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

94–197 PDF 2004

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

SAFETY ACT OF 2003

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 218

JUNE 15, 2004

Serial No. 97

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina, Chairman

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts

JAY APPERSON, Chief Counsel 

ELIZABETH SOKUL, Counsel 

KATY CROOKS, Counsel 

JASON CERVENAK, Full Committee Counsel 

BOBBY VASSAR, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 15, 2004

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Howard Coble, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 1

The Honorable Robert C. Scott, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

and Homeland Security ....................................................................................... 2

WITNESSES 

Mr. Albert C. Eisenberg, Delegate, Virginia House of Delegates 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26

Mr. William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of Police 

Organizations 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 28

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 29

Mr. Ronald Ruecker, Superintendent, Department of Oregon State Police, 

and Fourth Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 32

Mr. Chuck Canterbury, National President, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order 

of Police 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 33

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 35

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Press Statements and News Articles submitted by Rep. Robert C. Scott ........... 4

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 57

Letter from William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association 

of Police Organizations ........................................................................................ 59

Memorandum, ‘‘H.R. 218/S. 253, the Call of Duty’’ from the Grand Lodge, 

Fraternal Order of Police ..................................................................................... 60

(1)

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

SAFETY ACT OF 2003

TUESDAY, JUNE 15, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard Coble [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Mr. COBLE. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. The Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Terrorism, and Crime will 

come to order. 

Let me visit with you just a minute before I make my opening 

statement. I see my friend Duke Cunningham from California, who 

has been nursing this bill for almost a decade, 8 years, Duke. During that time, this bill has generated much attention. Reasonable 

men and women adamantly support it. Reasonable men and 

women mildly support it. Reasonable men and women adamantly 

oppose it. Reasonable men and women mildly oppose it, and they 

are all reasonable. I have talked to everyone on every side of this 

issue and I must commend all of them. They have been very evenhanded during the discussions with me. 

I am a cosponsor of the bill. I am told by the Chairman of the 

Full Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, if we are able to mark it up 

in Subcommittee today, he will schedule it for a markup tomorrow. 

So it is on a fast track. 

But it is good to have you all with us. And let me give my opening statement. Then I will recognize Mr. Scott. Then we will proceed to hear from the witnesses. 

The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security 

will conduct the first hearing on H.R. 218, the ‘‘Law Enforcement 

Officers Safety Act of 2004.’’ This hearing examines the need for active and retired State and local law enforcement officers to carry 

concealed firearms in interstate commerce without being required 

to obtain individual permits for the State in which they are traveling or residing. 

Currently, each State determines whether or not active or retired 

State and local law enforcement officers from other States are allowed to carry a concealed weapon within the State’s borders. Currently, most States do not permit out-of-State law enforcement officers to carry a concealed weapon within its borders. 

2

This legislation would mandate that States permit any State or 

local law enforcement officer to carry concealed weapons within its 

borders regardless of whether the officer resides in that State. 

States that do not currently allow out-of-State officers to carry concealed weapons within their borders would be required to do so 

under H.R. 218. 

Currently, Federal law enforcement officers are authorized to 

carry concealed weapons anywhere in the United States. This law 

does not have any impact on Federal officers’ ability to carry firearms in interstate commerce. 

Police groups in support of this legislation contend that H.R. 218 

will allow tens of thousands of trained law enforcement officers to 

continually serve and protect our communities regardless of jurisdiction or duty status at no cost to taxpayers. Supporters also contend that this will allow off-duty officers to protect themselves at 

all times. 

Opponents, on the other hand, argue that this should be an issue 

left to the States. States have typically had the right to determine 

who is eligible to carry firearms in their respective jurisdictions. 

Some contend that this legislation disregards the judgment of State 

authorities. Still others have voiced concern that there is too much 

variation among States regarding firearms training as well as offduty and use of force policies. 

Because law enforcement is not unified regarding this legislation, 

the testimony we hear today will assist the Subcommittee in determining whether it is sound public policy to require the States to 

allow any active duty and retired State and local law enforcement 

officers from any State to carry concealed weapons in interstate 

commerce. 

I want to thank the witnesses who were able to be with us today 

and look forward to their testimony. With that, I am now pleased 

to recognize the Ranking Member, the distinguished gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, for his opening statement. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to join you 

in convening the hearing on H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. The bill authorizes ‘‘qualified’’ active and 

retired Federal and State law enforcement officials to carry concealed weapons interstate without regard to State and local laws 

prohibiting or regulating such carriage. 

A law enforcement officer includes corrections, probation, parole, 

and judicial officers, as well as police, sheriff, and other law enforcement officers who have had or who have statutory power over 

arrest and who were or are engaged through employment by a governmental entity in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision, prosecution, or incarceration of law violators. 

In the past, we have considered this bill under the title ‘‘Community Protection Act,’’ and I am not clear whether the current name 

change signals a change in the focus or the provisions of the bill 

or in strategies through which to promote it. The rhetoric surrounding the bill has indicated that its purpose is to aid and protect the public by putting tens of thousands of armed additional 

law enforcement officers in a position to protect the public as they 

travel from State to State and jurisdiction to jurisdiction. From the 

name of the current bill, it appears that the emphasis is now on 

3

the safety of officers as they travel. The legislative language appears to be the same as when the title and presumed purpose of 

the bill was to protect the public. So I am not clear on what the 

supporters and advocates of the bill intend that it authorize. 

I assume that the authorization to carry concealed weapons in a 

State is contemplated to be in connection with the incidental travel 

by law enforcement officers as opposed to a deliberate individual or 

ad hoc group, arranged interstate law enforcement efforts, although 

there does not appear to be anything to prevent such efforts. I do 

know that it is the specter of individually determined engagement 

of law enforcement decisions by out-of-State, plain clothed, untrained for the specific situation, involved in law enforcement that 

gives police chiefs and local and State governments huge concerns. 

I have heard a number of incidences involving friendly fire deaths 

and injuries between off-duty and undercover officers of the same 

force who mistakenly shoot each other due to not knowing who the 

plainclothes officer was. The engagement of out-of-State officers in 

law enforcement activities will certainly add to such unfortunate 

incidences. I am sure that there are anecdotal incidences in which 

an off-duty officer has saved the day in a gun battle, but from a 

law enforcement management perspective, I expect that police 

chiefs see unauthorized, unfamiliar, untrained for the specific situation and condition out-of-State officers as more of a challenge to 

effective law enforcement than a help. 

I also don’t know what the liability implications are for the local 

jurisdictions whose officers become engaged in out-of-State law enforcement activities. But the liability insurance implications alone 

should give the Congress cause for pause in imposing an interstate 

concealed carrier provision on State and local governments. State 

legislatures can authorize out-of-State off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons within their jurisdictions and some have, although 

most have not. 

The primary organizations supporting this legislation tend to be 

representing rank and file line officers, for the most part, while 

those opposing the legislation tend to be managers and employers 

who are directly responsible to the public for the public policy involved in officers’ conduct. The Federal Government should not 

usurp State and local options by choosing sides in such an employer-employee difference. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses for enlightenment on these concerns and I would like to ask unanimous consent, 

Mr. Chairman, that several press statements and news articles 

outlining police officers killed by other police officers be introduced 

into the record. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

[The material submitted by Mr. Scott follows:]

4


TFHJ1A.eps
5


TFHJ1B.eps
6


TFHJ1C.eps
7


TFHJ1D.eps
8


Hanley.eps
9


IACP.eps
10


DW1.eps
11


McGee1A.eps
12


McGee1B.eps
13


McGee1C.eps
14


Schaefer1.eps
15


Schaefer2.eps
16


DW2A.eps
17


DW2B.eps
18


TFHJ2A.eps
19


TFHJ2B.eps
20


McGee2A.eps
21


McGee2B.eps
22


McGee2C.eps
23

Mr. COBLE. Our first witness today is the Honorable Albert C. 

Eisenberg. Mr. Eisenberg became a delegate in the Virginia House 

of Delegates in 2004. Prior to serving in the House, Mr. Eisenberg 

served on the Arlington County Board and was a four-time chairman of the County Board from 1984 to 1999. Mr. Eisenberg also 

worked as the Vice President for Government Affairs at the Greater Washington Board of Trade. He received his B.A. in history from 

the University of Richmond and his Master’s in education from the 

Hampton Institute. 

Our second witness today is Mr. William Johnson. Mr. Johnson, 

you have a well known baseball name in this town. Mr. Johnson 

currently serves as the Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations, or NAPO, and the Police Research and 

Education Project. He previously served as general counsel to 

NAPO and is a former police officer and prosecutor, serving as 

chief prosecutor of the Crimes Division of the Dade County, Florida 

court. Mr. Johnson earned his B.A. at Brown University and his 

law degree from Georgetown University. 

Our third witness today is Mr. Ronald Ruecker. Mr. Ruecker was 

appointed Superintendent of the Department of Oregon State Police in December 1999. Prior to this, Mr. Ruecker served as Deputy 

Superintendent, commander of two of the department’s three bureaus, and was Director of the Office of Professional Standards. He 

currently serves as the Fourth Vice President of the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police. Mr. Ruecker is a graduate of the 

FBI National Academy and the Program for Senior Executives at 

the John F. Kennedy School of Government of Harvard University. 

Our final witness today, Mr. Chuck Canterbury. Mr. Canterbury 

joined the Fraternal Order of Police in 1984 and helped to charter 

his local lodge. There, he served as president for 13 years and went 

on to serve as State Lodge President from 1990 to 1998. Mr. Canterbury was elected National President of the Fraternal Order of 

Police, popularly known as FOP—you all are still known as FOP, 

are you not, Mr. Canterbury?—in August of 2003. He earned his 

Bachelor of Arts degree from the Coastal Carolina University and 

has recently retired from the Horry County Police Department in 

Conway, South Carolina. He was appointed by President George W. 

Bush to the Homeland Security Advisory Council and to the Public 

Safety Officers Medal of Valor Review Board and actively serves in 

these capacities presently. 

I am also pleased, gentlemen, to recognize the presence of the 

gentleman from Wisconsin, the gentleman from Florida, the gentleman from Indiana, I think—I can’t see him—Indiana, and the 

gentleman from Virginia, and the gentlelady from Texas was here, 

but I see she’s gone. 

Gentlemen, I am told that there will be a vote scheduled on or 

about 3. We operate under the 5-minute rule here. Now, you all 

will not be boiled in oil if you violate that, but the panel that is 

before you, when you see the amber light appear, that is your 

warning that the red light is imminent. And when the red light appears, you will—just a moment. When the red light appears, that 

is your warning that the 5 minutes have expired. 

24

Gentlemen, if you all—it is the practice of the Subcommittee to 

swear in all witnesses appearing before it, and if you would, please, 

stand and raise your right hand. 

Do each of you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about 

to give this Subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth, so help you, God? 

Mr. EISENBERG. I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do. 

Mr. RUECKER. I do. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I do. 

