U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–413 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–935

S. 2480: LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY

ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 23, 2002

Serial No. J–107–95

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SHARON PROST, Minority Chief Counsel 

MAKAN DELRAHIM, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 23

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 25

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33

McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 35

Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 42

WITNESSES 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ........................... 9

Cunningham, Hon. Randy ‘‘Duke’’, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 3

Gordon, Arthur, National Executive Board Member, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania ...................................... 8

Johnson, David, Deputy Chief of Police, Cedar Rapids Police Department, 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa .............................................................................................. 13

Westphal, Colonel Lonnie J., Chief, Colorado State Patrol, Denver, Colorado .. 11

Young, Lieutenant Steve, National President, Fraternal Order of Police, Marion, Ohio ................................................................................................................ 5

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 16

Cunningham, Hon. Randy ‘‘Duke’’, a Representatives in Congress from the 

State of California, prepared statement ............................................................. 17

Glidden, Osburn, Chief of Police, Williston Police Department, Williston, 

Vermont, letter ..................................................................................................... 19

Gordon, Arthur, National Executive Board Officer, and Richard J. Gallo, 

National President, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, 

Lewisberry, PA, prepared statement .................................................................. 20

Johnson, David, Chief of Police, Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa, prepared statement ...................................................................... 27

Johnson, Wade M., Community Police Officer, Hinesburg Community Police, 

Hinesburg, Vermont, letter ................................................................................. 30

Kentucky State Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police, Martin D. Scott, Jr., State 

President, Louisville, Kentucky, letter ............................................................... 31

National Association of Police Organizations, Inc., Johnson, William J., Executive Director, prepared statement .................................................................... 39

Westphal, Lonnie, J., Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, Cherokee, Iowa, prepared statement ...................................................... 47

Young, Lt. Steve, National President, fraternal Order of Police, prepared 

statement and attachment .................................................................................. 52

(1)

S. 2480: LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 

SAFETY ACT 

TUESDAY, JULY 23, 2002

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:08 p.m., in Room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick Leahy, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Leahy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. I am pleased to hold this hearing today on the 

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. This is legislation to 

prevent current and retired Federal, State, and local law enforcement officers to carry their firearms to be prepared to assist in 

dangerous situations. 

There are 29 Senators, including Senator Baucus, who I know is 

coming from another matter and will be joining us on this, as well 

as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who go sort of 

across the spectrum. Senators Thurmond, McConnell, Edwards, 

Feinstein, Grassley, Sessions, Brownback, Cantwell, DeWine, and 

also Senator Harkin, the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, join with Senator Hatch and myself to cosponsor this bill. 

I introduced this measure as a companion to H.R. 218, sponsored 

by Representative Cunningham, who is here with us today. Congressman, I am told you have 267 cosponsors. I am not sure you 

could get 267 cosponsors, as fractious as things have been these 

days, to say the sun will rise in the East and set in the West, so 

it shows there is strong bipartisan support for this legislation. The 

Fraternal Order of Police strongly support it. 

There are currently 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded police 

death in 1792, there have been more than 15,000 officers killed in 

the line of duty. A total of 1,647 died in the line of duty over the 

last decade. That is an average of 165 deaths per year. Roughly 5 

percent of the officers that die are killed taking law enforcement 

action while in an off-duty capacity. An average of more than 

62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted each year. 

Until last year, violent crime in this country declined in each of 

the preceding 8 years. That has come at a high price, though. It 

has meant far more police work, especially community policing. 

2

So this Act is designed to protect officers and their families from 

vindictive criminals and to allow thousands of equipped, trained, 

and certified law enforcement officers, whether on or off duty or retired, to carry concealed firearms in most situations, thus enabling 

them to respond immediately to a crime. 

I might point out for those who think that a law enforcement officer either off-duty or retired ever faces a threat. We all know that 

happens all the time. It has been 28 years since I was in law enforcement and I still run into people who remember my kind words 

as they went off to the slammer for 15 or 20 or 25 years. I thought 

they would never live long enough to see them get out, but they 

are out. So I know the feeling. 

We have a number of letters of support from Vermont law enforcement officials, including Chief Osburn Glidden of Williston 

and Officer Wade Johnson of Hinesburg. 

I received calls of support for this measure from Chief Trevor 

Whipple of Barre, and I saw him on Saturday in Barre, and Captain Robert Hawke, the President of the Vermont Police Association. I have a statement endorsing this legislation from the National Organization of Police Organizations and the International 

Brotherhood of Police Officers. 

