19–010

Calendar No. 761

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 2d Session 107–345

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2002

NOVEMBER 19, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. LEAHY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 2480] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the bill 

(S. 2480) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified 

current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms, having considered the 

same, reports favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill, as 

amended, do pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Purpose ........................................................................................................... 1

II. Background on the Legislation ..................................................................... 2

III. Need for the Legislation ................................................................................ 2

IV. Hearings ......................................................................................................... 5

V. Committee Consideration .............................................................................. 5

VI. Votes of the Committee ................................................................................. 6

VII. Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion ................................................ 6

VIII. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................ 7

IX. Regulatory Impact Statement ....................................................................... 8

X. Minority View of Senator Kennedy .............................................................. 9

XI. Changes in Existing Law .............................................................................. 14

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 2480, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety 

Act of 2002,’’ is to amend title 18, United States Code, to authorize 

2

qualified off-duty law enforcement officers and qualified retired law 

enforcement officers carrying the photographic identification issued 

by the governmental agency for which the individual is, or was, 

employed as a law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm 

that has been shipped or transported to interstate or foreign commerce. This act, however, does not seek to supersede Federal law 

or limit the laws of any State that permits private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possessions of concealed firearms on 

their property; or prohibits or restricts the possession of firearms 

on any State or local government property, installation, building, 

base, or park. 

II. BACKGROUND ON THE LEGISLATION

The ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act,’’ S. 2480, was introduced by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senate 

Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Member Hatch on May 

8, 2002. Forty-one Senators—including Senate Judiciary Committee members Thurmond, McConnell, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Sessions, Brownback, Cantwell, DeWine and Kyl—have cosponsored the bill in an effort to make communities safer and to better 

protect law enforcement officers and their families. 

Representative Randy ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham first introduced similar legislation in the 102nd Congress as the National Police and 

Peace Officer Protection Act,’’ H.R. 4897, which was cosponsored by 

15 House Members. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice for consideration, but the Subcommittee took no action on the bills. 

Representative Cunningham reintroduced versions of this legislation in the House in the 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th, and 107th 

Congresses. In the 105th Congress, as the ‘‘Community Protection 

Act,’’ this legislation was ordered to be reported, as amended, by 

voice vote by the House Judiciary Committee and placed on the 

Union Calendar. No further action, however, was taken on the bill 

in the 105th Congress. In 1999, the House of Representatives 

adopted similar legislation, by a vote of 372–53, as a floor amendment during its gun safety debate before the overall legislation was 

defeated. 

For the 107th Congress, Representative Cunningham reintroduced the ‘‘Community Protection Act,’’ H.R. 218 on January 3, 

2001, and it has garnered 268 cosponsors. On November 11, 2001, 

a motion was filed to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of H. Res. 271, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 

218. The discharge petition (No. 107–4) presently has 46 of the required 218 signatures for further action. 

III. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

Chairman Leahy introduced the ‘‘Local Law Enforcement Officers 

Safety Act’’ in the Senate at the request of the National President 

of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Lieutenant Steve Young of 

Ohio. Lt. Young and the FOP have long dedicated themselves to 

this matter, and led the campaign to focus Congress on this measure that will help make our communities safer and protect those 

who are sworn to guard and serve the American public.

3

1 ‘‘The Officer Down Memorial Page, Inc.’’ See http://www.odmp.org/. See also ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted—2001 (Preliminary).’’ U.S. Department of Justice, Federal 

Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports. 

Law enforcement officers are never ‘‘off-duty.’’ They are dedicated 

public servants trained to uphold the law and keep the peace. 

When there is a threat to the peace or to our public safety, law enforcement officers are sworn to answer that call. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act enables law enforcement officers nationwide to be armed and prepared when they answer that call, no 

matter where, when, or in what form it comes. 

There are approximately 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 16,200 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,800 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty over the last decade, an average of 180 deaths per year. In 2001 alone, there were 232 police 

deaths, representing a 49-percent increase from the 156 officers 

who died in 2000. Roughly 5 percent of officers who die are killed 

taking law enforcement action while in an off-duty capacity. On average, more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted 

each year, resulting in some 21,000 injuries.1

While a police officer may not remember the name and face of 

every criminal he or she has locked behind bars, criminals often 

have long and exacting memories. A law enforcement officer is a 

target in uniform and out; active and retired; on duty and off. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 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-duty, off-duty or retired, to carry concealed 

firearms in most situations, thus enabling them to respond immediately to a crime across State and other jurisdictional lines. 

