate in the program.
Based on the cost of similar activities, we estimate that those
costs would total less than $500,000 over the 2025-2030 period.
Any related spending would be subject to the availability of
appropriated funds.
Collections from handgun sales authorized under H.R. 2255
would be classified in the budget as offsetting receipts--that
is, as reductions in direct spending--and deposited in the
Treasury. CBO is unaware of any comprehensive information about
the pace at which federal law enforcement agencies replace
handguns or how many they expect would be sold rather than
destroyed. However, using information about the number of law
enforcement officers employed at federal agencies who
potentially would be purchasers, CBO estimates that on-budget
receipts from sales of those guns could exceed $500,000 over
the 2025-2035 period. For example, if law enforcement agencies
replaced 10 percent of their handguns every year and 10 percent
of those guns were sold to law enforcement officers at salvage
prices, receipts would total $2 million over the 2025-2035
period, CBO estimates.
The program under H.R. 2255 would include the Postal
Inspection Service, a law enforcement agency within the Postal
Service. Cash flows for the Postal Service are recorded in the
federal budget in the Postal Service Fund and are classified as
off-budget direct spending. CBO estimates that any receipts
from handgun sales by the Postal Service would not be
significant in any year or over the 2025-2035 period.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Matthew
Pickford (for the General Services Administration and law
enforcement) and Jeremy Crimm (for the Postal Service). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Director
of Budget Analysis.
Phillip L. Swagel,
Director, Congressional Budget Office.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 2255 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 2255 would allow current and retired
federal law enforcement officers to purchase retired service
weapons that have been issued to them during their service life
at salvage value.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 2255
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
The Committee adopts as its own the estimate of federal
mandates prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office pursuant to section 423 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Sec. 1. Short Title: The ``Federal Law Enforcement Officer
Service Weapon Purchase Act of 2025.''
Sec. 2. Purchase of Retired Handguns by Federal Law
Enforcement Officers: Requires the Administrator of the General
Services Administration to establish a program under which a
current or retired federal law enforcement officer in good
standing may purchase a retired handgun from the federal agency
that issued the handgun to such officer.
Dissenting Views
I oppose H.R. 2255, the Federal Law Enforcement Officer
Service Weapon Purchase Act.
Federal agencies are currently prohibited from selling
functional or repairable firearms that are no longer needed.
Under this regulation, when an agency no longer has a need for
a firearm, it can transfer it to another law enforcement entity
or destroy it. This regulation helps ensure that federally
owned firearms don't fall into the wrong hands, but it misses
an opportunity to save money by selling surplus firearms to the
responsible law enforcement officers who used them.
In the 117th Congress, our former colleague, Congresswoman
Val Demings (D-FL), introduced bipartisan legislation to allow
a federal agency to sell, at fair market value, a surplus
handgun to the law enforcement officer who had been using
it.\1\ Under the Demings bill, these sales would have required
a background check and the proceeds from the sales would have
been used for gun violence prevention or gun safety training
and education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\``H.R. 3096, Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon
Purchase Act.'' Congressional Record 167:81 (May 11, 2021) p. H2193.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Congress, Congressman Russell Fry (R-SC) introduced a
bill similar to the Demings proposal, but it was not
bipartisan, did not require a background check, and did not
provide any direction about what the funds resulting from these
sales should be used for. Still, Democratic Members of this
Committee felt it was a reasonable bill, and it passed out of
this Committee on a voice vote. If Republicans had simply stuck
with that version, I suspect it would have received broad
support on the Floor and might very well have been signed into
law by now. But they instead chose to substantially change the
bill by adopting new amendments when it was brought to the
Floor.
One amendment changed the sale price from ``fair market
value'' to ``salvage value,'' effectively making it so that the
federal government would be subsidizing gun sales.
Another amendment expanded the bill significantly by
allowing surplus firearms to be sold not only to active federal
law enforcement in good standing, but also to retired law
enforcement officers. Because the Fry bill had no background
check requirement, this would create a situation in which it
would be possible for an officer to retire, commit a crime that
makes him or her ineligible to purchase and possess firearms,
but then still be able to buy a firearm from the federal
government without a background check. Agencies have no reason
to track the behavior of their former law enforcement officers,
so they could unknowingly sell a surplus firearm to someone who
cannot lawfully buy a gun, and all of this would occur without
a background check that might otherwise prevent an illegal
sale.
Another amendment expanded the types of guns that agencies
could sell. Originally the bill just applied to surplus
handguns, but it was amended to apply to any surplus firearm
(other than machine guns), including assault weapons,
destructive devices like grenades, and even firearms that are
subject to heightened restrictions under the National Firearms
Act.