Mr. COBLE. Let the record show that each of the witnesses has 

answered in the affirmative. You may be seated, and we will hear 

first from Mr. Eisenberg. 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT C. EISENBERG, DELEGATE,

VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES 

Mr. EISENBERG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I kind of feel like Woody Allen who remarked that 

we stand at a crossroads. One path leads to utter ruin and the 

other to total despair and may God give us the wisdom to make 

the right choice, and I say that because some of my friends are for 

this legislation and some are against, and I would love to stand 

firmly with my friends, but I have to make a choice. 

In 1997, I testified in opposition to this legislation. My views remain the same. I share with you the perspective of someone who 

has the highest regard for our law enforcement personnel and for 

their extraordinary service day in and day out. No society can survive without the heroic and selfless actions of our law enforcement 

people, and for those actions, we are all truly grateful. 

Having spent 15 years in local government in a community with 

one of the top-rated police departments in the country, I’m quite familiar with the establishment of policies that guide the responsibility of our law enforcement officers. It’s for their well-being and 

that of the public at large that I oppose this measure. 

In general, the legislation would preempt State and local law in 

permitting qualified law enforcement officers, current and retired, 

to carry concealed weapons across State boundaries, and there are 

a number of provisions that guide that. 

Municipal elected officers and local law enforcement share the 

common goal of ensuring the public’s safety. The ultimate legal responsibility, however, rests with those elected locally, so I am going 

to focus on some troubling issues with this bill that has to do with 

States and communities. 

Particular concern are provisions that would preempt State and 

local firearms laws and increase municipal liability. We think this 

violates laws historically and properly—that properly rest with the 

jurisdiction of State and local governments. In my view, more guns 

mean more violence. Guns get lost. They get stolen for communities 

terribly afflicted by the proliferation of guns in their borders. It is 

totally inappropriate for the Federal Government to tell them they 

must accept additional firearms in their midst, even though they 

have judged at the State and local levels that they do not want to 

do so. 

25

The bill could significantly impact municipal liability. The chief 

law enforcement officer of a State or locality is responsible for the 

transfer of a firearm to a law enforcement officer. These agencies 

dictate policies and procedures as well as training and tactics for 

handling firearms, including level and type of firearm training, the 

particular type of weapon the department uses, and so on and so 

forth. Just because a law enforcement official knows how to handle 

a weapon doesn’t mean they know the practices, laws, and protocols of the jurisdiction in which they carry it. What may be okay 

in one State could get an officer into deep trouble in another. 

If the police were specifically on duty as assigned to another 

State or locality, say for a joint task force, I think we would not 

be here today, but that’s not what the law contemplates. It sets up 

an extracurricular gun carry law that risks police officials and the 

citizens of localities who are forced to change their law to accommodate the visitors. It casts a broad net over individual laws of States 

and localities without regard to the fact that these laws do vary 

greatly. 

What about the issue of liability? Well, if a firearm is improperly 

used, the liability may fall on the States and its communities. 

Which community will bear the liability? Would it be the one that 

employed the officer coming into a jurisdiction not of his or her own 

with a concealed weapon or the one in which an incident occurred? 

Many places do not have sovereign immunity from legal action for 

the actions of a law enforcement officer from another jurisdiction 

exercising police powers. 

In addition, under the legislation, the Federal Government is not 

responsible for the unfortunate incidents that may result because 

those officers allowed to carry concealed weapons into another 

State, again, do not know the laws and protocols of the particular 

area. 

If this law passes, it ought to require that the Federal Government accepts on behalf of the locality the level of training of a visiting officer such that he may carry a concealed weapon into another State and the Federal Government should be willing to fund 

the full burden of enforcement and liability insurance. 

Individuals are placed at legal liability jeopardy, as I have indicated. It puts these people in harm’s way should they confront another police officer of the jurisdiction they are visiting who doesn’t 

recognize the officer who’s carrying a weapon not otherwise licensed or permitted. 

I know that in my jurisdiction, we had a situation where Arlington does not have sovereign immunity in the District of Columbia. 

An Arlington police officer chased bank robbers across the District 

line. Criminals fired at the officer, who stopped his vehicle. The 

robbers sped into the E Street expressway, crashed into a light 

pole, severed the legs of an Agriculture Department employee. A 

civil suit was brought against the county on the basis of training 

and protocols, protocol issues concerning the Arlington police officer, and in the end, the county had to cough up $5 million. As a 

result of the judgment, we had to raise taxes three times. 

Making the decision to permit current or retired police officers to 

carry firearms across State and jurisdictional boundaries would increase the number of firearms on the street. I believe that. There 

26

is no more basic responsibility or fundamental and historic State 

and local responsibility than public safety. It has been and is reserved to our constituents to determine. We know what the citizens 

decide in one community could be different from another. It’s a 

basic right which is fundamental to our system of government. 

In closing, let me say that this legislation reminds me of the expression, with all due respect, we’re the Federal Government and 

we’re here to help you. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Eisenberg. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eisenberg follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ALBERT C. EISENBERG

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Albert Eisenberg, a Delegate in the Virginia General Assembly, and former Chairman of the Arlington, VA, 

County Board. In 1997, I testified in opposition to this legislation before this subcommittee. My views remain the same. I appreciate this opportunity to share with 

you the perspective of someone who has the highest regard for our law enforcement 

personnel and for the extraordinary service they provide day in and day out. No society can survive without the heroic and selfless actions of our law enforcement people. And for those actions, we are all truly grateful. 

Having spent 15 years in local government, in a community that enjoys one of 

the top-rated police departments in the country, I am quite familiar with the establishment of policies that guide the responsibilities of our law enforcement officers. 

It is for their well being and that of the public at large that I oppose this measure. 

In general this legislation would preempt state and local law in permitting ‘‘qualified’’ law enforcement officers, both current and retired, to carry concealed firearms 

across state boundaries. The definition of law enforcement officer could include not 

just police officers, but also probation and corrections officers, and judicial personnel. To be ‘‘qualified,’’ current and former officers must comply with a number 

of requirements addressing identification, training, and certain authority to carry a 

firearm and to perform police duties, among other criteria. The same or similar conditions apply to retired officers under the legislation. 

Municipal elected officials and local law enforcement share the common goal of 

ensuring the public’ safety. However, the ultimate legal responsibility for doing so 

rests with those elected. Thus, my comments will focus briefly on several troubling 

issues raised by the bill that could have the opposite impact than the proponents 

hope. Rather than benefiting individual states and communities and police personnel by enhancing police presence and firepower in our communities, such legislation could actually increase the number of firearms injuries to police officers, as well 

as the public. In short, we should be careful what we ask for. Here’s why. 

Of particular concern are provisions that would preempt state and local firearms 

laws and increase municipal liability. This preemption violates the basic tenet that 

such laws historically and properly rest with state and local governments. It is inappropriate for the federal government to nullify laws tailored to the specific conditions and circumstances of each state and locality. Under this bill, states and localities that for their own good reasons have limited firearms use must tolerate the 

introduction of additional unwanted firearms into their midst. More guns mean 

more violence. Guns get lost. They get stolen. For communities terribly afflicted by 

the proliferation of guns in their borders it is totally inappropriate for the federal 

government to tell them that they must accept additional firearms in their midst. 

They should be allowed to determine for themselves, based on these jurisdictions 

own legal judgment the ability to regulate the use of firearms in their states, based 

on the conditions as these states and localities determine. 

This bill creates additional mischief. It could significantly impact municipal liability. The chief law enforcement officer of a state or locality is responsible for the 

transfer of a firearm to a law enforcement officer. State laws and local law enforcement agencies dictate polices and procedures, as well as training and tactics for 

handling firearms, including the level and type of firearm training, the particular 

type of weapons the department uses to meet the circumstances most likely to confront its officers, and, of increasing importance to law enforcement agencies across 

the country, the use of force. Just because a law enforcement official knows how to 

handle a weapon doesn’t mean they know the practices, laws, and protocols of the 

jurisdiction in which they carry it. 

While the bill would allow a police officer to carry a concealed weapon in any state 

or locality, regardless of the jurisdictions’ concealed carry laws, an officer is still 

27

subject to other laws, protocols, and policies involving the use of firearms in any 

given state or community. What may be OK in one state could get an officer into 

deep trouble in another. Not to mention individual citizens without firearms who 

may confront a police official, not in uniform, not from the local community, and not 

on duty. If the police official were specifically on duty as assigned to another state 

or locality, say, for a joint task force—then we wouldn’t be here today. But that’s 

not what the law contemplates. It in effect sets up an extracurricular gun carry law 

that risks police officials and the citizens of localities forced to change their laws 

to accommodate visitors, even though they may be fully qualified law enforcement 

people in their home localities. 

If a firearm is improperly used, the liability may fall on the state and its communities. Which community will bear the liability? Would it be the one that employed 

the officer coming into a jurisdiction not of his own with a concealed weapon, or the 

one in which an incident occurred? We have all heard the tragic stories of off-duty 

or plainclothes officers in their own jurisdictions mistakenly shooting fellow officers 

they thought to be armed suspects because in the course of that moment they could 

not identify the person with a concealed weapon as a fellow officer. 

In short, the bill would place law enforcement personnel at legal and liability 

jeopardy because they will not know the laws, practices, protocols, and procedures 

that the local or state authorities have trained to implement. Individual law enforcement officials, due to their ignorance of the localities they enter, will be at great 

danger of ruinous personal lawsuits, particularly in those jurisdictions that have 

sovereign immunity against lawsuits based on actions for which they would otherwise be liable. It puts these persons in harm’s way, should they confront another 

police official of the jurisdiction they are visiting, who doesn’t recognize the officer 

who is carrying a weapon not otherwise licensed or permitted in that jurisdiction. 

It subjects these officers and/or their home jurisdictions to significant liability that 

could bankrupt individuals and raise property taxes for localities. 

I know this first hand. Arlington does not have sovereign immunity in the District 

of Columbia. An Arlington police officer chased bank robbers across the District line. 

The criminals fired at the officer, who stopped his vehicle. The robbers sped into 

the E Street Expressway, crashed into a light pole and severed the legs of an Agriculture Department employee. A civil suit was brought against the county on the 

basis of training and protocols issues concerning the Arlington police officer and his 

actions taken in another jurisdiction. The county lost the suit to the tune of $5 million, and for three years, the County Board had to raise the real estate tax to pay 

off the judgment. Don’t tell me it can’t happen here. This legislation will result in 

similar situations in other places as police officers allowed to carry concealed weapons in jurisdictions that do not now have them, get into all sorts of legal quicksand, 

that could bankrupt them personally, not to mention the fiscal damage to the locality that authorized use of the weapon. 

If this law passes, it ought to require that if the federal government accepts on 

behalf of a locality the level of training of a visiting officer such that he may carry 

a concealed weapon into another state, then the federal government should be willing to fund the full burden of enforcement and liability insurance of whatever unfortunate actions result. 

With respect to former law enforcement officers, there do not appear to be any 

controls regarding issues such as retraining, or what type weapon former officers 

would be allowed to carry. How often would a ‘‘qualified’’ former officer’s status be 

renewed? Where would the liability rest in cases in which retired officers live in two 

different states? Since the retired person allowed to carry a concealed weapon may 

no longer be fluent in present laws and protocols not only of his own state and locality, but also in other places, he may be at jeopardy for what he does not know. 