As Lt. Steve Young stated in his July 23, 2002, testimony before 

the Senate Judiciary Committee:

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 emergency circumstances, 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. This bill will provide the means for law enforcement officers to enforce the law, keep the peace and respond to crisis situations by enabling them to put to use 

that training and answer the call to duty when need 

arises.

Today, a complex patchwork of Federal, State, and local laws 

govern the carrying of concealed firearms for current and retired 

law enforcement officers. Many members of the law enforcement 

community, including the FOP, the National Association of Police 

Officers (NAPO), Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 

(FLEOA), and International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO), 

4

believe that national legislation is necessary because of this patchwork of conceal-carry laws. This bill addresses this need by establishing national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit 

law enforcement officers to respond immediately to a crime when 

off duty, as well as to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act creates a mechanism 

by which law enforcement officers may travel interstate with a firearm. Qualified active-duty law enforcement officers will be permitted to travel interstate with a firearm subject to certain limitations and provided that officers are carrying their official badges 

and photographic identification. 

Generally, an active-duty officer is qualified to carry a concealed 

firearm under S. 2480 if he or she is authorized to engage in or 

supervise any violation of law, is authorized to carry a firearm at 

all times, is not subject to any disciplinary action by the agency, 

and meets any agency standards with respect to qualification with 

a firearm. A qualified active-duty officer may not, however, carry 

a concealed firearm on any privately owned lands if the owner prohibits or restricts such possession. A qualified officer also may not 

carry a firearm on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park. In his or her official capacity, though, 

a law enforcement officer is permitted to carry weapons whenever 

Federal, State, or local law allows. This bill is not intended to 

interfere with any law enforcement officer’s right to carry a concealed firearm, on private or government property, while on duty 

or in the course of official business. 

Off-duty and retired officers should also be permitted to carry 

their firearms across State and other jurisdictional lines, at no cost 

to taxpayers, in order better to serve and protect our communities. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act would permit qualified 

law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers across the Nation to carry concealed firearms in most situations. It also preserves, however, 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 property. 

In order to qualify for the bill’s exemptions in permitting a qualified off-duty law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm 

notwithstanding the law of the State or political subdivision of the 

State, a qualified off-duty law enforcement officer must be authorized to use a firearm by the law enforcement agency where he or 

she works, not be subject to any disciplinary action, meet the 

standards of the agency to regularly use a firearm, not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be carrying a 

photo identification issued by the agency. The bill preserves any 

State law that restricts concealed firearms on private property, and 

preserves any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm 

on State or local government property or park. 

For a retired law enforcement officer to qualify for exemption 

from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms, he 

or she must have retired in good standing, have been qualified by 

the agency to carry or use a firearm, have been employed at least 

15 years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to 

a service-connected disability, have a nonforfeitable right to retireVerDate 0ct 31 2002 21:38 Nov 21, 2002 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR345.XXX SR345
5

ment plan benefits of the law enforcement agency, meet the same 

State firearms training and qualifications as an active officer, not 

be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This section preserves any State law that restricts concealed firearms on private 

property and preserves any State law that restricts the possession 

of a firearm on State or local government property or park.

IV. HEARINGS

The Senate Judiciary Committee held one hearing on ‘‘The Law 

Enforcement Officers Safety Act, S. 2480,’’ on July 23, 2002. Testimony was received from six witnesses, including Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Representative Cunningham. The other witnesses were: Lt. Steve Young, national president of the Fraternal 

Order of Police; Mr. Arthur Gordon, a national executive board 

member of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association; Deputy Chief of Police David Johnson of the Cedar Rapids Police Department in Cedar Rapids, IA; and Col. Lonnie J. Westphal, chief 

of the Colorado State Patrol. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On September 19, 2002, the Judiciary Committee met in open 

and executive session to consider S. 2480, the ‘‘Law Enforcement 

Officers Safety Act.’’