Given that the bill had already removed the background
check provision, these amendments would make it so that current
and retired law enforcement officers would be able to buy an
assault weapon, grenade, or a National Firearms Act weapon from
the government at a discount and without a background check,
opening a significant loophole in the background check system.
This led many Democrats to oppose the bill on final passage
when it came up for a vote last Congress.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\``Federal Law Enforcement Officers Service Weapon Purchase Act:
Roll Vote Nos. 218-222.'' Congressional Record 169:83 (May 17, 2023)
pp. H2401-H-2405.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of these flawed amendments appear in H.R. 2255, the
version of the Fry bill that the Committee considered. So in
place of a reasonable bipartisan bill, Republicans are digging
in on a proposal that opens up significant loopholes in our gun
laws--loopholes that we identified last Congress when we
considered this bill. It is disappointing that Republicans
could not resist politicizing a traditionally bipartisan
matter.
Because this bill creates unacceptable risks of a dangerous
weapon being sold to a person who may not legally have one, I
must oppose this legislation in its current form, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
I. Overview of Concerns With H.R. 2255
A. REMOVAL OF BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIREMENT
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 required
the establishment of a national namecheck system to be used by
federal firearms licensees (FFLs). In response, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) developed the
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NICS
is operated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).\3\
When FFLs run a NICS check, the name of a potential firearm
purchaser is searched for in three databases that contain
records relevant to whether a person might be prohibited from
possessing a firearm.\4\ Since its inception, NICS has been a
critical tool in helping to keep firearms out of the hands of
those who are not legally allowed to possess them.\5\ The
efficacy of the NICS system depends on complete, accurate, and
timely submission of records to the three databases, which each
contain different types of records, such as criminal history
records, protection orders, and wanted persons. Congress has
worked to improve NICS through the Fix NICS Act of 2018 which
increased the number and accuracy of records in NICS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Federal Bureau of Investigation, About NICS, https://
www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/more-fbi-services-and-information/nics/
about-nics.
\4\Department of Justice, The Department of Justice's Semiannual
Report on the Fix NICS Act (Sept. 2022), https://www.justice.gov/d9/
nics_semiannual_report_-_september_2022.pdf.
\5\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 117th Congress, this legislation, then led by
Congresswoman Demings, required a NICS check for a law
enforcement officer to purchase a service weapon under the Act.
By removing this requirement, the legislation relies solely on
an agency's determination that the officer is in good standing.
One might assume that an officer could not be in good standing
if he or she was prohibited from possessing a firearm, but the
reality is that an agency may not instantly become aware of
circumstances that would lead a person to be prohibited.
Further, even if the agency does learn of a relevant
circumstance, the officer's standing may not automatically
change, or a clerical error could lead the agency to still
regard the officer as in good standing. NICS was designed to
search the relevant records, and Congress has worked to improve
its completeness, accuracy, and timeliness in subsequent
legislation. An agency's determination that an officer is in
good standing should not substitute for a system that has been
carefully designed and improved for the specific purpose of
determining if a person is legally allowed to possess a
firearm.
Existing ATF regulations illustrate that background checks
are the gold standard for determining who may possess a
firearm. Currently, a law enforcement officer may obtain a
firearm for official use without undergoing a background check,
but ATF regulations require much more than a simple showing
that the officer is in good standing. For an officer to
purchase a firearm for official use without undergoing a
background check, the officer must present a certification on
agency letterhead that the officer will use the firearm in
official duties and that a records check reveals the purchasing
officer has no convictions for misdemeanor crimes of domestic
violence.\6\ This demonstrates that a NICS check carries
significant weight and any substitute process should at least
include a search of certain criminal records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\27 CFR 478.134.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NICS checks are not only the best way to identify
prohibited purchasers but would also promote public trust in
the program established by this Act. Since members of the
public must undergo a NICS check when purchasing a firearm in
many circumstances, they will be more confident of the process
when law enforcement is held to this same standard when a
service weapon is transferred. The requirement that the officer
receiving the firearm pass a background check is a meaningful
step to ensure that guns do not fall into the wrong hands. This
requirement should not have been stripped from this
legislation.