There is no more basic responsibility or fundamental and historic state and local 

responsibility than public safety. It has been and is reserved to our constituents to 

determine. We know that what the citizens decide in one community could be different from another. That is a basic right, fundamental to our system of government. 

In closing, let me say that this legislation reminds me of the expression—we’re 

the federal government, and we’re here to help you. Pu-leeze. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I await any questions you may have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Johnson? 

28

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Scott, Members of the Subcommittee. My name 

is Bill Johnson and I’m the Executive Director for the National Association of Police Organizations. NAPO is a coalition of police associations from across the United States that serves here to advance the interests of America’s law enforcement through legislative and legal advocacy. On behalf of our 236,000 rank and file law 

enforcement officers, including those officers represented by the 

International Brotherhood of Police Officers, I’d like to thank you 

for this opportunity to testify today in support of this legislation. 

Today, I’d like to remark on two fundamental reasons why H.R. 

218 should be passed into law. First, society asks the men and 

women of law enforcement to protect the social welfare and stand 

between it and the anarchy of violence and crime. On this front 

line, law enforcement defends the public safety. They are constantly, thus, in the crosshairs of crime. Yet when off duty or traveling on vacation, officers are left unprotected from this constant 

threat. 

Now criminals, by definition, are not deterred by State statutes. 

Criminals do not observe jurisdictional lines when seeking revenge 

against law enforcement officers who have enforced society’s laws 

against them. What makes H.R. 218 so important is that criminals 

do not punch a time clock. There is no off-duty time for those who 

target police officers and their families. 

An example of this comes from the Hempstead, New York, Police 

Department. There, officers assigned to the gang task force, comprised of DEA, FBI, ATF, and State and local law enforcement, are 

constantly subjected to stalkings by gangs seeking retribution. Personal car license plate information and the movements of officers 

and their families are unabashedly observed and recorded by gang 

members. Threats against officers’ lives are constant and do not 

end when the shift concludes. 

Second, it cannot be overstated that in an age of heightened 

homeland security, there can be no better means to preserve the 

public safety than a highly trained officer bringing his or her experience and expertise to situations in which they may have previously been unable to act. 

An example of this came in January of 2001 when Lieutenant 

Luther Lutz of the Los Angeles Police Department left a shopping 

mall while off duty. Lieutenant Lutz noticed two men fighting over 

an object, which turned out to be a gun. Immediately, the lieutenant announced himself as a police officer and directly intervened. 

One of the men wrestled the gun away from the other and a shot 

was fired. The lieutenant, who was armed although off duty, drew 

his weapon and fired upon the shooter, stopping him from killing 

the victim. As it turned out, the men fighting were both violent 

gang members, but the work of the police officer even when off 

duty is blind to such allegiances. 

Now, some might say that H.R. 218 might somehow encourage 

vigilantism. This is not true. It is imperative to understand that officers who are off duty have families and take vacations just like 

you and I. They desire nothing more than to enjoy their time off. 

29

Officers do not seek out confrontations, but it would be tragic if officers were denied the ability to respond when threats to the public 

safety do arise. Honed by years of experience, it is rare for an officer on or off duty to even discharge his or her firearm. Officers utilize the knowledge gained from numerous on-duty situations to 

achieve a non-lethal conclusion to many dangerous situations. 

We understand that in the past, areas of concern such as liability 

and officer proficiency have also been raised. H.R. 218 has been refined over time and the current bill addresses these concerns. Officers will have to be in good standing to carry their firearm. Retired 

officers will still be required to pass the same rigorous and thorough State firearm standards as their active peers. H.R. 218 does 

not infringe upon State laws restricting possession of firearms on 

private property, nor does it infringe on laws regarding possession 

of firearms on State property or government installations. 

We would respectfully suggest to the Committee that H.R. 218 

only focuses on police officers’ right to carry their firearms. State 

and Federal law regarding self-defense and the use of force remain 

unaffected by this bill. 

Now, some may say that States should be afforded the option to 

opt out if they do not agree. We believe this language or such language would substantially weaken the bill. The needs of officers to 

protect themselves would be hindered by the same patchwork of 

coverage that exists today. Others might call for States to opt in, 

rendering the bill nothing more than a framework which the individual States could ratify if they so wish. This would produce the 

same results as the status quo and would not address the overarching need of a unifying Federal bill to protect all officers across 

all jurisdictions. Again, criminals and terrorist threats ignore by 

definition legal and jurisdictional limits. 

H.R. 218 currently enjoys strong, strong bipartisan support, as of 

this morning, I believe 296 cosponsors. Its Senate companion, S. 

253, was accepted by the Senate Judiciary 18 to one, and the full 

Senate considered it as an amendment to other legislation in 

March of this year. That same language as the House bill contained was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate 91 to eight. 

Now is the time and the opportunity to provide this crucial protection for America’s police officers and the public. Thank you for 

allowing me to speak here today, and I’d be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. JOHNSON

Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, members of the House Subcommittee, 

my name is Bill Johnson and I am the Executive Director of the National Association of Police Organizations. NAPO is a coalition of police unions and associations 

from across the United States that serves here in Washington, D.C., to advance the 

interests of America’s law enforcement through legislative and legal advocacy. 

On behalf of NAPO’s 236,000 rank-and-file law enforcement officers, I would like 

to thank you for this opportunity to testify today on the bi-partisan supported law 

enforcement officer right to carry legislation. 

Today, I would like to remark on two fundamental reasons why H.R. 218 should 

be passed into law. What stands before us today is a bill that will greatly improve 

the ability of law enforcement officers to protect themselves, their families and our 

nation’s communities. Never before has support for this goal been stronger. Never 

before has the need for its passage been greater. 

30

First, society asks the men and women of law enforcement to protect the social 

welfare and stand between it and the anarchy of violence and crime. On this front 

line, law enforcement defends the public’s safety. They are constantly held in the 

crosshairs of crime. 

Yet when off duty or traveling on vacation, officers are left unprotected from this 

constant threat. Criminals, by definition, are not deterred by state statutes. Criminals do not observe jurisdictional lines when seeking revenge against officers who 

have enforced society’s laws against them. 

What makes H.R. 218 so important is that criminals do not punch a time clock. 

There is no off-duty for those who target police officers and their families. 

A typical example of this comes from the Hempstead, New York Police Department. Officers assigned to the Gang Task Force, comprised of DEA, FBI, ATF and 

state and local law enforcement, are constantly subjected to stalkings by gangs seeking retribution. Personal car license plate information and the movements of officers 

and their families are unabashedly observed and recorded by gang members. 

Threats against officer’s lives are constant and do not end when the shift concludes. 

Second, it can not be understated that in an age of heightened homeland security, 

there can be no better means to preserve the public’s safety then a highly trained 

officer bringing his or her experience and expertise to situations in which they 

might have previously been unable to act. 

An example of this came in January of 2001 when Lt. Luther Lutz of the Los Angeles Police Department left a shopping mall while off duty. Lt. Lutz noticed two 

men fighting over an object, which turned out to be a gun. Immediately, Lt. Lutz 

announced himself as a police officer and directly intervened. One man wrestled the 

gun away from the other; a shot was fired. Lt. Lutz, who was armed, drew his weapon and fired upon the shooter, stopping him from killing the victim. As it turned 

out, the men fighting were both violent gang members, but the work of police, even 

when off duty, is blind to such allegiances. 

Some will no doubt say that H.R. 218 will encourage vigilantism. It is imperative 

to understand that officers who are off duty have families and take vacations just 

like you and I. They desire nothing more then to enjoy their time off. Officers do 

not seek out confrontations, but it would be tragic if officers were denied the ability 

to respond when threats to the public’s safety do arise. 

Honed by years of experience, it is rare for an officer to even discharge his or her 

firearm. Officers utilize the knowledge gained from numerous on-duty situations to 

achieve the non-lethal conclusion to many dangerous situations. 

We appreciate the attention opponents of H.R. 218 have devoted to the issue. We 

understand that in the past, areas of concern such as liability and officer proficiency 

have been fairly raised. 

H.R. 218 has been refined over time and the current bill addresses these concerns. 

Officers will have to be in good standing to carry their firearm. Retired officers will 

still be required to pass the same rigorous and thorough firearm standards as their 

active peers. H.R. 218 does not infringe upon state laws restricting possession of 

firearms on state property. Nor does it infringe on the right of private property owners to control who may possess a firearm on private property. 

We would respectfully remind the Subcommittee that H.R. 218 only focuses on police officers already proficient and permitted to carry firearms. State and federal law 

regarding self defense and the use of force remain unaffected by this bill. 

Some will say that states should be afforded the option to ‘‘opt out’’ if they do not 

agree. This language would substantially weaken the bill. The needs of officers to 

protect themselves would be hindered by the same patchwork of coverage that exists 

today. 

Others will call for states to ‘‘opt in’’ rendering the bill nothing more then a 

framework which the individual states could ratify if they so wish. This would 

produce the same result as the status quo. It would not address the overarching 

need of a unifying federal bill to protect all officers across all jurisdictions. Again, 

criminals and terrorist threats ignore, by definition, legal and jurisdictional limits. 

Right to Carry legislation was first introduced in the 102nd Congress by Representative Randy ‘‘Duke’’ Cunningham (R-CA) and since then, NAPO and other law 

enforcement groups have fought hard to ensure its passage. 

H.R. 218 currently enjoys the bi-partisan support of 295 co-sponsors. Its Senate 

companion, S. 253, was accepted by the Senate Judiciary Committee 18-1. The full 

Senate considered it as an amendment to other gun legislation in March 2004. The 

same language as the House bill we are considering today received the overwhelmingly favorable vote of 91-8. 

Now is the time and this is the opportunity to grant this basic protection to police 

officers and an important asset to our communities. The last act an officer wants 

to do is to be forced to use their firearm, yet threats to their safety and the public’s 

31

safety do exist 24 hours a day. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf 

of this legislation and the hopes of America’s law enforcement community. 

I am happy to answer any questions you, or the committee members may have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Ruecker? 

TESTIMONY OF RONALD RUECKER, SUPERINTENDENT, DEPARTMENT OF OREGON STATE POLICE, AND FOURTH VICE 

PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF 

POLICE 

Mr. RUECKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I want to thank you for the opportunity to be here and testify on this bill. I have written testimony which I would respectfully request to be made available to you and—— Mr. COBLE. Without objection, it will be received. 

Mr. RUECKER. Thank you, sir. What I would like to do is spend 

my time talking about some practical concerns and considerations 

that I’m here to speak about. 

First of all, the IACP is a 19,000-plus member organization, the 

largest and oldest association of law enforcement executives in the 

world. The IACP has consistently opposed Federal legislation that 

would preempt or mandate the liberalization of an individual 

State’s laws concerning the carrying of concealed weapons. That’s 

the responsibility of the State in the view of the IACP. 

