HR 218 National Concealed Carry for LEO's

VAK · Post by **VAK** » December 2nd, 2004, 7:17 am

I've been asked repeatedly of late for information regarding specifics of this new law and some of the new provisions it carry's... So, to give us all some insight, I thought I would post it and we can have the discussion here.

H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)

One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

An Act

To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926A the following:

`Sec. 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified law enforcement officer' means an employee of a governmental agency who--

`(1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest;

`(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm;

`(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency;

`(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm;

`(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926A the following:

`926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers.'.

SEC. 3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section 926B the following:

`Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers

`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--

`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;

`(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law, and had statutory powers of arrest;

`(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or

`(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a service-connected disability, as determined by such agency;

`(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency;

`(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the State's standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms;

`(6) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

`(7) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

`(d) The identification required by this subsection is--

`(1) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(2)(A) a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer; and

`(B) a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State to meet the standards established by the State for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm' does not include--

`(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for such chapter is further amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926B the following:

`926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

smokn38 · Post by **smokn38** » December 4th, 2004, 4:07 am

It took long enough, I thought it would never get through.

VAK · Post by **VAK** » December 4th, 2004, 7:38 am

Yeah, but pay close attention to the details... It's not the original draft. I've been a member of the LEAA since Ice Tea came out with "Cop Killa" and this has been there big push but it's been progressivelly watered down, so much so that under the current provisions it would still be illegal for far too many LEO's to carry.

The continuous forced re-issue of ID Card's is ridiculous although as part of say an added "penny" levy on traffic tickets a testing board could be raised in each state whereby an Officer could go test. (Range and Legal yearly with a psych test every three years or so...) But to make an Officer go to his home state and get an ID from his home Department each year and only go to the range there breeds inherent problems which will ultimately get this privilage taken away from us.... It's already being tested by some of these smaller S.O.'s in rural places-no states mentioned for the sake of politeness, where they are simply handing their ID Card's out to whoever worked there.... Ever? WTF??? And when they start getting sued and liability insurance starts skyrocketing even more, it only stands to reason that Agencies will simply refuse to issue the ID Cards thereby leaving you without your "legal" authority to carry.

Just a thought...

Godspeed,
usaftacp

smokn38 · Post by **smokn38** » December 5th, 2004, 12:34 am

I can only speak for Michigan. We have set up a pretty good system through the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards to keep a check on that. However, the down side is there is no mandatory requirement for the number of times people go to the range. I am firearms instructor, and we set up 4 range dates a year. We have to make 3 of the 4. The problem with the psych issue is we have an eval before getting hired. Because we are a union state it takes an act of god after the fact to get someone reevaluated. I agree though, there needs to be something set up for retirees that will allow them to carry after they leave active service, and there does need to be checks and balances. ID's should not be just handed out. To be honest, the only time I have carried out of the state I was on a narc team and on official business. Its mot the people outside the state I'm worried about, its the people in the area I work, that I have had negative contacts with, that I worry about. However if I go to another large city outside the state I now have the means to do so. I do see this biting someone in the ass in the future, by handing out ID's to people without checking things out properly.

VAK · Post by **VAK** » December 5th, 2004, 3:26 am

smokn38 wrote:I can only speak for Michigan. We have set up a pretty good system through the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards to keep a check on that. However, the down side is there is no mandatory requirement for the number of times people go to the range. I am firearms instructor, and we set up 4 range dates a year. We have to make 3 of the 4. The problem with the psych issue is we have an eval before getting hired. Because we are a union state it takes an act of god after the fact to get someone reevaluated. I agree though, there needs to be something set up for retirees that will allow them to carry after they leave active service, and there does need to be checks and balances. ID's should not be just handed out. To be honest, the only time I have carried out of the state I was on a narc team and on official business. Its mot the people outside the state I'm worried about, its the people in the area I work, that I have had negative contacts with, that I worry about. However if I go to another large city outside the state I now have the means to do so. I do see this biting someone in the ass in the future, by handing out ID's to people without checking things out properly.

I will cover one topic at a time...

I don't think it's fair that the Agencies are forced to pay for a Federal Mandate which is what this law is, typically Law Enforcement Agencies spend a disproportionate amount of their budgets. Further as I move down and explain some of my other items, you'll see where this becomes more of a factor. It's simply a matter of economics and practicality wheras if we had set up in the law a funding mandate as I suggested for all of these things and on set goal arena, we'd be good to go.

Second, many Officer's especially Urban Officer's move out and away from the area's they policed when still working. One of the original goals of this law and the way we had it originally drafted was to form a Federal Database funded like I had mentioned above and then the ID Card's would have been issued through one of the Agencies such as the US Marshall's Service or some similar branch once your credentials were established. There already are numerous ranges contracted by federal agencies and again this could be further funded by the "penny" a ticket mandate from each State or Law Enforcement could even do it at each State Level but without having to go back to the originating State. We have numerous CA, NY, MO, GA, Federal and I am sure other retired Officer's living in my region. I don't live in the ghetto ass city I worked in although it's only a 1/2 hour to there and I go to the Department all the time for Administration Board Meetings. (It's the principle of the thing)

As for the testing I explained that in my last post but I hope everyone see's why it's so important. When I was a Watch Commander, we were looking at doing psych eval's throughout the career's to monitor the base change for Officer's. And we did monitor for other changes. I don't think that for an Off-Duty weapon one needs the 2 or 3 times a year at the range and in some regions, that's more than they do for their primary duty weapon so it would be a hard sale. But it wouls be nice to have the opportunity to go more than once a year to qualify for court purposes. (And it would also be nice if these guys were actually going to the range more than the week or two before the range...)

Excellent response and very valid responses to my post, if you have any thing regarding this that I can help you with, let me know....

Godspeed,
usaftacp