J & M
J O N E S
& M A Y E R
Attorneys at Law
3777 North Harbor Boulevard • Fullerton,
California 92835
(714) 446-1400 • (562) 697-1751 • Fax (714)
446-1448
“HR 218 - How to Implement”
International
Association of
Chiefs of
Police, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
November 14, 2004
By: Martin J. Mayer, Esq.
HR 218 “Law Enforcement Safety
Officers Act of 2004”
Statement by IACP before Judiciary Committee, June
15, 2004
Comments, Findings and Actions by Judiciary -- Committee, June 22, 2004
Jones & Mayer Client
Alerts, HR 218
National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) -- Press Release, HR 218
Florida Division of Law Enforcement Notice -- HR 218
California Department of
Justice Notice, HR 218
Answers from Office of
Congressman Randy Cunningham -- HR 218
Vita, Martin J. Mayer
HR 218
“Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004”
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
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.”
SECTION
2. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICRS 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:
§
926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
“(a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of the law of any State of 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 attest;
“(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.”
SECTION
3. EXEMPTION OF QUALIFIED RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM STATE LAWS
PROHIBITING THE CARRING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS.
(a) IN GENERAL. - Chapter 44 of
title 18, United States Code, is further amended by inserting after section
926B the following:
§
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 entitles 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, and 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 section 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 form
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 of 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).”
(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.”
Judiciary Committee
Statement of Ronald Ruecker Superintendent,
International Association of Chief of Police
June 15, 2004
Good Afternoon, Chairman Coble,
Representative Charles and Members of the Subcommittee.
I am pleased to be here on this
afternoon to present the views of the International Association of Chief of
Police on H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. As you
know, the IACP is the world’s oldest and largest association of law enforcement
executives, with more than 19,000 members in 100 countries. Before I address
our concerns with this legislation, I would like to express my gratitude and the
gratitude of the IACP to this committee for your continuing support of this
nation’s law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers.
As you know, the IACP is strongly
opposed to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. Our opposition is based primarily
on the fundamental belief that states and localities should determine who is
eligible to carry firearms in their communities. Over the years, IACP has
consistently opposed any federal legislative proposals that would either
pre-empt and/or mandate the liberalization of an individual state’s laws that
would allow citizens of other states to carry concealed weapons in that sate
without meeting its requirements. The IACP believes it is essential that state
governments maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best
fit the needs of their communities. This applies to laws covering private
citizens as well as active or former law enforcement personnel. The IACP also
believes that each sate should retain the power to determine whether they want
police officers that are trained and supervised by agencies outside their state
to carry weapons in their jurisdictions.
In addition, authority for police
officers to carry firearms when off-duty, use-of-force policies and firearms
training standards vary significantly from state to state. Why should a police
chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, a strict standard of
accountability and stringent policies be forced to permit officers who may not
meet those standards to carry a concealed weapon in his or her jurisdiction?
However, in addition to these
fundamental questions over the preemption of state and local firearms laws, the
IACP is also concerned with the impact that this legislation may have on the
safety of our officers and our communities.
There can be no doubt that police
executives are deeply concerned for the safety of our officers. We understand
the proponents of H.R. 218 contend that police officers need to protect
themselves and their families while traveling, and that undercover officers may
be targets if recognized on vacation or travel. These are considerations, but
they must be balanced against the potential dangers involved. In fact, one of
the reasons that this legislation is especially troubling to our nation’s law
enforcement executives is because they could in fact threaten the safety of
police offices by creating tragic situations where offices 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.
In addition, the IACP believes that
this legislation would do little to improve the safety of communities. It is
important to remember that a police officer’s authority to enforce the law is
limited to the jurisdiction in which they serve. An officer, upon leaving his
jurisdiction, has no arrest powers or other authority to enforce the law. That
is the responsibility of the local law enforcement agencies.
In addition, the IACP is concerned
that the legislation specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a
disciplinary action is eligible. This provision raises several concerns for law
enforcement executives. For example, what types of disciplinary action does
this cover? Does this provision apply only to current investigations and
actions? How would officers ascertain that an out-of-state law enforcement
officer is subject to a disciplinary action and therefore ineligible to carry a
firearm?