Within the bill, there are a number of practical issues that arise, 

including the various disparity in firearms training levels and a 

number of other things that differ from State to State. And in my 

State in particular, just to illustrate that there is an early opinion 

that even reserve police officers may be covered by this bill, which 

I do not think is the intention of the legislation, but that seems to 

be the early opinion out there. 

But what concerns me and what concerns the IACP more than 

anything are what appears to be—I mean, certainly, we understand the legislation is well intended and there are certainly circumstances under which a police officer carrying a firearm off-duty 

and outside their jurisdiction might, in fact, produce a good outcome. It could save somebody’s life, including the officer’s. But just 

as certainly, there are circumstances under which an officer outside 

of their jurisdiction, having the only tool that they would normally 

have available to them if they were on duty in their own jurisdiction, is certainly just as likely to create some tragic accidents and 

we’re concerned about that. 

If police agencies and police officers are required under considerable scrutiny, and rightfully so, to defend the actions of our officers 

against what is called a use-of-force continuum. Police officers are 

trained to use the right amount of force for a given situation and 

the firearm, of course, is the last resort. If the only tool the officer 

has available to them is their firearm, they are definitely going to 

be in a situation where the only response they can go to is the one 

involving a use of deadly force. 

There most certainly will be circumstances when officers are on 

vacation and traveling with their families in which they are not 

going to be able to be recognized. Some of these officers are undercover narcotics officers who by the definition of their position are 

not recognized even in their own community as being a police offiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\061504\94197.000 HJUD1 PsN: 94197
32

cer. So we send those officers to some other jurisdiction where they 

have no power of arrest, where they have no authority whatsoever 

than any other private citizen, and we put them in a position of 

having, perhaps having to first be identified as a police officer 

under circumstances in which——

Mr. COBLE. If you will wrap up, your time is over. 

Mr. RUECKER. Yes, sir. Thank you. Let me just sum up, Mr. 

Chairman, by saying that we are very concerned about the very 

men and women that I’m sworn to support. I love these police officers. They are out there doing the job we need them to do. But 

when they go on vacation or outside their jurisdiction, they need 

to be able to decompress and not be in a situation where they are 

going to be forced on duty. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruecker follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RONALD RUECKER

Good Afternoon, Chairman Coble, Representative Charles and Members of the 

Subcommittee. 

I am pleased to be here this afternoon to present the views of the International 

Association of Chiefs of Police on H.R. 218, 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 this committee for your continuing support of this 

nation’s law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers. 

As you know, the IACP is strongly opposed to 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 communities. 

Over the years, IACP has consistently opposed any federal legislative proposals that 

would either pre-empt 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 communities. This applies to laws covering private citizens as well 

as active or 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 their state to carry weapons in their 

jurisdictions. 

In addition, authority for police officers to carry firearms when off-duty, use-offorce policies and firearms training standards vary significantly from state to state. 

Why should a police chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, 

a strict standard 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 that this legislation may have on the safety of our officers and our communities. 

There can be no doubt that police executives are deeply concerned for the safety 

of our officers. We understand the proponents of H.R. 218 contend that police officers need to protect themselves and their families while traveling, and that undercover officers may be targets if recognized on vacation or travel. These are considerations, but they must be balanced against the potential dangers involved. In fact, 

one of the reasons that this legislation is especially troubling to our nation’s law 

enforcement executives is because they 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. 

33

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 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 off-duty officer who uses or misuses their weapon while out of 

state. If an off-duty officer who 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 another state. The resources that mounting this defense would require 

could be better spent serving the communities we represent. 

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

glance 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 our 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. I will be pleased to answer any questions you may 

have.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Canterbury? 

TESTIMONY OF CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee. As previously stated, my name is 

Chuck Canterbury and I’m the National President of the Fraternal 

Order of Police, the largest law enforcement labor organization in 

the United States, with more than 318,000 members, and also a 

former member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

and a 26-year veteran police officer and firearms instructor. 

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify today, but I’d also like to thank you for your efforts last year on helping to pass the FOP priority Hometown Heroes Survivors bill. I was disappointed you were not able to join 

with me and the President of IAFF in the Oval Office when President Bush signed the bill into law, but rest assured, we told the 

President how grateful we were to you, your staff, and your able 

counsel, Jay Abramson. 

Now we are here again, Mr. Chairman, and we are hopeful that 

you will again be able to work with the FOP on another important 

bill, H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, previously 

known as the Community Protection Act, and Congressman Scott 

was absolutely correct. This bill is designed to protect both the citizens of this country and our law enforcement officers. 

34

The passage of this bill is an FOP top priority, one that we have 

shared with the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association and 

with the National Sheriffs Association. Our nation’s police officers, 

especially now, are as much guardians of our security as they are 

protectors from crime and violence. These brave men and women 

are unlike other professionals because they are rarely off duty and 

their instincts, their desire to help, and their fidelity to an oath to 

serve and protect their fellow citizens never retires and never goes 

off duty. 

In an emergency, an officer’s knowledge and training would be 

rendered virtually useless without a firearm. This bill would 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 that call of duty when the 

need arises. 

Let’s not forget that vengeful violent felons can and do target police officers and they do not care if the officer is in his or her jurisdiction, nor do they care if the officer is in uniform or not, on duty, 

off duty, active or retired. 

Consider the case of Detective Charles Edward Harris, a 20-year 

veteran of the Southern Pines Police Department in North Carolina. Detective Harris was targeted after drug dealers spotted him 

attending a Crime Watch meeting in an apartment complex. His 

killers waited until off duty, rang the doorbell at his home, then 

shot and killed him. His wife, who was home at the time, was also 

hit. 

Over the years, the FOP has been working on this legislation. 

We have compiled the names of 58 officers who, like Detective Harris, were off duty 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. Some, like Detective Harris, were targets simply because they were police officers. Others lost their lives 

when they acted to help a victim or stop a crime in progress, and 

with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to provide you a document to be entered into the record with those names. 

Mr. COBLE. Without objection. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. The fate of these 58 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. But the passage of H.R. 218 will, at the 

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

chance to defend themselves, their families, and the public whenever or wherever criminals or terrorists choose to strike. 

The premise of this legislation is not unprecedented. Congress 

has previously acted to force States to recognize concealed carry 

permits issued by other States on the basis of employment and the 

dangers inherent to the nature of that employment. Congress has 

passed laws mandating reciprocity for weapons licenses issued to 

armored car company crew members and more recently voted overwhelmingly to exempt airline pilots who volunteer to become Federal flight deck officers from State and local firearm laws. 

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 in extending the same authority to fully sworn, fully 

35

trained law enforcement officers employed by government entities 

which are carefully defined by the bill. Active officers must meet 

the qualification standards established by the agency, and retired 

officers must requalify with their firearm at their own expense 

every 12 months and meet the same standards as active officers in 

the State in which they reside. 

This bill is not controversial. The legislation has widespread bipartisan support, and that total includes 11 of the 13 Members of 

this Subcommittee, all of who cosponsored this legislation. 

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

Subcommittee today and I would be pleased to answer any questions from our perspective. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Canterbury. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Canterbury follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHUCK CANTERBURY

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee 

on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security. My name is Chuck Canterbury, and 

I am the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, representing more than 318,000 

members in every region of the nation. 

I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and giving the Fraternal Order of Police an opportunity to talk about the importance of 

H.R. 218, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act.’’ To the Fraternal Order of Police, its members and rank-and-file officers across the nation, whatever their representative organization, the enactment of legislation exempting qualified active and 

retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying 

of concealed firearms is a top legislative priority. Virtually every rank-and-file officer in the nation agrees with us that this bill is not and has never been a ‘‘firearms 

issue’’—it is an officer safety issue, and, on 11 September 2001, it became a critical 

public safety and homeland security issue as well. 

Our nation’s police officers are as much guardians of our security as they are our 

protectors from crime and violence. We allow our children to play in local parks because we know our streets are patrolled by the men and women of our local police 

department. We trust these officers to keep our homes and neighborhoods safe. They 

provide us with a sense of security in all aspects of our daily lives. These men and 

women are unlike other professionals because they are rarely ‘‘off-duty.’’ Moreover, 

their instincts, their desire to help and their fidelity to an oath to serve and protect 

their fellow citizens never retires and never goes off the clock. 

Consider the case of John Perry, a Lieutenant with the New York City Police Department who, had the morning of 11 September 2001 off from work. He was at Police Headquarters in lower Manhattan filing his retirement papers when the first 

airliner struck the World Trade Center. The off-duty lieutenant rushed to the scene, 

joining Captain Timothy Pearson and other officers evacuating victims from the second-floor mezzanine of the north tower. John Perry never made it out. 

Lt. John Perry spent his day off responding to one of the greatest tragedies our 

nation has ever endured. John Perry risked his life to do his duty—and he did not 

worry about whether or not he punched his time card. 

While John Perry was the only off-duty officer to be lost that day, he was not the 

only off-duty officer to help respond to the aftermath of the attacks. The ranks of 

volunteers in New York City, Pennsylvania, northern Virginia and Washington, 

D.C. were swelled by retired law enforcement officers and off-duty officers from 

every region of the country who had come to offer their services. Police officers, firefighters, and EMS personnel worked side-by-side, with each professional relying on 

one another to assist according to their specialized training and experience. The 

help rendered by these public safety officers was received with gratitude by the victims and their fellow emergency response personnel. It did not matter whether they 

were off-duty or not—they knew they could count on a particular level of training 

and professionalism from these volunteers. Yet off-duty and retired law enforcement 

officers were in legal jeopardy as a result of their volunteer efforts. 

As the World Trade Center burned, many off-duty and retired officers rushed to 

New York and New Jersey, hoping to help the victims of the attack and provide relief for the exhausted New York City police officers. These well-intentioned volunteers may have been in violation of State and local law because New York and New 

36

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

carry their firearms. Similarly, across the river in New Jersey, which was used as 

a staging and recovery area, armed law enforcement officers not employed by that 

State may not have been eligible for exemption from New Jersey’s statute against 

unlawful weapons possession. Any armed officer crossing a jurisdictional boundary 

to volunteer his time in response to this tragedy may have been breaking the law. 

Pennsylvania, the only State on 11 September without casualties on the ground, 

does not have a clear exception for police officers employed outside of Pennsylvania. 

Off-duty police officers that, without hesitation, volunteered in response to the scene 

may have been in violation of State law if they carried their firearms with them 

while assisting their colleagues in Pennsylvania. 

I feel certain that most of the officers who volunteered had their firearms with 

them. I do not know any law enforcement officer who would feel comfortable being 

in uniform or performing official duties without their firearm. None of the other professional first responders that volunteered their services on 11 September left their 

tools, instincts or training behind. Only police officers were exposed to legal jeopardy 

while at or traveling to the site of the attacks. 

Law enforcement is a profession, and professionals fill its ranks. 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 emergency circumstances, an officer’s knowledge and training would be rendered virtually useless without a firearm. 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. Without a weapon, the law enforcement officer is like a 

rescue diver without diving gear—all the right training and talent to lend to an 

emergency situation, but without the equipment needed to make that training of 

any use. Neither criminals nor terrorists give up their weapons when they cross jurisdictional boundaries, why should police officers? 