This is not one of those things that costs any money. We are just 

saying off-duty and retired officers should be permitted to carry 

their firearms across State and other jurisdictional lines. We are 

talking about qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers. Nobody is asking to just allow it. 

You have to hit the basic qualifications. And it preserves any State 

law that permits citizens from restricting a concealed firearm on 

private property and preserves any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government policy. 

But to qualify, a law enforcement officer has to be authorized to 

use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or she 

works, be in good standing, and meet standards established by the 

agency to regularly qualify to use a firearm. The officer has to have 

been retired in good standing, been employed at least 5 years as 

a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a servicerelated injury, have a non-forfeitable right to benefits under their 

retirement plan, and annually complete a State-approved firearms 

training course. I mean, these are tough requirements. It is not as 

though we are just going to arm half the world. You have to fit 

these requirements. 

I know that either current police officers or former police officers 

are never really off-duty. I look forward to hearing the testimony. 

I am delighted that Congressman Cunningham is here and I know 

that Steve Young, a good friend, the President of the Fraternal 

Order of Police, is here, who has spent a lot of time on this. We 

have had private discussions and others. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Congressman Cunningham, I will give away 

no secrets to mention the comment that the President made to the 

two of us that we either had a pretty good piece of legislation or 

one of us had not read it. 

[Laughter.] 

3

Chairman LEAHY. But I think we have put together a good coalition here and I am delighted and honored to have you here at the 

Committee. Please go ahead, sir. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY ‘‘DUKE’’ CUNNINGHAM, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would tell you 

that besides the cosponsors of the bill, when we did have an opportunity to vote on this bill in the House, it passed with 372 votes. 

It was tied to the juvenile justice bill, which unfortunately was at 

the end of the year and then the Senate was not able to take up. 

The gentlelady from New York, Mrs. McCarthy, who lost her husband to a handgun, is supportive of this bill. Mr. Schumer, who 

used to be in our body and is now joining you, as I understand it, 

is speaking in favor of this. So this has wide, not only bipartisan 

support, but support from different sides of particular issues. 

I cannot tell you how happy especially, Mr. Chairman, this 

makes me. Since 1992, I have been working this issue, waiting for 

you, not you specifically, but for this day to come where we could 

have a hearing on this, and I know the law enforcement agencies 

thank you, as well. 

Why have I fought so long? It is three simple reasons. It will 

make our community safer. It puts cops on the street, more cops 

on the street, at no cost to the taxpayers. It is a good piece of legislation. Many times, our law enforcement agents do not deal with 

the best part of our civilization, and when they put these guys 

away, sometimes these bad guys come back and want retribution. 

This also protects the law enforcement agents and their families, 

and I think you will see in the testimony today there are thousands 

of cases where law enforcement agents have been threatened, have 

been killed and maligned because they were not allowed to carry 

a weapon. 

This is so important. I think it was exemplified when we had 

thousands of law enforcement agents here this summer. You and 

I were invited among all the other Members of Congress to stand 

on the podium with agents on Law Enforcement Memorial Day 

with the President of the United States. That is how much they 

thought of this bill and you and what you are doing here today, 

and I again want to thank you. 

The passage of this legislation will make our communities safer 

by putting tens of thousands of law enforcement agents on the 

street, armed and capable of disrupting criminal efforts at places 

and times where there are currently not any. 

Additionally, this legislation will make our law enforcement officers themselves safer. I have heard testimony that supports this 

from law enforcement officers across the country, as I just previously mentioned. 

Finally, enactment of this measure will cost nothing to the taxpayer. It is a rarity these days to be able to have a positive, measurable effect on our communities without spending our tax dollars. 

When we do find a way, I believe it is incumbent on us to do so. 

Any community would relish the thought of being able to put more 

officers on the street. In fact, that is often the main plank of any 

4

crime reduction effort. Here is a way to do just that while preserving precious resources for other legislation. 

Again, I would like to offer you a challenge that we in the House 

hope we will pass this before you. That might be a bad bet on my 

side, but I think if you are able to pass this, it will put pressure 

on the Chairman in the House Judiciary to do so and I know the 

President will sign it right away. 

It is a good piece of legislation, Mr. Chairman, and God bless you 

for having this hearing today. 