Additionally, while the legislation
does contain some requirements to ensure that retires qualify to have a
concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be difficult to implement.
The 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.
Finally, the IACP is also concerned
over the liability of law enforcement agencies for the actions of off-duty
officer who uses or misuses their weapon while out of state. If an off-duty
officer who uses or misuses their weapon while in another state, it is likely
that their department will be forced to defend itself against liability charges
in another state. The resources that mounting this defense would require could
be better spent serving the communities we represent.
In conclusion, I would just like to
state that the IACP understands that at first glance this legislation may
appear to be a simple solution to a complex problem. However, a careful review
of these provisions reveals that it has the potential to significantly and
negatively impact the safety of our communities and our officers. It is my hope
that this committee will take the concerns of the IACP into consideration
before acting upon this legislation.
This concludes my statement. I will
be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Comments, Findings and Actions by Judiciary
Committee
June 22, 2004
108
H. Rpt. 560 (Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2004)
Purpose
and Summary
4:
· to override state laws and allow
retired and active police officers to carry a concealed weapon anywhere within
the U.S.
5:
Arguments
by Supporters (including Fraternal Order of Police and the Law Enforcement
Alliance of America)
· to allow officers to serve and
protect regardless of jurisdiction or duty status, and help protect citizens in
the wake of a terrorist attack
· to allow retired officers to enjoy
the same privilege, because they are just as trustworthy as serving officers
· to allow both current and retired
officers to protect themselves and their families.
Arguments
from the Opposition (including the Police Executive Research Forum and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police)
· State Sovereignty
· Would force all states (even those
who do not permit their own law enforcement officers to carry concealed
weapons) to allow retired officers to carry a weapon
Committee
Amendments
Adopted
· Require retired officers to carry
proof that they have qualified in the use of a firearm in the last 12 months
· Exclude officers under the influence
of drugs or alcohol
Rejected
7:
· Allow states to opt out of the law
for two years before the legislation took effect
8:
· Provision that the exemption shall
not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or
practices of any State or local law enforcement agency
9:
· To specifically exclude semiautomatic
assault weapons
10:
· To require any current or retired law
enforcement officer who wishes to carry a concealed weapon outside his State to
be certified under national standards established by the ATF
16: Markup Transcript
· Coble: to override State laws and
mandate that retired and active police officers carry a concealed weapon
anywhere within the U.S.
16-17
· Legislation is broad: allow officers
to carry anywhere in the country, and a broad definition of “law enforcement
officers
Scott
· Authorizes officers to carry
concealed weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws prohibiting
such carriage
18:
· “law enforcement officer” includes
not only police and sheriffs…but also includes corrections, probation, and
parole judicial officers and just about anyone who has statutory power of arrest
and who are engaged by their employment by a Government entity in the
prevention, detection, investigation, supervision, prosecution or incarceration
of law violators.
· In this past, the bill has been
titled the “Community Protection Act,” and the rhetoric surrounding the bill
indicates that its intent is to protect the public; the statutory language is
unchanged, although the name has been altered to emphasize officers’ safety
· The bill not only takes away the
ability of local law enforcement leaders to manage the concealed firearm
activities of out-of-sate officers, but even of their own officers.
19: Nadler:
· No national standard of training
21:
· Keller: [on the amendment to require
officer to carry proof of recent certification] would the amendment gut the
bill by effectively exempting States that don’t allow police officers to carry
firearms, since in those states the officers could not get the qualifying ID?
26:
· Scott: speculates that an officer who
is under the influence and therefore should not be carrying, may regain his
weapon after he sobers up
30:
· Keller: [arguing against a proposed
amendment to allow states to opt out] a police office wants to go on vacation
from Florida to D.C., and travel through six different states; if any one of
those opted out, it would gut the bill.