The Committee approved by voice vote an amendment introduced 

by Senator Durbin. The Durbin amendment increased the service 

requirement for a retired officer to qualify to carry a concealed firearm under the bill from 5 years to 15 years of regular employment 

for a law enforcement agency. The Durbin amendment also requires retired officers to meet the same firearms training qualifications as active law enforcement officers. Finally, the Durbin 

amendment makes it explicit that an active officer does not qualify 

under the bill if he or she is prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. 

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to bar officers from carrying a concealed firearm into another State unless they were permitted to carry that particular firearm while on active duty. The 

Committee, on a 9 to 9 rollcall vote, defeated this amendment. The 

Committee did not complete consideration of S. 2480 on September 

19. 

On October 8, 2002, the Committee continued consideration of S. 

2480 but did not complete consideration of the bill. 

On November 14, 2002, the Committee adopted, without objection, an amendment by Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch to 

clarify that the legislation does not cover any machine gun (as defined in section 5845 of title 26), any firearm silencer (as defined 

in section 921 of title 18) and any destructive device (as defined in 

section 921 of title 18). The Committee then ordered the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act to be reported favorably to the full 

Senate, with Senator Kennedy dissenting, with a recommendation 

that the bill do pass. 

6

VI. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE

The Committee approved by voice vote the amendment by Senator Durbin. 

The rollcall vote on the amendment by Senator Kennedy barring 

officers from carrying any concealed firearm unless the officer was 

authorized and qualified to carry that same firearm was as follows: 

Tally: 9 Yes, 9 No, 1 Not Voting 

Democrats (10) 

N Leahy (D-VT.) 

Y Kennedy (D-Mass.) 

Y Biden (D-Del.) 

Y Kohl (D-Wis.) 

Y Feinstein (D-Calif.) 

Y Feingold (D-Wis.) 

Y Schumer (D-N.Y.) 

Y Durbin (D-Ill.) 

Y Cantwell (D-Wash.) 

NV Edwards (D-N.C.) 

Republicans (9) 

N Hatch (R-Utah) 

N Thurmond (R-S.C.) 

N Grassley (R-Iowa) 

Y Specter (R-Pa.) 

N Kyl (R-Ariz.) 

N DeWine (R-Ohio) 

N Sessions (R-Ala.) 

N Brownback (R-Kan.) 

N McConnell (R-Ky.)

The Committee approved without objection the amendment by 

Senator Leahy and Senator Hatch regarding the types of firearms 

covered by the legislation. 

The Committee then ordered the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, as amended, to be reported favorably to the full Senate, 

with Senator Kennedy dissenting, with a recommendation that the 

bill do pass. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 provides that the short title of the bill shall be the Law 

Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002. 

Section 2. Exemption of qualified law enforcement officers from 

State law prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms 

Section 2 would permit qualified law enforcement officers to 

carry a concealed firearm notwithstanding the law of the State or 

political subdivision of the State. A qualified law enforcement officer under this section must be authorized to use a firearm by the 

law enforcement agency where he or she works, not be subject to 

any disciplinary action, meet the standards of the agency to regularly use a firearm, not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving 

a firearm, and be carrying a photo identification issued by the 

7

agency. This section preserves any State law that restricts concealed firearms on private property and preserves any State law 

that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government property or park. This section does not supercede any other 

Federal law. 

Section 3. Exemption of qualified retired law enforcement officers 

from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms 

Section 3 would permit a qualified retired law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm notwithstanding the law of the 

State or political subdivision of the State. A qualified retired law 

enforcement officer under this section must have retired in good 

standing, have been qualified by the agency to carry or use a firearm, have been employed at least 15 years as a law enforcement 

officer unless forced to retire due to a service-connected disability, 

have a nonforfeitable right to retirement plan benefits of the law 

enforcement agency, annually meet State firearms training and 

qualifications that are the same as active law enforcement officers, 

not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, and be 

carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This section 

preserves any State law that permits or restricts concealed firearms on private property and preserves any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on State or local government 

property or park. This section does not supercede any other Federal 

law. 