Chairman LEAHY. I thank you for that. If you send it over here, 

I would ask the leader to hold it at the desk. I do not care whether 

it comes over with a House number or a Senate number, I just 

want to get it passed. So either way, we will try to move it very 

quickly. I will very quickly be putting it on the agenda in the Senate Judiciary Committee and we will move it on. 

I also know that you have got about 14 other places you are supposed to be, so——

Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I have got to over and testify on the supplemental that we are having on the floor right now, Senator, but 

thank you for this opportunity, and on behalf of law enforcement 

agencies, thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very, very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cunningham appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. The next panel will be Lieutenant Steve 

Young, the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, and 

Congressman Cunningham talked about the honor we had to be on 

the podium with Steve Young and the President. It was an honor 

in both cases. We also have Arthur Gordon, National Executive 

Board Member of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association from Woodbine, Maryland; Deputy Chief of Police David Johnson, Cedar Rapids Police Department, Cedar Rapids, Iowa; and 

Colonel Lonnie Westphal, Chief of the Colorado State Patrol in 

Denver, Colorado. 

Chief Westphal, I was recently out in Denver and received some 

logistical help from some of your folks and they were absolutely superb. I just wanted to mention that. 

Senator Grassley had intended to be here, but he is stuck on the 

floor, as sometimes happens. Especially because you are here, Chief 

John, he wanted to be here, but the nature of the bill that is on 

the floor, he is the ranking member and required to be there, and 

I am going to put a statement from him in the record in which, you 

will not be surprised to know, he praises you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I will also include in the record a statement 

from Senator Thurmond. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Thurmond appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. My good friend, Lieutenant Steve Young of 

Marion, Ohio, is here, and Steve, why do we not start with you. 

5

STATEMENT OF LIEUTENANT STEVE YOUNG, NATIONAL 

PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, MARION, OHIO 

Lieutenant YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon. As you said, my name is Steve Young. I am the National 

President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 

300,000 members. 

I want to begin by extending the sincere gratitude of our nation’s 

rank-and-file officers to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. The FOP is sincerely grateful to you and to Ranking Member 

Hatch for authoring S. 2480, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety 

Act, which is the subject of today’s hearing. 

I also want to recognize and thank Representative Randy ‘‘Duke’’ 

Cunningham for all of his efforts and hard work on this issue in 

the House. We have been working side by side with Mr. 

Cunningham for many years now and his commitment to the bill 

has never wavered. 

This bill is not about firearms, it is about officer safety, a fact 

recognized by you, Mr. Chairman, and the 11 members of this 

Committee who cosponsor it. I further believe that on September 

11, 2001, it became a critical public safety and homeland security 

issue. 

Immediately after the attacks, the ranks of volunteers in New 

York City, Pennsylvania, Northern Virginia, and Washington, D.C., 

were swelled by off-duty and retired law enforcement officers and 

other emergency services personnel from every region of the country who had come to volunteer their services. Many of the law enforcement officers who did so may have been in legal jeopardy. 

For instance, the State of New York and New York City restrict 

the ability of off-duty police officers from other jurisdictions to 

carry firearms. Across the river in New Jersey, officers not employed by that State were probably not exempt from New Jersey’s 

statute against unlawful possession of a firearm. In Pennsylvania, 

there is no exemption for out-of-State police officers. 

No other emergency response professional who chose to volunteer 

their professional expertise in response to the attacks on the 

United States faced any legal jeopardy for crossing a jurisdictional 

boundary, but law enforcement officers did. 

Among the many tools of a professional law enforcement officer 

are the badge and the gun. The badge symbolizes the officer’s authority, and in worst case scenarios, the gun enforces that authority. These tools are given to the officer in trust by the public to enforce the peace and fight crime. In asking Congress to pass this 

bill, we seek a measured extension of that trust. 

In certain situations, an officer’s knowledge and training would 

be rendered virtually useless without a firearm, as would his ability to provide for his own self-defense or that of his family. A police 

officer may not remember the name and face of every criminal he 

or she has arrested, but a convicted felon would certainly remember the officer who put them behind prison bars. These violent felons can and do target police officers and they do not care if the officer is in his or her own jurisdiction, nor do they care if the officer 

is in uniform or not, on duty or off, active or retired. 