When the Fraternal Order of Police talks about the passage of H.R. 218 as an 

officer safety issue, we mean it. A police officer cannot remember the name and face 

of every criminal he or she has locked behind bars, but criminals often have long 

and exacting memories. Passage of this legislation will give police officers the legal 

means to defend themselves and their families from vengeful, violent acts. Police officers are frequently finding that they, and their families, are targets in uniform and 

out, off-duty and on, active and retired. 

Consider, Mr. Chairman, the case of a police officer from your own district, Detective Charles Edward Harris, a twenty-year veteran with the Southern Pines Police 

Department in North Carolina. Detective Harris was targeted after drug dealers 

spotted him attending a ‘‘crime watch’’ meeting at an apartment complex. His killers 

waited until he was at home and off-duty, then rang his doorbell. Detective Harris 

was shot and killed. His wife, who was also home at the time, was also hit. 

Over the years that the F.O.P. has been working on this legislation, we have compiled the names of 58 officers who, like Detective Harris, were off-duty 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.’’ Some, like Detective Harris, 

were recognized as, discovered to be, or identified themselves as police officers, 

prompting their assailants to kill them. Others were killed when they placed themselves in harm’s way to help a victim or stop a crime in progress. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like this document to be entered into the record. 

Permit me to provide a few additional examples from this document:

• Detective Thomas G. Newman, a twelve-year veteran of the Baltimore City 

Police Department in Maryland had been shot and wounded while off-duty in 

2001. He testified against his assailant, who was sentenced to thirty years in 

prison. On 23 November 2002, Detective Newman was shot to death by three 

suspects—friends and relatives of the criminal that Detective Newman had 

sent to jail—in an act of criminal retaliation.

• Police Officer Joseph Jerome Daniels, a ten-year veteran of the Birmingham 

Police Department in Alabama was shot and killed on 11 November 2002. 

The officer was eating his dinner at a local restaurant when a man entered, 

announced that he was robbing the establishment and ordered everyone on 

the floor. Officer Daniels immediately took action and was shot several times 

in a struggle with the robber. He died of his injuries on the scene.

• Detective Donald Miller, a ten-year veteran with the New Bern Police Department in North Carolina was off-duty on 23 December 2001. He and his wife 

37

had just finished their visit to their newborn child in the hospital when the 

detective observed a man driving recklessly through the hospital parking lot. 

He confronted the man, who drew a handgun and fired—striking Miller in the 

head. Detective Miller, father of two, died two days later on Christmas Day.

• Detective Kevin Darrell Rice, Sr. was off-duty on the evening of 3 August 

2001 when he approached two suspicious men loitering near the construction 

site of his new home. The fourteen-year veteran of the Rockford, Illinois Police Department was shot and killed by the men he confronted.

• Officer Dominick J. Infantes, Jr., a seven-year veteran with the Jersey City 

Police Department in New Jersey, was attacked by two men wielding a pipe 

on 4 July 2001. Infantes was off-duty when he asked two men to stop setting 

off fireworks near playing children. He identified himself as a police officer, 

but the two killers did not believe him because Infantes did not have a gun. 

He died two days later, a newlywed at the age of twenty-nine, from his injuries. More than 5,500 police officers, including some from as far away as Canada and Ireland attended his funeral.

• Officer Shynelle Marie Mason, a two-year veteran with the Detroit, Michigan 

Police Department was shot and killed on 14 July 2000 by a man she had 

previously arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. She encountered the 

man while off-duty; he confronted her and shot her several times in the chest.

• Correctional Officer Leslie John Besci, a sixteen-year veteran with the North 

Carolina Department of Corrections was beaten to death with a baseball bat 

in an unprovoked attack. The officer had just returned from work when he 

was attacked by two former inmates of the prison where he worked.

• Corrections Officer Anthony L. Brown, a seven-year veteran from Nassau 

County Sheriff’s Department in New York, broke up a fight between a man 

and his girlfriend while off-duty. The man returned later and shot and killed 

the officer.

• Officer Ralph Dols, a three-year veteran of the New York City Police Department was off-duty when he was ambushed in front of his home. He was attacked by three men, who shot him a total of six times. The investigation into 

the officer’s murder suggests that the killing was in retaliation for the officer’s identification of suspects in a robbery who may have had some connection to organized crime.

• Detective Edward Stefan Kislo, an eighteen-year veteran with the Los Angeles Police Department was off-duty when he confronted a prowler in a neighbor’s yard. The suspect shot and killed him.

• Officer Louis Anthony Pompei was shopping off-duty when he witnessed a 

robbery in progress. The seven-year veteran of the Glendora, California Police 

Department was shot and killed while attempting to stop the robbery.

• Officer Ronald Levert Richardson served nine years with the District of Columbia Department of Corrections. He was shot and killed outside his home 

by suspects seeking to prevent him from testifying at a drug trial.

• Officer Oliver Wendell Smith, Jr., of the Metropolitan Police Department in 

Washington, D.C. was off-duty when he was robbed at gunpoint. Upon discovering the victim was a police officer, the robbers shot and killed him.

• Officer Charles Kirksey Todd, a three-year veteran of the Police Department 

in Mayfield, Kentucky was attending a wedding off-duty when one guest attacked another with a knife. The officer was fatally stabbed trying to subdue 

the attacker.

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 H.R. 218 will, at the very least, give officers who do choose to carry a chance 

to defend themselves, their families and the public whenever or wherever criminals 

or terrorists choose to strike. 

I want to share with you two more examples, both with happier endings, to demonstrate how a tragedy was averted because of an armed, off-duty law enforcement 

officer. 

In 2000, Dennis Devitte had logged twenty years with the Las Vegas Police Department. He was off-duty at a sports bar late one evening when the establishment 

was attacked by three armed assailants. Two of the men opened fire on the crowd, 

and a man in a wheelchair was hit. Devitte did not hesitate—he pulled his tiny .25-

caliber gun 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 

38

1Written Statement of Colonel Lonnie J. Westphal, Chief, Colorado State Patrol before the 

U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 23 July 2002. 2 Ibid. 

one foot of the man, fired and killed the gunman. But not before he was shot eight 

times. 

The remaining two gunmen fled. All six civilians wounded in the assault recovered. One witness described Officer Devitte’s action as ‘‘the most courageous thing 

I’ve ever seen.’’ Officer Devitte lost six units of blood, his gun hand was badly damaged and his knee had to be entirely reconstructed with bones taken from a cadaver. 

And yet, he was back on the job six months later. 

This incredibly heroic officer was selected as the ‘‘Police Officer of the Year’’ by 

the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and PARADE magazine. 

That same year, the IACP and PARADE also recognized off-duty Officer Joseph 

H. Shackett of the Houston Police Department for his heroism. He was visiting a 

friend at a check-cashing store while off-duty when the establishment was attacked 

by two gunmen. The robbers forced their way in, but Officer Shackett, who was 

armed, managed to draw his own weapon and kill them both before either gunman 

could fire at the store owner. 

Despite this clear and convincing evidence that the legislation would have a positive impact on public safety, the IACP is the only law enforcement association to 

oppose H.R. 218. A position which is somewhat ironic, given that the IACP’s own ‘‘Police Officer of the Year’’ for 2000 and an Honorable Mention are police officers 

whose heroic acts which earned them this recognition occurred while they were offduty and armed. 

In testimony before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in July 2003, the 

IACP gives four reasons for their opposition to this legislation, which we will rebut 

in turn. 

The first is a philosophical opposition to Federal legislation preempting State law 

on the carrying of concealed firearms. We respectfully disagree with this position— philosophical objections must not be permitted to trump the very real risks to the 

public from opportunistic criminals or terrorists, nor to the risks to law enforcement 

officers who are vulnerable when traveling outside their jurisdictions. 

The F.O.P. also maintains that this is a carefully crafted bill and is not, by any 

means, a broad preemption of State law by any means. 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 and recognized in all States and territories 

in these United States. States and localities issue firearms to their police officers 

and set their own requirements for their officers in training and qualifying in the 

use of these weapons. The bill maintains the States’ power to set these requirements 

and determine whether or not an active or retired officer is qualified in the use of 

the firearm, and would allow only this narrow universe of persons to carry their 

firearms when traveling outside their jurisdiction. We believe this is similar to the 

States’ issuance of drivers’ licenses—standards may differ slightly from State to 

State, but all States recognize that the drivers have been certified to operate a 

motor vehicle on public roadways. I sincerely doubt that the IACP has a philosophical objection to recognizing a driver’s license in one State from a State with 

lower or different standards for their drivers. 

The IACP frets that law enforcement executives which have very rigorous standards for qualification will be ‘‘forced to permit officers who may not meet those 

standards to carry a concealed weapon in his or her jurisdiction.’’ 1 The IACP should 

more closely analyze the information contained in the Reciprocity Handbook, a document prepared by the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement 

Standards and Training (IADLEST), which consolidates information gathered from 

all fifty (50) State peace officer standards and training organizations (POST Agencies) and the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Reciprocity Handbook

shows that the training standards on the use of firearms are very similar and do 

not ‘‘vary significantly,’’ 2 as the IACP has claimed. 

This legislation carefully defines who will and will not be able to carry under this 

bill. Only employees of a government agency who are or were 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 have or had statutory 

powers of arrest will be able to carry their firearms if this legislation is enacted. 

Active officers must be authorized to carry a firearm and meet the standards established by the agency which require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of 

a firearm, and retired officers must have retired in good standing from a government agency with a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the 

39

agency in order to be considered ‘‘qualified.’’ In addition, retired officers who wish 

to carry under this bill must requalify with their firearm at their own expense every 

twelve (12) months and meet the standards for training and qualification to carry 

a firearm in the State in which they reside. 

Mr. Chairman, these are individuals who have been trained and entrusted by 

their communities with the use of firearms for the public good who chose law enforcement as their profession, not a hobby. These men and women are more than 

qualified and more than worthy of the measured extension of the trust that this legislation would provide. 

I have also heard the so-called ‘‘States’ rights’’ objections from some lawmakers 

here on the Hill. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, this claim doesn’t hold water. As mentioned previously, not only does Congress have the authority under the ‘‘full faith 

and credit’’ clause of the Constitution, Congress has acted to force States to recognize permits to carry issued by other States on the basis of employment in other, 

and, in my opinion, less worthy, instances. In June of 1993, the Senate and House 

approved PL 103–55, the ‘‘Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act.’’ This legislation 

mandated reciprocity for weapons licenses issued to armored car company crew 

members among States (including the District of Columbia). In its final form, the 

bill passed both the House and the Senate by voice vote. Congress amended the Act 

in 1998, providing that the licenses must be renewed every two years. 

This precedent allows armored car guards—who do not have nearly the same level 

of training and qualifications as law enforcement officers—to receive a license to 

carry a firearm in one State and forces other States to recognize its validity. Mr. 