· Federal government does some things
better than the states
31:
· Delahunt: New Jersey already has a
state law allowing retired officers to carry concealed weapons, passed in
response to the shooting of a retired police chief attempting to stop a robbery
unarmed
· The New Jersey law contains several
safeguards which are conspicuously absent from this proposed law. For example,
the New Jersey law: is limited to handguns, has a maximum age for retired
officers (70), requires all officers to submit and renew applications yearly,
requires such guns to be listed, and gives police departments discretion to
deny permits to retirees
· To say that an officer carrying his
gun across a state line is interstate commerce is ridiculously expansive
37-38:
· Scott: proposed amendment to
subordinate the law to local and state standards
· The bill supersedes the ability of
the chief of police to control his own officers off-duty; he cannot say, for
example, no firearms in bars, no firearms off duty
· Lofgren: “peace officers” include
park police, transit police, correctional officers, many of whom are not even
trained in weapons
40:
· Scott: definition of qualified law
enforcement officer is so broad that it does not really even require that
carrying of a firearm in the conduct of your normal business
41:
· [Debate b/t Keller and Scott: Scott
maintains that the language allows anyone under the broad definition of “law
enforcement officer”
· Waters: No provisions for
verification of the identification
42:
· Lofgren: in my country, correctional
officers are trained and authorized to use firearms, but they don’t actually
have them at work, and are not trained or authorized to carry them at home or
off-duty.
· Keller: until I see your policies and
procedures and detailed information about what is authorized and what is not, I
am in no real position to offer a legal opinion.
43:
· Lofgren: so, can correctional
agencies limit their officers from carrying firearms?
· Coble: I guess the best answer I can
give you would be…[requirement] that they meet the standard, if any,
established by the agency which requires the employee to regularly qualify in
the use of a firearm
· Lofgren: but in this case they have
qualified to use it, but the scope of use has been limited to only a particular
place and time; so I guess if we agree that the local rules will prevail, then
you have actually solved the problem. If a court were to look at our discussion
here and what the intention of the author was, perhaps we have solved this.
44:
· Lofgren: I guess the standard that
applies could be local
54:
· Scott: [on the proposed amendment to
nationalize standards through the ATF] different standards in different police
forces
Dissenting Views
64-65
· Mandate to states to permit officers
· Definition of law enforcement officer
is very broad
Additional Dissenting Views
66
· Nullify ability of PD’s to enforce
rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry firearms
67
· Will override most “safe harbor” laws
at the state level, override laws that prohibit guns in churches (since only
laws that permit private entities to post signs prohibiting concealed firearms
on their property will remain in force), or in places that serve alcohol.
68
· Law is not limited to the carrying of
authorized weapons
69
· Retirees are not required to
demonstrate a special need for a firearm
· Plenty of officers who leave their
departments “in good standing” have in fact retired rather than face
disciplinary action or termination, without a formal finding of misconduct
· The “laws” notwithstanding under the
federal law include agency rules and regulations; the Supreme Court has ruled
that this term specifically includes…work policies and practices promulgated by
State and local police departments. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Am.
Train Dispatchers’ Assoc., 499 U.S. 117 (1991)
|
Vol. 19 No. 10
July 21, 2004 |
|
JONES & MAYER |
|
Attorneys at Law •3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 •Telephone: (714) 446-1400 • Fax: (714) 446-1448 •
Website: www.Jones-Mayer.com
|
Client Alert Memorandum
To: All Police Chiefs &
Sheriffs
From:
Martin J. Mayer
|
|
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004
New
Federal Law Will Allow Police Officers to Carry Concealed Weapons Nationwide
Without a Permit
On
Thursday, July 22, 2004, President George W. Bush is expected to sign a new
federal law that allows both current and retired law enforcement officers to carry
concealed weapons wherever they go in the United States, regardless of most
state or local prohibitions.
Under
the new law, known as the “Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004,”
qualified law enforcement officers may carry concealed handguns nationwide, on
or off-duty. When traveling to other
states, they are not required to inform other state or local authorities that
they are carrying concealed weapons, though they must produce valid
identification if challenged.
The
new law does not extend an officer’s authority to enforce the law in states
where it is not already authorized; it simply gives officers greater freedom to
be armed. The justification for this
new law is, in part, based on the fear of officers having negative contact with
someone they previously arrested, and their need to protect themselves.
The
law passed Congress on June 23, 2004, and the Senate on July 7, 2004. It adds two new sections to Chapter 44 of
Title 18 of the United States Code, the chapter of the federal criminal code
which deals with firearms. Under 18
USCS 926B(a), “a qualified law enforcement officer... carrying the
identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm...
subject to subsection (b),...” anywhere in the United States. Section 926C
extends the same privilege to qualified, retired, law enforcement officers.