6

We have compiled the names of 54 officers, all of whom were offduty when they were killed. Yet despite not being on the clock, the 

circumstances of their deaths qualified them as having died in the 

line of duty. To the best of our knowledge, these officers were unarmed when they answered the call. Some were killed when they 

placed themselves in harm’s way to help a victim or stop a crime 

in progress. Others were recognized or discovered to be police officers or identified themselves as such, prompting their assailants to 

kill them. 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like this document 

to be entered into the record. 

Chairman LEAHY. It will be. 

Lieutenant YOUNG. The fate of these 54 officers should remind 

all of us that law enforcement is a dangerous profession. There is 

no legislation, Act of Congress, or government regulation which will 

change this sobering fact. However, the adoption of S. 2480 will, at 

the very least, give officers who do choose to carry their firearms 

a chance to defend themselves and their families whenever and 

wherever the criminal may strike. 

I also want to share with you a happier example about an offduty officer who was legally carrying a firearm off-duty. His courage and heroism under fire earned him the recognition of Parade 

Magazine and the IACP, who named him ‘‘Police Officer of the 

Year’’ in 2000. 

Police Officer Dennis Devitte, a 20-year veteran of the Las Vegas 

Police Department, was off-duty at a sports bar late one evening 

when the establishment was attacked by three armed assailants, 

two of which opened fire on the crowd. Devitte did not hesitate. He 

pulled his tiny .25-caliber pistol, and knowing he would have to get 

very close to make sure he hit his target, charged a man firing a 

.40-caliber semi-automatic. Officer Devitte got within one foot, 

fired, and killed the gunman, but not before he was shot eight 

times. The remaining two gunmen fled the robbery and the robbery 

was thwarted. 

All six civilians wounded by the gunman recovered. One witness 

described Officer Devitte’s action as ‘‘the most courageous thing 

I’ve ever seen.’’ Although seriously injured, Officer Devitte was 

back on the job 6 months later. So it is ironic to me that the IACP 

would oppose this legislation when their own choice for ‘‘Police Officer of the Year’’ for 2000 earned this recognition for his heroic actions while he was off-duty and armed. Perhaps they will be able 

to explain this contradiction today. 

I also want to refute an argument raised by the bill’s opponents 

who object to this measure because it preempts State law. In the 

view of the FOP, the Congress has the power under the Full Faith 

and Credit Clause of the Constitution to extend full faith and credit to police officers who have met the criteria to carry firearms set 

by one State and make those credentials applicable in all States. 

The bill maintains the States’ power to set their own requirements 

for their officers in training and qualifying in the use of weapons. 

We believe that S. 2480 carefully defines who in law enforcement 

will not be able to carry a weapon under this bill. Active officers 

must admit to qualification standards established by the agency, 

and retired officers must requalify with their firearm at their own 

7

expense every 12 months and meet the same standards as active 

officers in the State in which they reside. This is a narrow universe 

of persons who are qualified and worthy of the measured extension 

of the trust that this legislation would provide. 

Further, Congress has previously acted to force States to recognize concealed carry permits by other States on the basis of employment. In June 1993, Congress passed P.L. 103–55, the Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act. This legislation mandated reciprocity for weapons’ licenses issued to armored car company crew 

members. Similarly, 2 weeks ago, the House voted overwhelmingly 

to create an exemption from State and local prohibitions on the 

carrying of firearm for airline pilots who volunteer to become Federal Flight Deck Officers. Mr. Chairman, if Congress can mandate 

that private security guards and airline pilots can carry in all 

States, I do not think it should balk at extending the same authority to fully sworn, fully trained law enforcement officers employed 

by government agencies. 

The aim of the bill, allowing qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry their firearms outside their jurisdiction, 

is not controversial. This legislation has widespread bipartisan support. The companion bill to S. 2480, H.R. 218, the Community Protection Act, currently has 261 sponsors. 

Just 2 years ago, the House passed an amendment identical to 

this bill on the floor by an overwhelming vote of 372 to 53. Though 

the underlying measure was defeated, it is clear that the House 

recognized the merits of this legislation and it is my hope that this 

Committee will, as well. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is an increasingly dangerous world that the men and women in blue are asked 

to patrol. We need the ability to defend ourselves against the very 

criminals that we pursue as part of our sworn duty because the 

dangers inherent to our profession do not end with the shift. Mr. 