Chairman, if Congress sees fit to stretch the elasticity of the commerce clause to 

mandate that private guards who obtain firearms licenses should have those licenses recognized in all States, why does it balk at extending that same authority 

to fully-sworn, fully-trained and government-employed law enforcement officers? 

Similarly, in its debate on homeland security during the 107th Congress, both the 

House and Senate overwhelmingly passed legislation deputizing airline pilots and 

granting them an exemption to State prohibitions on the carrying of firearms. The 

House adopted H.R. 4635, the ‘‘Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act,’’ on 10 July 

2002 by a vote of 310–113 (Roll Call Vote #292) and, on 5 September 2002, the Senate adopted Senate Amendment No. 4492, the ‘‘Arming Pilots Against Terrorism Act 

and Cabin Defense Act,’’ which passed on an 87–6 vote and was ultimately incorporated into H.R. 5005 (now PL 107–296). 

Contrary to popular opinion, airline pilots who complete the Federal flight deck 

officer program are not limited to carrying their firearms only aboard their aircraft. 

According to the statute, they are exempt from State law with respect to prohibitions on the carrying of firearms, per Section 44912 to Subchapter I of chapter 449 

of title 49, United States Code, which reads in part: ‘‘(f)(2) PREEMPTION—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal or State law, a Federal flight deck officer, whenever necessary to participate in the program, may carry a firearm in any 

State and from 1 State to another State.’’

This is yet another Federal preemption that grants a certain class of persons—

based on the nature of their employment and risks inherent to that employment—

the authority to carry firearms in all States. Mr. Chairman, in an emergency situation, I would want a pilot in control of the aircraft, not a law enforcement officer. 

Similarly, I believe that most people would prefer a law enforcement officer over a 

pilot in any emergency situation involving firearms. No matter how many weeks a 

pilot spends training with a gun, it will not equal the experience and training of 

a fully-sworn and fully-trained law enforcement officer. 

Another objection raised by the IACP and others is that such legislation would 

jeopardize the lives of officers who might mistake a fellow officer from outside the 

jurisdiction for an armed assailant. There have been and will be incidents of friendly fire—police who, tragically, mistakenly shoot a fellow officer. These incidents are 

tragedies, just like training accidents or other accidental injuries or deaths. You 

cannot legislate against tragedy. Police officers are in far more danger from vengeful, armed assailants than from their fellow officers and the latter is the only issue 

that we can address with legislation. 

Thirdly, the IACP maintains that the bill would do little to improve the safety 

of our communities. I submit that 11 September 2001 dispensed with that argument. 

Finally, the IACP erects the straw man of liability—that the departments are financially at risk if an off-duty officer is involved in an incident outside his home 

jurisdiction. First of all, an off-duty officer who elects to carry his or her firearm 

when traveling is liable for his own actions, not the department which employs him 

or her. Secondly, the chiefs should remember, if they can, that police officers are 

trained how and when to use firearms and the proper method of escalating force 

40

in the variety of situations which may confront them. Most police officers will serve 

their entire careers without ever having drawn their firearm in the line of duty, so 

there is no reason to think, as the IACP intimates, that the nation will suddenly 

be overrun by out-of-control vacation cops drawing guns on jaywalkers. It is irresponsible to portray their officers in that way. 

Lastly, I would note that Congress found a means by which to inoculate pilots 

who choose to carry from liability with respect to their actions, and they will not 

have had nearly the same level of training and experience as a fully sworn law enforcement officer. If this were a legitimate concern, I feel confident that agreeable 

language insulating the employing agency would have already been crafted. 

Another objection we often hear expressed is with respect to the provision covering retirees. We believe that requiring retired officers to meet the same standards 

as active officers in their State, which this bill does, sufficiently addresses this concern. 

I am often asked by opponents of concealed carry authority for law enforcement 

officers why this is not a States’ rights issue. The simple answer is that, in this instance, it is the variety of State laws that make Federal legislation necessary. The 

bewildering patchwork of concealed carry laws in the States and other jurisdictions 

often results in a paradox for law enforcement officers—local, State, and Federal—

and can put them in legal jeopardy. 

States and localities issue their police officers firearms to perform their jobs. Each 

State and local jurisdiction sets their own requirements for their officers in training 

and qualifying in the use of these weapons for both their own safety and the 

public’s. This legislation maintains the States’ power to set these requirements and 

determine whether or not an officer or retired officer is qualified in the use of the 

firearm, and exempts those qualified officers from local and State statutes prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons when those officers are off-duty or retired. 

The aim of the bill—allowing qualified active and retired law enforcement officers 

to carry their firearms outside their own jurisdiction is not a controversial position. 

With the exception of the IACP, this legislation has widespread, bipartisan support 

throughout the law enforcement community. 

It is my understanding that this Subcommittee will be marking up this legislation 

following this afternoon’s hearing and may consider an amendment in the nature 

of a substitute. At this time, the F.O.P. has not seen or reviewed this amendment, 

but we do oppose any legislative language that would prevent or delay the provisions of this bill from taking immediate effect and any provisions which would enable States to ‘‘opt out’’ of compliance. We see no need for any amendments to a 

piece of legislation which has two hundred and ninety-two (292) cosponsors—a twothirds majority of the House of Representatives. This total includes eleven (11) of 

the thirteen (13) members of this Subcommittee, all of whom have cosponsored this 

legislation as introduced. Just a few years ago, the House passed an amendment 

identical to H.R. 218 by an overwhelming vote of 372–53. 

In the Senate, the companion bill to H.R. 218 has sixty-nine (69) cosponsors—a 

filibuster-proof majority. Just three months ago, in March, the Senate considered an 

amendment identical to H.R. 218 and approved it on a 91–8 vote. Congress recognizes the merits of this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, it is an increasingly dangerous 

world that the men and women wearing the badge are asked to patrol. The level 

and degree of violence in the crimes being committed is becoming almost incomprehensible in terms of sheer brutality. Even more striking is the lack of remorse with 

which this violence is committed. Law enforcement officers are targets—in uniform 

and out; on duty and off; active or retired. 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 police work do not end with our shift. 

Perhaps the strongest endorsement I can give you for this legislation is that thousands of violent criminals will hate to see it pass. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you and the Committee today on this issue. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might 

have.

Mr. COBLE. We have been joined by the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Ohio. The gentlelady from Texas 

was here, but she will probably reappear. 

Gentlemen, we try to comply with the 5-minute rule against ourselves, as well, so if you could keep your answers succinct, it will 

enable us to move along. 

41

Mr. Eisenberg, we’ve seen circumstances where officers are sued 

for excessive use of force. Who would be liable if an officer used excessive force off-duty outside of his jurisdiction? I realize this is a 

hypothetical, but what’s your best response to that? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, not being an attorney, I would have to 

take a guess, but my sense is a police officer is subject to the same 

laws as everybody else. If he or she is on duty, they have to follow 

the specific protocols, practices, training demands, et cetera that 

apply to them under which they operate. However, if they are 

using excessive force in a situation where they are off duty, you 

might—I want to be careful here—you might consider that to be a 

form of citizen arrest except they have certain qualifications and 

know the certain responsibilities that an average citizen would not. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Johnson—thank you, Mr. Eisenberg. 

Mr. Johnson, according to your testimony, H.R. 218 requires that 

officers must be in good standing to carry their firearm and retired 

officers would be required to pass the same firearms training as active duty officers. Elaborate on this point, if you will, and explain 

how States would verify that an officer is in good standing and current on firearms qualifications. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, Mr. Chairman. From reviewing the language 

of H.R. 218, I think there’s two points. One is that, addressing the 

States’ rights issue which some opponents have raised, the language of the proposed bill itself indicates that it’s the standards established by the agency and established—the standards established 

by the State within which the officer’s employing agency is located 

which sets the firearms standards regarding training and requalification with which that officer has to comply. 

Similarly, in section 3 of the proposed bill regarding retired law 

enforcement officers, I believe it is in paragraph C(5) it talks about, 

for a retired law enforcement officer, among other requirements to 

lawfully carry a concealed firearm, that during the most recent 12-

month period, he or she has met, at the expense of the individual, 

again, the State’s standards, that particular State’s standards for 

training and qualification for active law enforcement officers. 

So I believe that the concern regarding both States’ rights is adequately addressed in the legislation and that there is no Federal 

intrusion on States setting their own qualifications, and both active 

and retired law enforcement officers are required to maintain that 

qualification. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Superintendent Ruecker, to your knowledge, are there States 

that currently do not allow off-duty or retired police officers in their 

own State to carry concealed weapons? 

Mr. RUECKER. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman, there are States that 

do not allow that, the State of Oregon being one. 

Mr. SCOTT. Was the question within their own State? Was that 

the question? 

Mr. COBLE. Yes, in their own State. 

Mr. RUECKER. Oh, to that, I cannot—I do not know, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. Okay. You thought I was referring to out of State? 

Mr. RUECKER. People coming to our State. 

42

Mr. COBLE. Yes, okay. Yes. No, I meant within your own State. 

To your knowledge, furthermore, Superintendent, are there States 

that currently allow off-duty law enforcement officers from another 

State to carry concealed weapons within that State? 

Mr. RUECKER. Mr. Chairman, I have heard that that is the case. 

I do not know any specific State, but it’s my understanding there 

are. 

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Canterbury, do you happen to know? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. There are a number of States that do. I 

couldn’t give you a list of them at the current time. We could provide that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. All right, sir. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. But there’s a number of them that do have a 

reciprocity with concealed weapons permit carry. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, sir. Mr. Canterbury, let me ask you this. 

Mr. Ruecker has testified that policies regarding law enforcement 

officers carrying weapons off duty, use of force policies, and firearms training standards vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and, 

of course, that’s true. How do you respond to that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I would respond to that by saying that there 

are still in the majority of the States a reciprocity for accepting the 

qualifications of another officer transferring to that State. Most of 

the time when you attend the police academy of another State and 

you are an out-of-State certified officer, most academies, with the 

exception of most of the State police, do that with a fast-track academy where they learn that State law. 

But there is—the national average would be a minimum of 48 

hours of firearms training at the basic academies in the country 

and the average minimum score for qualification in the country is 

77 percentile, and that’s an average across the board, with the lowest being 70 percent. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. I see my time has expired. The gentleman from Virginia? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Canterbury, did I understand you on your example to suggest that an off-duty police officer within his own jurisdiction would 

be affected by this legislation? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. No, sir. It was just an example of another offduty officer that was killed in the line of duty. I have a number 

of examples—— Mr. SCOTT. Was that within the jurisdiction that he worked in? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. That one was within the jurisdiction. 

Mr. SCOTT. Now, would this bill require local jurisdictions to 

allow off-duty police officers to carry firearms while they are off 

duty, even within their jurisdiction? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe it would grant the right. I don’t believe it would mandate. 

Mr. SCOTT. Grant the right. Would the police officer have the 

right to carry a firearm, notwithstanding the local jurisdiction’s decision otherwise, to carry a firearm within the jurisdiction? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Yes, I believe it would. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. People are mentioning standards and the percentages. Do any of these rural police departments or sheriffs’ offices have virtually no standards, no training? 