Who is qualified?
Section
926B(c) defines “qualified law enforcement officer” as someone who is
authorized by the law (of his or her state) to enforce the law and make
arrests; is authorized by his or her agency to carry a firearm; is not being
disciplined by the agency; meets agency standards for qualifying in the use of
a firearm; is not intoxicated; and is not prohibited by other federal law from
possessing a firearm.
Section
926C(c) defines “qualified retired law enforcement officer” in a similar way,
with the added requirements that the officer left the agency in good standing,
after a minimum of 15 years of service (or because of a disabling injury, not
based on mental instability), and has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under
the agency’s retirement plan.
Ironically, unlike 926B, a retired officer is not required to be authorized
by his agency to carry a firearm, but the officer must be able to prove that
he/she is qualified in the use of a firearm under state standards within the
last 12 months.
Both
current and retired officers must carry identification. A current officer must have the photo I.D.
issued by his or her law enforcement agency.
A retired officer must carry either, (1) a new photo I.D. issued by his
or her old agency which indicates that he/she has qualified within the last 12
months to use a firearm of the kind he/she is carrying, or (2) his/her old
photo I.D., along with a certification of such qualification issued by the
officer’s state of residence.
Exceptions
to the Law
Peace
officers who qualify under the new law must still obey local prohibitions or
restrictions against the carrying of concealed weapons on (1) private property,
if the owner imposes such prohibitions or restrictions, and (2) state or public
property, such as a courthouse or a public park.
The
law does not give officers the right to carry:
(1)
any machine gun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);
(2)
any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of Title 18); or
(3)
any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of Title 18).
Local
agencies have to prepare for armed, current and retired, peace officers from
other states traveling into their jurisdictions without notice. These out-of-state officers have a right to
carry concealed weapons, provided they can produce proper identification.
Additionally, these officers will be subject to their own agency or state’s
standards, if any, for firearms training or qualification.
The
laws of each state are not the same in determining who is a “qualified law
enforcement officer.” Other states may
have totally different standards than California; but their definition will
apply.
If
you have questions or wish to discuss this memo in greater detail, please do
not hesitate to communicate with Martin Mayer at 714-446-1400 or mjm@jones-mayer.com.
|
Vol. 19 No. 11
July 26, 2004 |
|
JONES & MAYER |
|
Attorneys at Law • 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. Fullerton, CA 92835 • Telephone: (714) 446-1400 •• Fax:
(714) 446-1448 • Website: www.Jones-Mayer.com
|
Client
Alert Memorandum
To: All Police Chiefs &
Sheriffs
From:
Martin J. Mayer
Update re: Law Enforcement
Officers Safety Act of 2004
We have received quite a few calls and/or e-mails with
questions regarding the Client Alert Memo we published on July 21, 2004
informing our clients of this new law. There are, primarily, three questions
being asked:
1. Did the President sign the law?
Yes,
he did.
2. Does it take effect immediately?
Yes, he does.
3. Does it affect an officer’s authority to be armed while
flying?
No,
it does not.
The rules regarding law enforcement officers being armed
on planes is not affected by this legislation, in any way whatsoever. The new
law authorizes law enforcement officers to be armed in states other than their
own, dispute most local laws to the contrary. The law refers to concealed
weapons being permitted after one is on the ground - not while in the air.
If
you have questions or wish to discuss this memo in greater detail, please do
not hesitate to communicate with Martin Mayer at 714-446-1400 or mjm@jones-mayer.com
|
Vol. 19 No. 14
September 16, 2004 |
|
JONES & MAYER |
|
Attorneys at Law • 3777 N. Harbor Blvd. • Fullerton, CA
92835 • Telephone: (714) 446-1400 \• Fax:
(714) 446-1448 • Website: www.Jones-Mayer.com
|
To: All Police Chiefs and Sheriffs
From:
Martin J. Mayer
HR 218 - CURRENT INFORMATION
The
volume of calls and e-mails has not let up regarding the implementation of the
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 (HR 218) and how it impacts on
current and retired California law enforcement officers. For prior information
see Client Alert Memos on our web site at www.jones-mayer.com
Unfortunately,
it is not up to the individual states to define the requirements in HR 218 but,
rather, the federal government since it is a federal law. Nonetheless, most states are making efforts
to reach some consensus as to how to protect their law enforcement officers who
choose to travel to other jurisdictions with concealed weapons.