Chairman and other Members of Congress and the administration, 

you saw firsthand the support of the rank-and-file officers for this 

measure on May 15 right here on the West Front of the Capitol. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the 

Committee today on this issue and I would certainly be pleased to 

answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Lieutenant. I would note it was 

not just the reaction of the officers on the West Front of the Capitol 

on that, but it is your own dedication and your own efforts on this, 

conversations you and I have had, my staff and you have had, and 

others, and the fact that you are pushing this as a basis to make 

our community safer and I appreciate that very much. 

Lieutenant YOUNG. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Lt. Young appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Gordon wants to testify on behalf of the 

Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and is an officer in 

that organization’s National Executive Board. He has had 27 years 

as an ATF agent. He has been a firearms instructor for the ATF 

for 17 years, which means he can shoot probably a lot better than 

I can. He served in ATF’s headquarters in firearms training for 

two-and-a-half years. He has helped to write many of the current 

8

firearms training courses currently used by the agents nationwide, 

so I appreciate both your service and your expertise. Welcome, Mr. 

Gordon. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR GORDON, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE 

BOARD MEMBER, FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS 

ASSOCIATION, WOODBINE, MARYLAND 

Mr. GORDON. Thank you. On behalf of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, we thank the Chairman, ranking member, and members of the Committee for inviting us. We are pleased 

to be here today to express our support for S. 2480, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002, a common sense, bipartisan 

legislative proposal that will enable retired Federal agents to defend themselves and their families as well as to continue to protect 

the American citizens. 

My name is Art Gordon. I am a member of the National Executive Board of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, a 

professional association made up of volunteers exclusively representing criminal investigators, the special agents from the Department of Justice, the Department of Treasury, and many other 

Federal agencies. There are approximately 32,000 Federal agents 

in America. Although I am an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms, Baltimore Field Division, I am not here 

today representing the agency, only FLEOA. 

Personally, I have 27 years of service as an ATF agent and have 

been a firearms instructor for ATF for 17 years. In addition, I have 

served in ATF’s headquarters firearms training program for twoand-a-half years, where I assisted in writing many of the current 

firearms training courses currently used by ATF agents across the 

country. I have been eligible to retire for the past 2 years. 

FLEOA supports the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 

2002, S. 2480, for several reasons. One of these reasons is for exactly what the title of the bill states, law enforcement officer safety. 

Over the years, every Federal agent from every single agency has 

arrested people who only remember the face of the agent who arrested him or her. Being arrested means someone getting into your 

face. We get into people’s faces. We also have to process the person 

through the criminal justice system and sometimes testify against 

them in court. 

Over the years, an agent can do this hundreds of times and the 

face of the people arrested can blur. However, for the people only 

getting arrested once, twice, or even a half-dozen times, those days 

tend to stand out in their memory. The ultimate nightmare for an 

agent is to be walking with his or her family and be approached 

by someone who states, ‘‘Hey, agent, remember me?’’ These are the 

words that would make any cop’s heart skip a beat until we learn 

if the person is friend or foe. If the person has nefarious intentions 

and the agent is retired, well, let us say that is a nightmare we 

do not want to see the conclusion of. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 will give the 

retired agent not only the chance to totally defend him or herself, 

but will also permit them to protect any citizen if they stumble 

across a crime occurring. Back in 1999, Senator Grassley authored 

the Federal Law Enforcement Good Samaritan Act. The ComVerDate Mar 21 2002 11:32 Jun 11, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\HEARINGS\87413.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
9

mittee, under the leadership of Senators Hatch and Leahy, approved the legislative proposal and it was signed into law. This law 

allowed Federal agents to take reasonable action for a crime that 

occurs in their presence while we are off-duty. 

S. 2480 is an extension of this common sense law, for if I retired 

yesterday, is there any difference in me today? A Federal agent 

usually qualifies with their everyday firearm at least four times a 

year and qualifies with various other weapons throughout each 

year. Also included in the training exercise are shoot/don’t shoot 

scenarios and the legal aspects of using deadly force. 

The current requirement for Federal agents hired before 1984 to 

retire is 20 years of service and to be the age of 50. For agents 

hired after 1984, they can retire with 25 years of service at any age 

or 20 years of service at the age of 50. I am sure all present here 

today will agree that life does not end at 50. There are many more 

productive years left. In fact, many Federal agents continue in 

their profession either working as private investigators, or with 

State or local criminal justice agencies, or become teachers utilizing 

their expertise in the field to instruct the next generation. 