VIII. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the standing 

rules of the Senate, the Committee sets forth, with respect to the 

bill, S. 2480, the following estimate and comparison prepared by 

the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 403 

of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, November 19, 2002. 

Hon. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2480, the Law Enforcement 

Officers Safety Act of 2002. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Mark Grabowicz (for 

federal costs) and Angela Seitz (for the state and local impact). 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT A. SUNSHINE

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure. 

S. 2480—Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002

S. 2480 would exempt certain current and former law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed 

handguns. CBO estimates that the bill would have no impact on 

8

federal spending. The legislation would not affect direct spending 

or receipts. 

S. 2480 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would 

preempt certain state and local laws that prohibit carrying concealed weapons. CBO estimates that complying with that mandate 

would result in no direct costs to state and local governments, and 

thus the costs of that mandate would not exceed the threshold established by that act ($58 million in 2002, adjusted annually for inflation). S. 2480 contains no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for 

federal costs) and Angela Seitz (for the impact on state and local 

governments). This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, 

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

IX. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with paragraph 11(b)(1), rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, after due consideration, 

concludes that S. 2480 will not have significant regulatory impact. 

(9)

X. MINORITY VIEW OF SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY 

The horrific sniper shootings in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia in October 2002 called our attention once again 

to the problem of gun violence facing our nation: the pointless injury and loss of life, the families that are ripped apart, the communities consumed in fear. Tens of thousands of people in the United 

States die from gunshot wounds each year. The rate of firearm 

deaths among children is nearly twelve times higher in the United 

States than in other industrial countries. 

The national response to this death toll has been minimal. Americans overwhelmingly favor responsible gun-safety measures. Nevertheless, Congress has to this point failed to close the ‘‘gun show 

loophole,’’ which allows firearms to be purchased illegally at gun 

shows, no questions asked. Similarly, efforts to enact a national 

ballistic tracking system, which would strengthen the ability of law 

enforcement to catch serial killers, have stalled. 

Instead of pursuing such needed gun-safety measures, the Judiciary Committee has passed S. 2480, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers 

Safety Act,’’ a bill that would undermine gun-safety laws that have 

been passed by State and local governments. It is a giant step in 

the wrong direction. 

The Majority argues that S. 2480 is necessary to protect active 

and retired officers and their families from ‘‘vindictive’’ criminals. 

It points to ‘‘a complex patchwork of Federal, state and local laws’’

that govern the carrying of concealed weapons. However, while the 

safety of police officers is a goal of the highest importance, there 

is no evidence that a national override of State and local gun-safety 

laws is necessary to achieve this goal. 

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), the primary supporter of 

this bill, has submitted two lists of officers and prison guards who 

were killed while off-duty or retired. The stories of these slain men 

and women are tragic. Their killers deserve to be severely punished. But not one of these incidents involved an officer who was 

killed outside his or her home state. Indeed, these lists show that 

States and local governments are best equipped to implement policies, regulations, and laws that protect the safety of their own law 

enforcement officers, and also protect the public at large. 

Consider one of the FOP’s most recent examples. In New Jersey, 

retired police chief John Deventer was shot while heroically trying 

to stop a robbery. This incident prompted New Jersey to enact a 

law allowing retired officers to carry handguns under a number of 

conditions. In drafting this law, now codified at N.J.S.A. 2C:39– 6(1), the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance 

the safety of police officers with the safety of the public at large. 

The Majority offers no reason why Congress shall second-guess this 

State’s decision, or the considered judgment of any other State—

particularly when S. 2480 fails to provide the basic safeguards that 

10

the New Jersey legislature considered necessary even in the wake 

of Chief Deventer’s shooting. Unlike New Jersey’s statute, S. 2480: 

• does not set a maximum age; 

• does not have an annual application process; 

• does not require retirees to list all their guns; 

• does not give police departments discretion to deny permits; and 

• is not limited to handguns. 

A comparison of the balanced New Jersey statute with the 

sweeping approach of S. 2480 argues against, not for, enactment of 

this federal legislation. 