In
California, the Department of Justice is taking the lead in an effort to
develop protocols which will accomplish this task. This morning a 2 ½ hour conference call was held amongst many “stakeholders”
to try and resolve some of the more pressing concerns. The call involved those of us who are part
of a “sub-committee” created by DOJ. An
effort is being made to secure assistance from the U.S. Department of Justice
to respond to numerous questions and concerns raised during the call. It is hoped that a meeting with U.S. DOJ can
occur within the next 4 - 6 weeks to secure their advice and guidance. Again, since HR 218 is federal law, the
federal input is imperative.
HOW
THIS AFFECTS YOUR AGENCY:
In
the interim, and until more definitive answers are secured, the following
suggestions are made. It is most
important to emphasize that these are merely recommendations and we strongly
urge that each officer secure advice and guidance from his or her department’s
legal advisor. Pursuant to the language
set forth in HR 218 we believe the following is necessary to be able to legally
travel to another state with a concealed weapon:
CURRENT
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS must be able to verify, among other things, that they
have statutory powers of arrest and are “authorized by the agency to carry a
firearm.” As such, we urge that an
officer carries a current photo ID card from his or her agency, which states
that he or she “has statutory powers of arrest” AND “is authorized to carry a
firearm.” The law states, in sec.
926B(d), that “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.” (Emphasis added.)
RETIRED
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS must be able to verify, among other things, that they “retired
in good standing” (for reasons other than “mental instability”); that “before such retirement (they) had
statutory powers of arrest;” that they
were “regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15
years or more;” AND “not less recently than one year before the date the
individual is carrying the concealed firearm” he or she met the standards for “training
and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm” which
were established by the agency from which the officer retired OR the state
standards in which the retired officer now resides.
It
has come to our attention that some states are attempting to resist the impact
of HR 218 regarding law enforcement officers going into their states with
concealed weapons. During the
conference call it was noted that New York State will be insisting on all
aspects of HR 218 being applied. That
would include being able to prove that the out of state officer meets all of
the HR 218 requirements - not just those set forth above. We suggest that you all review the law
carefully. It can be accessed on the
California DOJ web site at ag.ca.gov/firearms/index.html.
Once
again, we urge that you secure legal advice and guidance from your department’s
legal advisor before traveling to other states with concealed weapons. As always, if you wish to discuss this in
greater detail, please feel free to contact me at 714 - 446-1400 or by e-mail
at mjm@jones-mayer.com
National Association of Police
Organizations (NAPO)
Right to Carry Update
H.R. 218 / S. 253
President Bush signs right
to carry into law effective immediately
July 22, 2004
President George W. Bush signed H.R. 218, the “Law
Enforcement Officers Safety Act,” into law this morning at the White House. The
bill became effective immediately upon the President’s signature. Now,
qualified active and retired law enforcement officers are allowed to carry
their firearm while off-duty for the protection of themselves, their families
and our nation’s communities.
This morning Rep. Cunningham, author and tireless supporter
of H.R. 218 for more than fourteen years, witnessed President Bush sign the
bill into law. Speaking on the passage of this legislation, Representative
Randy “Duke” Cunningham passionately stated, “And I would say that if one takes
a look also at who supports these positions, they wrote this, the law
enforcement agencies helped over the years write this bill. It helps them. If
one looks to Law Enforcement Alliance of America, LEAA, the National Association
of Police Organizations, NAPO, the National Law Enforcement Council, all of
them support this bill, Mr. Speaker.”
The National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO)
sincerely thanks Rep. Cunningham for his unwavering dedication to the law enforcement
community. His determination to ensure the bill’s passage has brought
additional safety and security to America’s officers and communities.
Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), sponsor of similar
legislation in the Senate, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch
(R-UT) and the Committee’s Ranking Member Patrick Leahy (D-VT) also played key
roles in securing the President’s signature this morning. Due to the Senators’
unfailing commitment, the bill achieved overwhelming support and made its way
to the President’s desk. NAPO would like to thank the House and Senate staffs,
with whom NAPO, and other law enforcement groups, worked tirelessly. Such
efforts should not go unnoted.