43

Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe at this time, all 50 States have a 

Statewide standard. I don’t believe there’s any States without 

standards. We have a State minimum standard now. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, this isn’t just for the police and sheriff. You’ve 

got all kinds of stuff in here, corrections and—I mean, it’s just 

not—probation, parole, judicial, all kinds of stuff in here. It’s just 

not your police officers and sheriffs. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. However, the language of H.R. 218 indicates that to be a qualified law enforcement officer, it has to be 

someone who is already authorized by their agency to carry a firearm. So—— Mr. SCOTT. So a Game and Inland Fisheries officer in Virginia 

can carry a firearm and so they would be able to go to New York 

City with a firearm, concealed weapon? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. If in the Commonwealth of Virginia they 

meet the qualifications under the law, then they would enjoy the 

right to carry one. I would ask permission just to point out, though, 

the bill only authorizes an officer to carry the firearm. It does nothing—it doesn’t deputize anyone. It doesn’t make a police officer 

someplace else. It doesn’t authorize someone to use it. All the regular rules of self-defense and the laws of——

Mr. SCOTT. In all due respect, you like to have these discussions 

before somebody gets shot, because after they get shot, the criminal 

justice system really isn’t a good—isn’t much help. 

Different areas have different standards of training. If in the situation that Mr. Eisenberg suggested, where you go into another jurisdiction and get into a liability situation, whose standard for duty 

of care will be the measure? Is it the duty of care in New York City 

where you are, or Charles City County from whence you came? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think—my opinion—we’re talking about duty of 

care and violation, if you’re talking about a negligence case——

Mr. SCOTT. Right. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. That would be determined by the law 

of the jurisdiction where the act occurred. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so if the person was not trained pursuant to the 

standard of care that he is going to be judged by, you’re asking for 

trouble. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe that the person would be judged by the 

negligence standard in that local jurisdiction that would apply to 

other citizens—— Mr. SCOTT. So if someone came out of Charles City County, Virginia, a jurisdiction population 6,000, ended up in New York City 

where they have, obviously, much better training, they would be 

judged in their action or in their decision by the standard for New 

York City, not Charles City County where he was trained? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I believe that’s a correct statement of the tort law, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. How would—if a drug deal goes bad, how 

would a police officer from out of town know which was the undercover agent and which was the crook? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think that any officer, any person may or may 

not know in a given situation who’s who and that every officer in 

every department that I’m aware of, the officers’ basic—most basic 

training is you don’t shoot at what you think. You fire as an absoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\061504\94197.000 HJUD1 PsN: 94197
44

lute last resort, only at what you know. That type of situation that 

you’re talking about there—— Mr. SCOTT. You have a person aiming a firearm at somebody. 

How do you know whether it’s the undercover agent looking at the 

crook or the crook looking at the undercover agent? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Congressman, I believe the answer to that 

would be, in a department of 40,000 people in the City of New 

York, they wouldn’t know either. It’s police training, firearms training, and I think the misnomer here is that this authorizes the officers the right to carry. They’re not going into other jurisdictions to 

work. This would be a situation of last resort for the purpose of 

saving a life. When an EMT crosses a State line, he doesn’t leave 

his CPR skills in the next city, and the standards for CPR are different in every State. 

So I would think that you’re talking about a last resort scenario 

where an officer is either protecting his own life or the life of a citizen, and with minimum standard training around the country, it 

would be far fetched for an officer to get involved in a situation 

that—a normal police situation. They just would not get involved. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. COBLE. I believe the gentleman from Virginia—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I just yield for a moment? I’m departing 

from the hearing and I wanted to offer my apologies, Mr. Chairman, because I’m very interested in this hearing. I have a meeting 

with President Karzai of Afghanistan starting right now and I 

apologize. I know that’s far away from the United States, but I’m 

very interested in this issue and met with a number of individuals 

and would like to work with you all on it and just would say that 

if we can work through the issue of liability, I would appreciate it, 

if we have discussions. But I’m going to beg the pardon of the 

Chairman and the Ranking Member and I thank you so very much 

for holding this hearing. 

Mr. COBLE. You are indeed excused. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. Thank you, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

I believe the gentleman from Virginia was first in attendance, so 

I now recognize him for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. I’ve got one question. I know one of the 

things that we’ve been concerned about in Virginia of late is the 

rise in gang activity that we’ve seen, and all of us have been very 

concerned. I know some of you gentlemen have been concerned 

about that. 

Secondly, one of the big things we’ve been concerned about is the 

countersurveillance that we have seen taking place by gang members. That is, when police officers go in to do surveillance on the 

gangs, the gangs turn around now and are doing surveillance on 

the police officers, finding out where their homes are and where 

their families are and those kinds of things, and actually our concern is coming after the police officers. 

If you have a police officer in Virginia, let’s say, and he is off 

duty and he is in a locality that doesn’t allow him to have a concealed weapon, or if he comes into D.C. at a shopping mall there, 

what are you doing or what can we do to protect him if he can’t 

45

carry a weapon to protect himself, let’s say from one of the gangs 

that might be coming after him or his family? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. At the current time, we’re not protecting him 

at all, and that scenario happens inside the District and outside of 

the District very often. Recently in a road rage case in Maryland, 

a District police officer fled the scene of a road rage incident, called 

911, and still had to defend himself before police could arrive. Because of a reciprocity agreement, he was able to do that. But if they 

came from outside of the Washington metro area, from Richmond, 

he probably would have succumbed to his wounds. 

Mr. FORBES. So basically if we don’t have this legislation, there 

would be situations where that police officer would be exposed, 

have no real ability to even defend himself, is that—— Mr. CANTERBURY. Absolutely. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. Mr. Chairman, that was my only question. 

Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment briefly on 

the bill and then yield back the balance of my time. I appreciate 

the Chairman and Ranking Member for the hearing and the markup and the opportunity to participate. The bill has a great number 

of cosponsors and has been long overdue to be brought up on the 

House floor. 

As the measure would permit qualified current and former law 

enforcement members to carry concealed firearms across jurisdiction and respond to some of the dangers encountered during police 

work and the reality that officers have to respond to emergency situations when they’re off duty, I support the measure and I want 

to once again thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for 

bringing up this piece of legislation and urge my fellow colleagues 

to support it, as well. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

I believe the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Keller, was next in 

line. You’re recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KELLER. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a brief statement about this legislation. I think this is a very common sense 

piece of legislation that will likely pass both Houses of Congress 

with more than a 90 percent approval rate. There are some, however, it’s been suggested at this hearing, and it may be offered a 

little bit later at the markup, that say we should have some sort 

of opt-out amendment which is being proposed in the name of 

States’ rights. 

I certainly don’t question or doubt the motives of those who make 

that argument. You can make it with a straight face. But I would 

just say that that argument, and if there is an amendment, would 

essentially gut the bill and give us the same inconsistent patchwork of coverage that exists today, and let me give you an example. 

If a law enforcement officer from my hometown of Orlando, Florida, decided to take his family on vacation to Washington, D.C., to 

see the monuments, he would have to go through six separate jurisdictions—Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, D.C. How odd it would be if, as he’s driving through Florida, 

46

which is legal, he gets to Georgia and they decide to opt out, now 

he’s not allowed to have the gun in the car. Then he gets to South 

Carolina. That’s legal. Then he gets to North Carolina. Now he’s 

violating the law because they’ve opted out. Then he gets to Virginia and that’s legal. Then he gets to D.C. and they’ve opted out. 

It just—it’s a very inconsistent, nonsensical patchwork that really 

needs to be fixed. 

Cops, by the nature of their job, like physicians, are always on 

duty. If a doctor was making that same trip with his family, from 

Orlando to D.C., and he were to encounter a roadside accident and 

people who need help, wouldn’t it be odd if he said, well, I’m sorry. 

You need CPR but you’re in Georgia here and I can’t do any medical techniques or do CPR here. If you were in South Carolina, I 

would save your life. It just wouldn’t make sense. 

That’s why this bill is so attractive to so many people on both 

sides of the aisle. It’s a common sense piece of legislation. Of 

course, if pilots are allowed to have guns, a licensed law enforcement officer should be allowed to have a gun to protect himself, his 

family, and the people he’s around. 

So I congratulate Congressman Cunningham for sticking this 

out. It’s been said that this bill is on a fast track. Well, this is the 

slowest fast track I’ve ever seen in history. Nevertheless, he’s been 

very persistent and he’s stuck with it and I look forward to supporting this bill and I’ll urge my colleagues to do the same. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

I believe the gentleman from Indiana was next in line, recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PENCE. I thank the Chairman for yielding and I wish to 

thank the Chairman for having this hearing and markup on what 

I would associate with Mr. Keller’s remarks as a very attractive 

piece of legislation. 

But I do respect the service represented by this panel. My father’s brother was on the job in the City of Chicago for 25 years, 

so I have some experience in my immediate family with families 

that wait every day at dinner for people to come home. And I have 

a very soft spot in my heart for the law enforcement community 

and for police officers in general. 

It’s what drives me to think that we would contribute to public 

safety if we moved forward on this legislation. I am someone who 

believes that firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens make for 

safer communities and I think I believe that’s even doubly true 

when it comes to police officers, even off duty. 

A couple of technical questions, mostly for Mr. Canterbury. In 

your testimony, you state that the Full Faith and Credit Clause of 

the Constitution allows Congress to preempt State laws with regard to carrying of concealed weapons by police officers. Would you 

support legislation which has been supported by some Members of 

this Committee to allow all citizens to carry concealed weapons in 

any State if they met their own State’s qualifications for a concealed weapon? If so, why? If not, why not, and is it—does it reflect 

some of the bias that I just spoke to with regard to law enforcement officers? 

47

Mr. CANTERBURY. As an organization, we have not taken a stand 

on concealed carry by citizens. The major purpose for that is that 

we believe that the current legislation, the reciprocity agreements 

that are in existence have not proven to be a problem. And so in 

the last number of years, probably the last eight, we have been 

concentrating solely on the effort of law enforcement officers to 

carry off duty to protect our family and fellow citizens and the organization has actually not taken a proactive role either way——

Mr. PENCE. Okay. 

Mr. CANTERBURY [continuing]. In concealed carry by citizens. 

Mr. PENCE. Let me ask you one other question, if I may. This 

legislation would make it legal for anyone defined as a law enforcement officer to carry a concealed weapon in any State. This really 

is an honest question for me. Does that—I assume that term would 

be defined on a State-by-State basis. Does that definition vary 

widely from State to State? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. It does vary from State to State, but I believe 

the wording of the Federal legislation provides enough fail-safe to 

make sure that they have to meet the State standards for whatever 

a law enforcement officer is in that State. In the last 10 to 12 

years, that has been so much more standardized than it used to be 

that a number of States, and I’m sure that most of you are familiar 

with the recruiting efforts in law enforcement have been very tough 

in the last few years, so almost every State has developed some 

sort of lateral transfer of certified police officers and that definitely 

demonstrates that there has been a heightening of the training 

standards. So I don’t believe that would actually be a problem. 