Once you count the initial training at Quantico, Virginia, or 

Glynco, Georgia, add in four times a year firearms qualification, 

plus the multitude of other training course, this results in an investment that the American citizen deserves to continue to get 

something back from. 

At the start of every Congressional session, FLEOA surveys its 

members, querying them on what issues are important to them. 

For each of the past few Congressional sessions, this issue has been 

in the top three. FLEOA has approximately 60 chapters across 

America, and over the years the President of FLEOA has attended 

hundreds of chapter meetings. This issue has always been one that 

members have brought up because they truly have been concerned 

about this. 

For all these reasons, FLEOA believes S. 2480 should be approved in this Committee and on the full floor of the Senate and 

signed into law. 

On behalf of Mike Miskinis, Chapter President of FLEOA’s Utah 

Chapter, retired Secret Service agent; Frank Puleo, Chapter President of FLEOA’s Vermont Chapter, currently an agent with HHS 

OIG but also a future retiree; and for all the members of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, I thank you for holding 

this hearing today and I look forward to answering any questions 

of the Committee. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you for your remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gordon appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I will now turn to Senator Baucus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It was 

not too many years ago I was sitting next to you on this Committee. 

Chairman LEAHY. We still miss you. 

10

Senator BAUCUS. I miss this Committee. This Committee was 

probably—I enjoyed as much and had more fun in just trying to address just basic constitutional issues that really affect and go to the 

heart of our country, and I thank you for the great job you are 

doing in conducting and chairing this Committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I also thank you in the spirit of being a great 

leader of this Committee for allowing me to testify on the bill that 

you have introduced, which I think is very needed and very important, particularly at this time. 

This bill, I think, will pay enormous dividends for the American 

people. It will allow qualified active duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry their weapons regardless of State and local 

restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, to allow these officers 

to carry their weapons across State and other jurisdictional lines. 

The legislation also addresses a critical officer safety and public 

safety need. Law enforcement officers are trained. They are trained 

professionals. They are dedicated, dedicated public servants, sworn 

to uphold the law and protect the citizens of our country. They are 

always on duty, even when they are not in uniform or patrolling 

a beat. After September 11, the role of law enforcement officers in 

our communities is even more important as they constitute our 

front-line defense against terrorism here at home. 

It just makes sense to be sure that law enforcement officers have 

the means to protect themselves and the public at all times, because they could be called upon to protect themselves or the public 

at any time. Particularly, it makes sense in rural States like mine 

of Montana, where law enforcement officers are stretched thin, 

there is so much territory to cover. 

Your bill also will enhance public safety by allowing the nation 

to tap into the wealth of training and knowledge that is our law 

enforcement community, without costing our Federal taxpayers a 

dime. Law enforcement officers have training. They have expertise 

in detecting and preventing the crime that ordinary citizens just do 

not have. The bill also makes sure that officers can maximize that 

training in the event of an emergency, regardless of jurisdiction 

and regardless of whether an officer was officially on duty. 

And, it does a good job of balancing the rights of States and private citizens by preserving State laws that permit private citizens 

to prohibit concealed weapons on their own property, and State 

laws that ban firearms on State or local property. 

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for your bill. I think it is very 

timely, it is very important, and I hope that your Committee, Mr. 

Chairman, can mark this up quickly and get it out quickly on the 

floor because it is part of the major effort that we now need to undertake just to better protect ourselves in America, and I thank 

you again very much for what you are doing. 

Chairman LEAHY. I thank you very much. I thank you for your 

strong support of it and I am hoping we can get it out of the Committee at our next markup and quickly on the consent calendar. 

Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Good. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I know you are supposed to be, as I said earlier, at another meeting. I appreciate you taking the time to come 

by. 

11

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Colonel Westphal, you are here representing 

the IACP and you are currently Vice President, am I correct in 

that? 

Col. Westphal. That is correct, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. You were appointed to the position of Chief of 

the Colorado State Patrol in October 1995. You had served with 

them for 21 years before that, since 1974, the year that I was ending my law enforcement career. Please go ahead, Colonel. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL LONNIE J. WESTPHAL, CHIEF, 

COLORADO STATE PATROL, DENVER, COLORADO 

Col. Westphal. Good afternoon, Senator Leahy. I am pleased to 

be here this afternoon to present the views of the International Association of Chiefs of Police on S. 2480, 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 the Committee for your continuing support of the nation’s law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers. 

I sort of feel like, Senator, the only red tree in a forest of pine 

trees today——

[Laughter.] 