NAPO Executive Director Bill Johnson once again offered his
thanks to all of the law enforcement organizations who have worked so hard to
make this happen, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers
(IBPO), the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA), the Southern
States Police Benevolent Association (SSPBA), the Federal Law Enforcement
Officers Association (FLEOA), the Law Enforcement Alliance of America (LEAA),
the National Law Enforcement Council and the National Troopers Coalition (NTC).
HR 218
Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE)
Information Regarding Florida’s Efforts To Implement
H.R. 218 - New Federal Law Allowing Law Enforcement Officers To Carry Concealed
Firearm Throughout the U.S.A.
The Law Enforcement Officers Safety of 2004 (HR 218) bill
became law July 22, 2004. This law provides for the carrying of concealed
firearms by law enforcement officers (both active and retired) nation-wide upon
meeting certain state criteria.
The law does not provide “automatic” authority for officers
to carry firearms throughout the country. Active and retired officers must
possess proof of meeting the law’s requirements. There is a lot of
misinformation circulating through the internet about what the law allows. Read
the law yourself instead of relying on someone else’s “summary” of it. (A link
to the law is provided, below.)
At this time, the State of Florida does not have a
procedure or standards in place to provide the required certification for retired
officers. A work group has been formed to develop those procedures and Florida
may have to enact new legislation before some retired officers can be certified
under the Federal law. In addition, FDLE, FHP and other state law enforcement
agencies, in conjunction with Florida’s Sheriffs and Police Chiefs are working
to develop a “model policy” for use in certifying active Florida law
enforcement officers under the federal law so a uniform approach can be applied
throughout the state.
Please be patient. Even though the Federal law is in place,
Florida and other states need time to implement its provisions. Florida’s
active and retired law enforcement officers will be advised how to obtain the
certification required by the new law. As decisions are made, they will be
communicated through this web notice. Please return to this site regularly for
updates on the progress. Please do not call or email FDLE, other law
enforcement agencies, the Governor’s Office, or the Department of Agriculture
and Consumer Services for updates. This site conveys all known information and
developments, to date. Changes and new developments will be posted at this site
for your convenience.
To view the federal law online click this link: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h218enr.txt.pdf
California Department of
Justice
Firearms Division
Randy Rossi, Director
Implementation of HR 218
Law Enforcement Officers
Safety Act of 2004
To: All Law
Enforcement Agencies
On July
22, 2004, the Law Enforcement Safety Act of 2004 (HR 218) became law. This law
provides for the carrying of concealed firearms by law enforcement officers
(both active and retired) nationwide upon meeting certain criteria.
This
legislation has broad reaching implications. California, along with other
states, are developing procedures and standards to implement this legislation.
Implementation of this law will require extensive review and analysis of
existing policies/practices.
In an
effort to fully address the issues associated with the implementation of this
legislation, the California Department of Justice is in the process of
convening a meeting consisting of representatives from both law enforcement and
legal communities to expeditiously identify, address and resolve issues and
concerns that have been brought to our attention.
This is a
very important issue for law enforcement nationwide, and we are moving forward
as quickly as possible to endure the smooth and successful implementation of HR
218. Your patience and cooperation are appreciated as we move forward. We
invite interested parties to visit the Department’s website at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/index.html for period updates as well as for access to this
legislation.
Should you
have questions regarding this bulletin, please feel free to contact the
Department of Justice Firearms Division Field Representatives at (916) 263-4887
or you may contact me directly at (916) 263-6275.
Sincerely,
RANDY
ROSSI, Director
Firearms
Division
For BILL LOCKYER
Attorney
General
Answers from Office of
Congressman
Randy Cunningham
H.R. 218 - Law
Enforcement Safety Act
Signed into law July 22,
2004
H.R. 218 allows qualified active and retired law
enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms on which they are trained and
certified by their state to use
What is a qualified active law enforcement officer?
An
employee of a government agency who is:
• authorized by law to engage in or supervise the
prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or incarceration of any
person for any violation of law
• has statutory powers of arrest
• is authorized by their employing agency to carry a
firearm
• is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the
agency