Sir, 

 I think your latest edit was a considerable improvement.  However, I thought it was still somewhat murky regarding the point that is actually disputed.  Everyone (I think) agrees that an individual law-enforcement officer is protected by federal law when he exercises the right conferred by the LEOSA  that is to say, he does not commit a CRIMINAL offense under any state or local law, regardless of whether his employer approves of his off-duty gun carrying or not.  That is a big deal, and it should be made clear that there is no dispute (to my knowledge) over this point. 

 The dispute is over whether the employer can punish an employee administratively for exercising that right  fire him, give him a demerit, whatever. 

 On this disputed issue, the information you cite is pertinent, regarding the recognition, by bill opponents, that the bill was intended to override local agency policies.  But even more significant  and what the courts look to, primarily, is what the AUTHORS of a law said about it  not the opponents.  The most significant thing about the committee report is that the SPONSORS of the bill AGREED that they were writing a law that overrode agency policies, and they VOTED DOWN the Scott Amendment, which would have allowed agencies to continue to enforce anti-carry policies on their own employees.   

 The report of the Judiciary Committee is not merely another opinion  it is the most formal statement by the authors of the bill as to what the bill does.  For many laws, the initial committee report is muddled by later amendments  but that did NOT occur with respect to H.R. 218. Rather, the bill reported by the Judiciary Committee BECAME the law, without any further amendment.  So when the courts look for guidance on this law, the report  particularly, the majority report  is exactly where they will look.   

 So, I've done an edit that I hope you will agree makes it even more clear what the argument is actually about, with examples of authority on each side of the disputed issue. On one side, you have the members of Congress who wrote the law, saying  as they crafted it, not afterwards  that it would override agency policies.  (And you had the opponents admitting that this was so, and complaining about it.  There was NOBODY saying that it did NOT override agency policies.) On the other side, you have some local agencies that noe assert, after enactment, that they can still punish employees for exercising the federally conferred right.  But I am skeptical that anyone will be able to point to any case in which an agency actually punished an employee for exercising the federally protected right, and made it stick. 

   FedDoc