Col. Westphal.—but as you know, the IACP has some serious 

concerns with 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 

community. 

Over the years, the IACP has consistently opposed any Federal 

legislative proposals that would either preempt and/or mandate the 

liberalization of an individual State’s laws that would allow citizens of other States to carry concealed weapons in that State 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 community. This applies to the 

laws covering private citizens as well as active and former law enforcement personnel. The IACP also believes that each State should 

retain the power to determine whether they want police officers 

that are trained and supervised by agencies outside of 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 with strict standards 

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 this legislation may have on the safety of 

our officers and our community. There can be no doubt that police 

12

executives are deeply concerned for the safety of our officers. We 

understand the proponents of S. 2480 contend that police officers 

need to protect themselves and their families while traveling and 

that undercover officers may be targets if recognized on vacation 

and travel. These are certainly considerations, but they must be 

balanced against the potential dangers involved. 

In fact, one of the reasons that this legislation was especially 

troubling to our nation’s law enforcement executives is because 

they could, in fact, threaten the safety of officers by creating tragic 

situations where officers from other jurisdictions are wounded or 

killed by 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 actions 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 retirees 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 the 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 an off-duty officer who uses 

or misuses their weapon while out of State. If an off-duty officer 

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 that State. The resources that mounting this defense 

would require could be better spent serving the communities we 

represent. 

13

In conclusion, I would like to state the IACP understands that 

at first glace, 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 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, Senator and Mr. Chairman, I will 

respond to any questions. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Col. Westphal appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Next, we will hear from Deputy Chief of Police 

David Johnson, from the Cedar Rapids Police Department in Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID JOHNSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE, 

CEDAR RAPIDS POLICE DEPARTMENT, CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the Senate Committee 

on the Judiciary, my name is David Johnson and I am currently 

the Deputy Chief of Police in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I have been a 

police officer for over 30 years and my career as a cop started right 

here in Washington, D.C. 

In 1971, I logged my first patrol as a police officer in the Washington Metropolitan Police Department in the Seventh District. 

Since 1974, I have been with the Cedar Rapids Police Department. 

I am a past President of the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police 

and Peace Officers and I am also a life member of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 is an idea first 

introduced to Congress 10 years ago. In 1992, H.R. 4897, the first 

version of this legislation, was born with a bipartisan introduction 

by Congressman Cunningham of California and Congressman 

Ralph Hall of Texas. 

In the decades since then, the support for this legislation has 

grown dramatically. Today, it is still a bipartisan effort with strong 

support from both sides of the aisle in the House, the Senate, and 

in this very Committee, where a bipartisan majority of ten Senators have signed on as cosponsors. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I would like to 

share with you a few examples of just how vital this legislation is 

to the safety of police officers and our community. Police officers 

like doctors, fire fighters, and other emergency personnel are never 

really off-duty. In some States, it is the law. These public servants 

perform countless acts of courage and face many moments of danger well after they have finished their shift, and some even after 

they have ended their tour of duty. 

Consider the story of Officer Wendell Smith, Jr., a veteran of the 

Washington Metropolitan Police Department. Officer Smith worked 

here in the District of Columbia, but he lived in the State of Maryland. When returning home after his shift in February 1997, Officer Smith was robbed at gunpoint. Just hours before, this officer 

with his gun on his side might have been able to have a fighting 

chance. But without legislation such as S. 2480 in place, Officer 

14

Smith was barred from carrying his firearm and had to secure it 

out of reach. When the robbers discovered his badge and realized 

that he as a police officer, they executed him in cold blood. Officer 

Smith was killed because he was forced to be unarmed. On the day 

of this officer’s murder, the legislation that could have saved his 

life had been sitting idle in Congress for 5 years. Now, 10 years 

after its introduction, it is still not law. 

In March of 2001, a student opened fire at a high school in San 

Diego, California. However, the shooter was not the only person 

with a gun. Off-duty San Diego police officer Robert Clark was also 

on campus, running an errand. When he heard the shots, he immediately took action, drew his concealed firearm, and ran to the 

scene of the crime. He confronted the shooter in the school bathroom and held him at gunpoint, preventing the shooter from entering the hallway and continuing the massacre. 

When on-duty officers arrived for back-up, Officer Clark worked 

with the two deputies—deputies from a different law enforcement 

agency than his, I might add—to disarm the shooter and take him 

into custody. Once the scene was secured, Officer Clark then administered first aid to the two shooting victims found in the bathroom. For his bravery, Officer Robert Clark was given his department’s highest honor. 