The Majority claims that it is advancing the interests of law enforcement by allowing off-duty and retired officers ‘‘to carry their 

firearms across State and other jurisdiction lines * * * in order 

better to serve and protect our communities.’’ I strongly favor giving State and local police departments all the resources they need 

to fight and prevent crime. I am proud to have played a leading 

role in increasing by more than 100,000 the number of police officers in our communities through the 1994 Crime Act. I question, 

however, the Majority’s assertion that communities will be safer if 

we override gun-safety laws for the purpose of arming out-of-State 

off-duty and retired police officers. The evidence is to the contrary. 

S. 2480 is strongly opposed by the Police Executive Research 

Forum and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). 

These law enforcement organizations understand the potential of 

this bill to undermine the safety of our communities and the safety 

of police officers. As Colonel Lonnie Westphal of the IACP stated 

in testimony to our Committee in July:

[O]ne of the reasons that this legislation is especially 

troubling to our nation’s law enforcement executives is because [it] could in fact threaten the safety of police officers 

by creating tragic situations where officers 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.

S. 2480 does not simply override State law for active police officers. It does so for retired officers also—and, indeed, for anyone 

who has served in a law enforcement capacity for fifteen years in 

the ‘‘aggregate’’—before resigning and moving on to a different job. 

There is no requirement that a retiree demonstrate a special need 

for a firearm.

While S. 2480 provides that an officer must have technically left 

law enforcement in ‘‘good standing,’’ it is well known that sub-par 

employees can be released from their jobs without a formal finding 

of misconduct. This bill does not draw a distinction between officers 

who served ably and those who did not. Officers who retire in ‘‘good 

standing’’ while under investigation for domestic violence, racial 

11

profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could still qualify for 

broad concealed-carry authority for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, as the IACP has observed:

[T]his 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.

Indeed, although Senator Durbin’s amendment of September 19 

clarified somewhat the firearms training standards that retired officers must meet, these officers will not be subject to any continuing police department policies or guidelines. Thus, if it passes 

this bill, Congress will be effectively extending to former police officers greater authority to carry concealed weapons than it extends 

to active police officers. 

Furthermore, in granting off-duty and retired police officers 

broad authority to violate State and local gun-safety laws, S. 2480 

is not limited to the carrying of officers’ authorized weapons. In 

most police departments, officers may seek authorization to carry 

a range of weapons. If an officer wants to carry a weapon other 

than his service weapon—typically, a nine-millimeter semi-automatic pistol—he must show that he is qualified before the department will authorize him to carry it. To be qualified, the officer 

must demonstrate that he can handle that weapon safely. 

Rather than limiting itself to authorized weapons, the initial 

version of S. 2480 provided that so long as an officer received authorization to carry a particular kind of firearm (such as his service 

weapon), he could carry concealed any other kind of firearm while 

off-duty or retired—even if he never received authorization from 

his own police department to carry that weapon, and regardless of 

all applicable State and local laws. Even worse, under federal law 

the term ‘‘firearm’’ is defined extremely broadly. It includes ‘‘any 

weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or 

may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an 

explosive’’—and ‘‘any destructive device.’’ 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). 

Thus, under the initial version of S. 2480, so long as an officer had 

been at some point authorized to use his service weapon on the job, 

he could carry a concealed bomb or grenade while off-duty. 

On September 19, 2002, I introduced an amendment providing 

that an off-duty or retired officer could carry a concealed firearm 

only if he had been authorized to carry that firearm by the agency 

he works for, or if he had been so authorized at the time of his retirement. The Committee rejected this amendment by an evenly divided 9–9 vote. 

On November 14, the Committee adopted without objection an 

amendment by Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch providing that 

12

S. 2480 does not authorize the carrying of machine guns, silencers, 

and destructive devices such as bombs and grenades. This amendment takes a step in the direction of common sense. Clearly, no civilian—not even an off-duty or retired police officer—needs to carry 

a machine gun, bomb, or grenade. It is equally clear, however, that 

off-duty and retired officers do not need to carry concealed shotguns or long-range sniper rifles. S. 2480 will still override State 

and local laws that prohibit such dangerous weapons, and will still 

allow off-duty and retired officers to carry a wide range of weapons 

which their own police departments do not allow them to carry. 

The idea that Americans will be safer if we allow more people to 

carry such weapons is pure fiction. 

