Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2003 -- (House of Representatives - June 23, 2004)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 218) 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, as amended.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. COBLE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has correctly stated the intent of my amendment.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 218. This bill authorizes so-called qualified active and retired Federal and State law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws prohibiting or regulating such carriage.

"Law enforcement officer" includes corrections, probation, parole and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriffs and other law enforcement officials, and just about anybody who has statutory power of arrest and anyone who is engaged through employment by a government agency in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision, prosecution or incarceration of law violators.

In the past, we have considered this bill under the title, Community Protection Act. The rhetoric surrounding the bill was an indication that its purpose was to aid in protecting the public by putting tens of thousands of additional armed law enforcement officers in a position to protect the public as officers travel from State to State and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

From the name of the current bill, it appears that the emphasis now is on the safety of the officers as they travel. Yet the language is exactly the same.

One of the problems with even suggesting that purpose of a Federal law is for law enforcement officers to assist in protecting the public outside their jurisdictions is that it may give them encouragement or even a sense of obligation to do so.

I submitted for the record in the hearing before the subcommittee a long list of articles and reports in instances where, even in the same jurisdiction, off-duty plainclothes law enforcement officers have shot, or been shot by, other off-duty officers, or gotten shot by them or uniform officers, in gun battles because the plainclothes officers were mistaken as criminals.

If off-duty officers in the same jurisdiction are being shot by their fellow officers, encouraging out-of-state officers to join in such activities through a Federal law will certainly only add to the problem. Therefore, any perceived benefit that could arise from such engagement is of dubious value.

Now, this is especially true when there are officers from small jurisdictions who may not be trained in how to tell fellow police officers from criminals. Such training would be routine in large cities; but if it is a small jurisdiction where everyone knows everybody, that training would not take place.

It is this specter of individually determined engagement in law enforcement actions by out-of-state plainclothes off-duty officers who may not be trained for specific situations that gives police chiefs and local and State governments huge concern. Clearly, they see these officers as more of a challenge to law enforcement than a help.

The bill not only takes away the ability for local law enforcement leaders to manage concealed firearms activities from out-of-state officers, but it also overrides the ability of the police department to regulate its own officers.

The bill overrides a police chief's ability to regulate his own officers in what they do with their own private funds within their jurisdiction. It also eliminates control over concealed weapons activities of retired officers within their own jurisdiction.

Now, it also even overrides a police chief's ability to say what the officers can do with agency-issued guns in their possession within their own jurisdiction.

State legislatures can authorize out-of-state off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions.
Some have, although most have not. I do not know what the liability implications are for local jurisdictions when officers become engaged in out-of-state shoot-outs. Which jurisdiction is liable for the conduct of the out-of-state active or retired officer who may be negligent? The jurisdiction viewed as allowing an unfamiliar, untrained officer to participate in the shoot-out or the jurisdiction that issued the gun and certified the officer to carry it or other concealed weapons across State lines? The liability insurance implications alone should give Congress pause in imposing an interstate concealed-carry provision on State and local governments.

Now, most organizations representing policymakers in law enforcement, like police chiefs, have opposed this legislation. Congress should not usurp State and local control of law enforcement activities, as this bill will do. So we should oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a highly respected district attorney from Massachusetts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.