There is not enough time left in this hearing or even in this session of Congress to share with you every heroic story of off-duty or 

retired officers intervening to save lives. You have heard some from 

me, and certainly you have heard stories from your constituents 

about how this legislation can and will save lives. 

Since September 11, our entire nation has been forced to rethink 

our vigilance for the safety of our borders, our communities, our 

families, and ourselves. We do not know if, when, or how terror will 

strike again. What we do know is that in any given time of day, 

roughly 70 percent of our nation’s police officers are off duty. S. 

2480 can empower those off-duty officers, plus the countless 

trained and qualified law enforcement officers, with the tools they 

need to make a difference. 

This is homeland security that does not require us to trample on 

civil liberties, homeland security that can be done without playing 

musical chairs with Federal public safety personnel, and homeland 

security that will not bust the budget. That is one of the reasons 

why this bill is so widely supported by Democrats, Republicans, 

and Independents. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I thank you for 

giving this legislation a hearing and allowing me to testify today. 

On behalf of myself, fellow members of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, and police officers everywhere, I would ask your 

help in seeing to it that S. 2480 becomes law this year. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I need to remember to turn my microphone on. 

We just had these new microphones installed. You turn them on 

or off. Why do we turn them on or off? We sometimes found, with 

Senator’s very busy times, sometimes they only get together actually during these Committee meetings and sometimes there are 

15

those who have heard a new joke, and sometimes they are whispering, and sometimes they get calls from their constituents saying, what are you doing? This would never happen to police officers. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman LEAHY. You would never have something over an open 

microphone, like in a car or something, that you wish had not been 

heard. So now we have to turn them on and off. 

I have a statement by Senator Hatch which will go in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. What I will do, because other Senators are unable to come, we will take this testimony and submit questions for 

the record. 

I would note also that tomorrow marks the fourth anniversary of 

the shooting of two Capitol Police Officers, Officer Jacob Chestnut 

and Detective John Gibson, who were slain in the line of duty 

while protecting the Capitol in 1998. I knew both those officers 

well. At 3 tomorrow afternoon, there is a short memorial service at 

what we now call the Memorial Door over at the Capitol. I intend 

to be there and others will. 

What we have been doing is usually both the House and the Senate pause for a moment of reflection, if we are having a debate, for 

these two officers. It kind of reminds us right at home, even in a 

place like the United States Capitol, which is usually considered 

the most safe place anywhere, that dangers lurk even here. In this 

case, it was the officers who died defending the Members of Congress and those who come here. It would be hard to know two better or nicer officers than those two. 

I recall the day very well. I was on the plane back to Vermont 

and got off the plane and was met by a staff member in my office 

in Vermont with a very shocked look on his face who gave me the 

news. One of the officers, I had seen just that morning. I said, this 

is not possible. Unfortunately, it was possible. 

So we know these things happen, and I appreciate the service of 

all of you, Colonel, Deputy Chief, Mr. Gordon, Lieutenant Young. 

Those of us in civilian life do not often take time to say thank you. 

For those of us who had the opportunity to serve in law enforcement, as I did, we know the thanks are due, but let me say on behalf of the whole Committee, again, is the one thing that every one 

of us would join on this Committee, Republican and Democrat, is 

to say thank you. 

We will stand in recess. 

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the record follow.]

16

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD


87413.003
17


87413.004
18


87413.005
19


87413.006
20


87413.007
21


87413.008
22


87413.009
23


87413.010
24


87413.011
25


87413.012
26


87413.013
27


87413.014
28


87413.015
29


87413.016
30


87413.017
31


87413.024
32


87413.025
33


87413.018
34


87413.019
35


87413.020
36


87413.021
37


87413.022
38


87413.023
39


87413.026
40


87413.027
41


87413.028
42


87413.029
43


87413.030
44


87413.031
45


87413.032
46


87413.033
47


87413.035
48


87413.036
49


87413.037
50


87413.038
51


87413.039
52


87413.040
53


87413.041
54


87413.042
55


87413.043
56


87413.044
57


87413.045
58


87413.046
59


87413.047
60


87413.048
61


87413.049
62


87413.050
63


87413.051
64


87413.052
65


87413.053
66


87413.054
67

Æ


87413.055