Updated bill to help retired officers/includes ret military cops to carry handguns

[papimike]

Bill Aims to Improve Concealed Weapons Permitting for Retired Officers
(unknown author)

Washington, D.C. -- Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) has announced legislation to improve current law to permit qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009, H.R. 3752, aims to increase public safety and ensure proper protection for law enforcement officers.

"About five percent of law enforcement officers who die each year are killed while taking action in an off-duty capacity. Convicted criminals often have exact memories, preventing law enforcement officers from ever being 'off duty', whether active duty or retired," said Forbes in a prepared statement.

"Not only is the ability of retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms a critical officer safety issue, but it just makes sense that trained officers should be prepared to respond immediately to public safety threats, regardless of whether they are off-duty or across state lines. This bill would make significant improvements to law enforcement firearm laws to increase safety for officers and the public."

Under current law, Forbes reports, retired law enforcement officers are subject to complicated and duplicative document certification procedures to carry concealed weapons. Differing interpretations of the law lead some states to refuse to issue the required documentation.

H.R. 3752 aims to "establish measures of uniformity and cut through the bureaucratic red tape by enabling a firearms instructor to certify that retired law enforcement officers meet the active duty standard for firearms training," Forbes reports.

This would allow law enforcement officers who are retired or who separated in good standing after at least ten years of service to carry a concealed weapon. The bill would also extend the right to carry a concealed weapon to current and retired law enforcement officers for a branch of the United States Armed Forces.

H.R. 3752 has been endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits further action.

[Sgt Jon]

Wonder how they would toll 10 years; would it be with 1 agency or total years, and how would that be established?

As for military LEO's, I can see smiles crossing the faces of thousands of 0083's with DOD, though one wonders if it will apply to MP's and the like...that may cause some issues.

Originally Posted by papimike

Bill Aims to Improve Concealed Weapons Permitting for Retired Officers
(unknown author)

Washington, D.C. -- Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04) has announced legislation to improve current law to permit qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009, H.R. 3752, aims to increase public safety and ensure proper protection for law enforcement officers.

"About five percent of law enforcement officers who die each year are killed while taking action in an off-duty capacity. Convicted criminals often have exact memories, preventing law enforcement officers from ever being 'off duty', whether active duty or retired," said Forbes in a prepared statement.

"Not only is the ability of retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms a critical officer safety issue, but it just makes sense that trained officers should be prepared to respond immediately to public safety threats, regardless of whether they are off-duty or across state lines. This bill would make significant improvements to law enforcement firearm laws to increase safety for officers and the public."

Under current law, Forbes reports, retired law enforcement officers are subject to complicated and duplicative document certification procedures to carry concealed weapons. Differing interpretations of the law lead some states to refuse to issue the required documentation.

H.R. 3752 aims to "establish measures of uniformity and cut through the bureaucratic red tape by enabling a firearms instructor to certify that retired law enforcement officers meet the active duty standard for firearms training," Forbes reports.

This would allow law enforcement officers who are retired or who separated in good standing after at least ten years of service to carry a concealed weapon. The bill would also extend the right to carry a concealed weapon to current and retired law enforcement officers for a branch of the United States Armed Forces.

H.R. 3752 has been endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police and the International Union of Police Associations. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it awaits further action.

[dmclark]

This is the 'clean-up" bill for LEOSA. It covers many 'wants' from various groups. There's language that will overide some of the State's CCW requirements (no HP in NJ) and follow federal LE guidelines.

Long overdue on the path the clearing up hige confusions on LEOSA in some areas. DM

[Sgt Jon]

Originally Posted by dmclark

This is the 'clean-up" bill for LEOSA. It covers many 'wants' from various groups. There's language that will overide some of the State's CCW requirements (no HP in NJ) and follow federal LE guidelines.

Long overdue on the path the clearing up hige confusions on LEOSA in some areas. DM

I agree 100%. It was such a mess with who on the G side was covered, arguments about this and that. I knew some DOD Cops who were sure they were covered and others were were sure they were not.

The intent of HR218 was great but for some reason there were huge voids, be it on purpose or by accident; hope this will clear it up and cover those who should be. One question though; what about the quasi types: college cops, railroads and such, who are cops yet are left out?

[papimike]

I have to check, but I don't think the bill covers railroad cops. One main key to the bill was that/is that you have to have experience working for a government agency. So, maybe Amtrak cops are included, but not CSX or Norfolk Southern and other private railroad cops. State or City University cops should be covered, since they work for the state or city they are in. Etc...

It sounds like a good clean up bill to fill those holes DM mentioned, but I think it might even need to go a bit further, regarding clarity. Overall, sounds great. And yes, those DOD cops are smiling big time. Heck, it doesn't say you have to have retired from service, just that you served at least 10 yrs - a plus for those that retire early, resigned under good terms, etc.

[papimike]

Some highlights:

"For purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, a law enforcement officer of the Federal Reserve System, and 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 of any person for, any violation of law, and has statutory powers of arrest (or apprehension)."

&

"separated from service in good standing, or was honorably discharged from service, with a public agency as a law enforcement officer;'.

(B) in paragraph (2)--


&


"As used in this section, the term `firearm' has the same meaning as defined in section 921 of this title and is deemed to include ammunition the possession of which is not expressly prohibited by Federal law, or which are not subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act, but 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); or

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

(i) by striking `retirement' and inserting `separation'"

&

"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 agency, the State in which the officer resides, or if the State has not established the standards, a law enforcement agency in the State in which the officer resides"

&

" a certification issued by the State in which the individual resides, or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers in the State, which indicates that the individual has, not less recently than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or the certified firearms instructor 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 a law enforcement agency in the State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.'."

[Sgt Jon]

I agree that clarification was needed and this should (if it passes) remove any dount about who may carry under the law. I saw thousands of posts to a thread on another few sites bantering back and forth about the issue. My hope is that, in the case of DOD Cops, the branch and/or commands they work for dont add some provision that prevents them as a condition of work, etc.

How would the 10 years be tolled, for some folks who worked here and there for a few years each; whould it be the last agency to say they did a total of 10...this could cause issue; I knew some guys who followed around the service member spouse and worked at a dozen different locations and in years would come out with 10 but not at one given location.

Lets see how it makes its way through the process.

[dmclark]

This bill and it's amendments will never take into account the small percentage of folks that have individual issues. From what I've seen on other forums, there's ALWAYS someone who falls outside the scope of the bill/amendment.

It will clear up a great many outstanding issues and cover several groups that fell outside the original scope of HR218.

[Sgt Jon]

Originally Posted by dmclark

This bill and it's amendments will never take into account the small percentage of folks that have individual issues. From what I've seen on other forums, there's ALWAYS someone who falls outside the scope of the bill/amendment.

It will clear up a great many outstanding issues and cover several groups that fell outside the original scope of HR218.

I guess we read the same ones. While looking into it and reading the Bill, I found that Arazona is already ahead of the game in that they set the standard to 10 years of "honorable service". The AZ FOP site went on to ensure the retired id says such to be sure they are covered.

Not sure how the number of years was formulated but it is a good mark for those who did a good bit and moved onto different positions for one reason or another; provided their service was good.

[ATF SAC]

Interesting that the Senate version was introduced by Sen. Leahy of VT. Both versions are thin on cosponsors -3 in Senate; 4 in House (with Rep. Massa of NY the only other D near it) and are early days referred to committee. With only a year to go with this Congress, I would not be counting the days for this one to pass unless it gets tucked into a bigger must pass bill up the road.