B. EXPANSION TO RETIRED OFFICERS
The Fry bill now allows retired federal officers to
purchase their surplus weapons. In the 118th Congress, the
Committee favorably reported by voice vote a version of this
bill that applied only to active federal law enforcement
officers. When the bill was brought to the Floor for
consideration by the House, the bill was amended to apply to
retired federal law enforcement officers. The bill now before
the 119th Congress also includes retired officers. Given that
Republicans already stripped the background check requirement
from the bill, this expansion creates a significant loophole
through which a retired officer might be able to obtain a
firearm from their former agency even if they are a prohibited
purchaser who could not pass a background check. This is
possible because a person could be employed by a federal law
enforcement agency, be in good standing, retire, and then
become a person who is prohibited from purchasing and
possessing firearms, such as by being convicted of a felony,
renouncing their citizenship, or being an unlawful user of a
controlled substance. The employing agency could then decide to
retire a firearm that had been issued to the person while they
were employed and transfer the firearm to the retired officer
without having any reason to know that the officer was now
prohibited from purchasing firearms. While the ``good
standing'' requirement may prevent sales to active law
enforcement who then become prohibited purchasers, agencies do
not continuously track those who have retired from federal law
enforcement. In short, there is no ``good standing'' when it
comes to retired officers, so without a background check, this
bill could arm prohibited purchasers.
C. CHANGING ``HANDGUN'' TO ``FIREARM''
The version of the Fry bill that the Committee marked up in
the 118th Congress only allowed the transfer of surplus
handguns. When Republicans brought the bill to the floor for
consideration by the House, they expanded it to apply to
firearms, as defined by 18 U.S.C. 921(a), except most
machineguns. 18 U.S.C. 921(a) defines firearms as:
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or
is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame
or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler
or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device.
Such term does not include an antique firearm.\7\
\7\18 U.S.C. Sec. 921(a).
Thus, this change makes it so that the bill allows federal
law enforcement officers, including a retired officer, to
purchase not only a handgun, but also a semiautomatic assault
weapon or even a grenade without undergoing a background check.
This is especially concerning given that this expansion would
allow firearms that are subject to the heightened restrictions
of the National Firearms Act (such as short-barreled rifles) to
be transferred without any of the procedural safeguards that
Congress has required for decades for those especially
dangerous firearms.
This change is so dangerous that even Republicans seemed to
recognize the concern during our Committee's markup of H.R.
2255. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) offered an amendment that would
have excluded those especially dangerous firearms regulated by
the National Firearms Act--such as short barreled rifles,
poison gas bombs, grenades, or grenade launchers--from purchase
under the legislation.\8\ However, when Democrats would not
commit to supporting the bill on final passage with the Massie
amendment because the bill would not also require background
checks or limit sales to active law enforcement officers only,
Rep. Massie withdrew his amendment. I subsequently introduced
the exact same text, as drafted by Rep. Massie, and Republicans
inexplicably opted to oppose the amendment--insisting that the
bill should allow for the sale of National Firearms Act weapons
without a background check, even after acknowledging that
excluding these weapons from purchase under the bill would
``improve'' it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Markup of the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon
Purchase Act Before the H. Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. 2255, p.
107, 119th Cong. (2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. CHANGING ``FAIR MARKET VALUE'' TO ``SALVAGE VALUE''
Finally, the current Fry bill carries forward the 118th
Floor amendment that changed the price the officer pays for the
retired firearm from the ``fair market value'' to the ``salvage
value.'' By lowering the price of the firearms sold under this
act, the federal government will recoup less money and is
effectively subsidizing these firearm sales with taxpayer
money.
II. Conclusion
This bill could easily be modified to pose a lower risk to
public safety by restoring the background check provision from
previous versions of the bill, limiting the bill to active law
enforcement, and only allowing for the transfer of handguns,
rather than other types of firearms, including destructive
devices. But instead of a more limited bill with commonsense
safeguards, Republicans have elected to advance a dangerous
bill riddled with loopholes--even in the wake of a deadly mass
shooting using a retired service weapon.\9\ Because this bill
creates unacceptable risks of a dangerous weapon being sold to
or accessed by a person who may not legally have one, I must
oppose this legislation in its current form and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\The recent mass shooting at Florida State University (FSU)
illustrates the risk associated with selling retired service weapons
even to current law enforcement officers. On April 17, 2025, a 20-year-
old opened fire at FSU using a retired service weapon--a handgun his
mother previously used as a sheriff's deputy and purchased when her
agency upgraded their equipment. Sergio Candido & Hunter Geisel, What
we know about the victims of the FSU Mass Shooting, CBS News Miami
(Apr. 19, 2025), https://www.cbsnews.com/miami/news/who-are-the-
victims-of-the-fsu-mass-shooting/.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.
[all]