S. 2480 does little to preserve ‘‘safe harbors’’ from gun violence 

that currently exist under State and local laws. Many States and 

local governments now single out places as needing special protection from the scourge of gun violence. Michigan, for example, prohibits concealed firearms in schools, sports arenas, bars, churches, 

and hospitals. Georgia law allows active and retired police officers 

to carry firearms in publicly owned buildings, but not in churches, 

sports arenas, or places where alcohol is sold. Kentucky prohibits 

carrying concealed firearms in government buildings, bars, and 

schools. South Carolina prohibits concealed firearms at school athletic events, churches, and hospitals. Rochester, New York, prohibits guns in government buildings, on school property, and in 

public parks. Cincinnati prohibits carrying deadly weapons on 

school property. 

Inexplicably, S. 2480 overrides all local gun-safety laws, without 

exception. In the 1990’s, cities like Boston and New York made 

great strides in the fight against crime precisely because they were 

able to pass laws that addressed the factors that lead to violence— including the prevalence of firearms in inner cities. As Congressman Henry Hyde has observed, ‘‘the best decisions on fighting 

crime are made at the local level.’’ By overriding all local gun-safety laws, S. 2480 will undermine the ability of cities to fight crime. 

Even at the State level, S. 2480 will override most ‘‘safe harbor’’

laws. For example, it will override State laws that categorically 

prohibit guns in churches and other houses of worship, since only 

laws that permit private entities to post signs prohibiting concealed 

firearms on their property will remain in force. In most States, 

churches are not currently required to post signs in order to secure 

a gun-free zone. S. 2480 also overrides laws that prohibit concealed 

weapons in places where alcohol is served. Surely, it is reasonable 

for a State to prohibit people from bringing guns into bars, to prevent the extreme danger that results when liquor and firearms are 

mixed. 

Massachusetts has some of the strictest gun-safety laws in the 

country, including a comprehensive ban on carrying concealed 

weapons without a permit. The decision to grant a permit lies in 

the discretion of local law enforcement officials. Massachusetts has 

taken strong steps to protect our citizens, our children, and our 

communities, and the results are clear. The firearm death rate in 

the State is well below the national average. 

There is simply no reason for Congress to second-guess the judgment of Massachusetts, Michigan, Georgia, Kentucky, South CaroVerDate 0ct 31 2002 21:38 Nov 21, 2002 Jkt 019010 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR345.XXX SR345
13

lina, or any other State when it comes to protecting its citizens 

from gun violence. Each State and local government should be allowed to reach its own judgment as to where citizens and out-ofState visitors may carry concealed weapons—and whether active or 

retired law enforcement officers should be included in or exempted 

from any prohibition. In the words of the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, it is ‘‘essential that state and local governments 

maintain the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit 

the needs of their communities.’’ For all of these reasons, I oppose S. 2480.

TED KENNEDY. 

(14)

XI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 2480, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, and 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman); 

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * *

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE

Part Section 

I. CRIMES ......................................................................................... 1

* * * * * * *

PART I—CRIMES

Chapter Section 

1. General provisions ....................................................................... 1

* * * * * * *

44. Firearms ...................................................................................... 921

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS

Sec. 

921. Definitions. 

* * * * * * *

926. Rules and regulations. 

926A. Interstate transportation of firearms. 

926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers. 

926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers. 

* * * * * * *

§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms 

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or 

regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may 

lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: 

15

Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition 

shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified 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 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 arrest; 

(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; 

and 

(5) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. 

(d) The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the government agency for which 

the individual is, or was, employed as a law enforcement officer.

(e) DEFINED TERM.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘firearm’’

does not include—

(1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of title 26); 

(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); and 

(3) any destructive device (as defined in section 921). 

§ 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 entities to prohibit or restrict the 

possession of concealed firearms on their property; or 

16

(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, or 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; and 

(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm. 

(d) The identification required by this subsection is photographic 

identification issued by the agency for which the individual was employed as a law enforcement officer. 

(e) DEFINED TERM.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘firearm’’ does not include— (1) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of title 26); 

(2) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921); and 

(3) a destructive device (as defined in section 921). 

* * * * * * *

Æ