Mr. PENCE. Would the term ‘‘certified police officers’’ be a more 

contemporary term of art? Would it be a more specific term that 

the Committee should consider in the way of——

Mr. CANTERBURY. I believe the current language is sufficient, 

Congressman. 

Mr. PENCE. That response——

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. I believe in the proposed section 926(b), 

paragraph C does contain a definition for the term ‘‘qualified law 

enforcement officer,’’ which I think does address the issues that 

you’ve raised and the concerns that opponents may have regarding 

the bill. I think that it’s broad enough to encompass those officers 

who are well qualified and trained. At the same time, there are 

sufficient safeguards to assure that people, for example, who are 

not allowed under Federal law to receive any firearm cannot take 

advantage of this as a loophole, for example. 

Mr. PENCE. It seems to me that the benefit of this legislation, in 

my judgment, has to do with this specific application of it to individuals who have worn the uniform in a way that is reflective of 

public service. The Superintendent had a comment. 

Mr. RUECKER. Yes, thank you. I think that there are in the main, 

in the mainstream definition of what we would all think about 

when we think of certified police officers, you’re not likely to have 

a lot of problems. It’s in the exceptions and in the variations from 

State to State on what does that mean where you’re going to see 

someone with an extremely narrow law enforcement purpose, or an 

authorization at home being covered under this bill when I suspect 

48

none of the panelists here, or most of us would not, nor would the 

Committee think that’s what they had intended. 

Mr. PENCE. Mr. Eisenberg, please. 

Mr. EISENBERG. Thank you. My concern is that if you pass the 

bill as written, that it would place people in civil and legal jeopardy 

in a number of circumstances. And so I ask the Committee that if 

you proceed with this bill, that you find ways to solve the liability 

problem and the civil liability problem and the problem that occurs 

when somebody may find themselves responding to an event that 

anybody, certainly a law enforcement officer, would and should respond to. 

But there’s another liability issue here, a legal one, not just a 

civil one, and that is when they might end up committing a misdemeanor or even a felony because they don’t know the rules, protocols, or laws of the State while they are carrying that weapon. 

Now, if there’s some kind of reciprocity, if there’s some kind of additional standards, if there’s some way to protect these law enforcement officers from stepping into something they don’t want to step 

in because they don’t know, then the bill will be better. 

I still have problems with the bill, but please do something to 

deal with the civil liability and the potential for getting into more 

serious trouble simply because they respond to an incident and 

don’t know legally what they’re getting into. 

Mr. PENCE. I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Feeney, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FEENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

panel. One of the concerns, Mr. Canterbury, you sort of touched on 

in your speech, and that is with respect to the requirements, the 

qualifications and the certification requirements for police officers 

to be able to carry weapons, and the suggestion was that some local 

jurisdictions may have very lax or unfortunate standards. But isn’t 

it true in most States that local jurisdictions use State certification 

boards for their minimum standards and then they build upon 

those where they deem appropriate and have, if anything, higher 

requirements at their local levels than the State tends to have? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I would say that’s an accurate statement, Congressman. 

Mr. FEENEY. One of the legitimate concerns raised by Mr. 

Eisenberg is the liability issue to the agency that does the—basically grants the original certification which is subsequently used in 

an outside jurisdiction, and then, of course, the potential liability 

to individual members of the traveling public. 

But isn’t it true, Mr. Eisenberg, with respect to the officers that 

happen to carry a weapon with them, they’re duty bound to know 

the law even though the law is so complex in the 5,000 local jurisdictions and 50 States, and then you’ve got the Federal Government. It is true when we travel we’re all sort of bound under legal 

theory to know the law even though the law is unknowable in its 

current form. 

Mr. EISENBERG. But they are acting as if they are on duty when 

they are not legally on duty, and you end up with a potential civil 

liability, again, that goes both to the jurisdiction that issued the 

49

firearm to begin with and potentially to the law enforcement official who has stepped over the bounds. And then again, you’ve got 

that misdemeanor felony, this legal issue that hangs there if they 

respond and don’t know that you can’t hit somebody with a baton 

more than X-number of times in this State, but you can in that 

State. 

Mr. FEENEY. Well, I grant your point, but I would suggest to you 

there are probably local jurisdictions and maybe places in California, for example, where carrying an aerosol spray can can have 

you civilly liable or for a misdemeanor. So the fact of the matter 

is, the law has become so complex that people that do undertake 

to carry these weapons are going to have to engage in a very cautious manner. 

And with respect to the underlying agencies, I think that you 

also raise a legitimate concern. But other than—because these officers are not being deputized in one State to travel to another jurisdiction to fight crime. What, in fact, is happening is the only theory 

of liability I’m aware of that you could hold the underlying agency 

that certified the officer that then makes his or her own decision 

to travel with a weapon, the only theories I can think of are agency, and, of course, there is no agency because you have not been 

authorized to do anything, or the dangerous instrumentality theory 

that the owner of a gun or a vehicle or a lawn mower may be liable, which every State has a different standard. 

Mr. EISENBERG. Not to belabor this, except—I agree with you 

and I think your points are well taken. The only thing I would add 

to that is that would a law enforcement officer in another State, 

bound by those laws, he or she may be committing an act for which 

they could be sued. And all I suggest to the panel, knowing that 

this legislation has substantial support behind it, is to think hard 

and think well about how to address these particular issues. 

Mr. FEENEY. I think it’s a good suggestion that we maybe have 

some time to think about. I just want to say, because I don’t know 

whether—how far we’ll get today with some of the agendas we 

have over in the House and other events going on, but I will tell 

you, I have no doubt that there are a lot of local policy officials that 

would like to opt out of this clause, and this is the first time I’ve 

ever lived in Washington, D.C. I know they have similar gun restriction laws as New York City. They also have some of the highest rates of violent crime traditionally. 

When I went to my dry cleaners today, they hand out a sheet 

with all of the local violent crimes that have been committed within a five-block area of my neighborhood. It looks like a nuclear 

black cloud. I know of places in Florida, where there are more guns 

than there are people, and people leave their door windows open 

to their car, the keys in the ignition, all the windows to their house 

open because they have no crime. 

And I would suggest to you that the most efficient tax way you 

can possibly protect your locality is to have an unknowable amount 

of current and former police officers all over the place so that every 

would-be criminal and every would-be terrorist has to guess who is 

current or former active duty and who may be armed. I think it 

has a great deterrent potential, and I happen to be totally in favor 

of the bill. Thank you for your testimony. 

50

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman from Florida. 

The gentleman from Virginia is recognized, Mr. Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I might, I’d—— Mr. COBLE. Strike that, Bob. I think I owe an apology to Mr. 

Chabot, the gentleman from Ohio, I think preceded you here, Mr. 

Goodlatte. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, I was hoping that—— Mr. COBLE. I apologize. Mr. Chabot, you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. I’d be happy to yield if the gentleman would like 

to ask questions, but if not—okay. I just have a couple and many 

of the questions that I would have had have already been asked, 

and I apologize because I had some constituents in the back room 

so wasn’t here the entire time, but just a couple of questions, and 

these, again, may have been responded to. 

But there was some implication in some of the questions that 

were asked about the standards perhaps in a community where 

they only have 6,000 people being inferior to, say, New York City 

or some other larger community. I don’t believe that’s necessarily 

the case. I think, as was mentioned, there are minimum standards 

in police departments all over the country. But if somebody could 

just address that particular issue about standards nowadays. I’m 

not talking 50 years ago. I’m talking about the actual standards in 

the real world nowadays in communities all over the country, irregardless of the size of that particular community. Could somebody 

talk that issue, and I’d be happy to hear from anyone. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. I worked for a small police department 

in Maine that maybe had eight people year-round. They’d hire 

extra people as needed, maybe 5,000 people. But there, even in a 

very small community, we were subject to very strictly enforced 

State guidelines and my understanding is that every single State 

mandates, particularly with the use of force and particularly with 

regard to firearms, adherence to State-level and State-enforced 

rules for the carrying and use of deadly force by all officers, and 

it was drilled into us regardless of the size we were that the number one duty we had as a law enforcement officer, the very first 

duty was to enforce the Constitution, and that included avoiding 

deadly force. 

Supreme Court cases that dealt with liability to officers and to 

their employing agencies were very carefully gone over. It was absolutely understood that it was an absolute last resort, that we had 

no particular license to go out and apply deadly force at will, certainly nothing of the sort. It was an ultimate and very last ditch 

responsibility, to be avoided if we could, but to be utilized to save 

our life or someone else’s life if necessary. 

And to my knowledge—I only have personal knowledge in Virginia, Maine, and Florida—but to my knowledge, every State has 

a similar program of instruction for all their officers. You must be 

State-certified, and part of that certification is knowing and following the State rules on these very subjects. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Any other panel member want to add something? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Just quickly. 

51

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Eisenberg? 

Mr. EISENBERG. In the situation we’ve talked about, you have a 

police officer who is a regular citizen in somebody else’s State. He 

or she may act in protection of someone in trouble, but it’s like the 

difference between a law and a regulation. You violate a law, 

there’s a certain set of penalties that are provided. But there are 

also penalties for violating regulations and in the broad sense we’re 

talking about here, if the people are not aware of the protocols and 

the, not so much the standards but the actions that they may take, 

they may step over the line. That’s my concern—— Mr. CHABOT. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. EISENBERG [continuing]. As a legislator. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Canterbury? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. Congressman, with all due respect to Mr. 

Eisenberg, this is about—this is not about liability, it’s about lives. 

It’s about police officers’ lives and citizens’ lives and every police 

officer that walks a beat, as I did for 26 years, worried about liability every day that I went to work. It was the buzz word 26 years 

ago. It was the buzz words when I left January 2. 

We’re not going into the jurisdictions looking to fight crime. 

We’re going into jurisdictions to live our lives, go to the dry cleaners and pick up our laundry and go home. But if we are confronted 

with an armed combatant or the dry cleaner is being robbed when 

I get there, as a trained professional, I want the ability to be able 

to save the dry cleaner’s life or my life. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I note that the yellow light is already illuminated, so rather than ask another question, I’ll yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes—the other gentleman from Virginia. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Yes, it’s working, it’s just the light burned out. 

Your questions were so intense, the light burned out. [Laughter.] 

I guess in response to this question about whether or not people 

should be worried about liability in other States, I’d say that people 

enter States by the millions every day in which they may be unfamiliar with a whole host of laws that might impose liability on 

them, whether that is for driving a motor vehicle or obeying laws 

relating to any kind of criminal activity, regarding any types of behavior that the States may have differing laws on. 

I wonder if each one of you would respond to that concern. Is 

there—we’ll start with you, Mr. Canterbury. Is there a reason to 

draw a distinction between this constitutionally protected right and 

other types of behavior? We’re going to exclude the guns from these 

States. We’re certainly not going to pass laws or allow States to 

pass laws excluding the people from entering the other States and 

I wonder why we should make that distinction in the case of firearms for legally trained, professionally trained law enforcement officers. 

Mr. CANTERBURY. I don’t think there should be a distinction. 

When I enter the State, the Commonwealth of Virginia, if I was inclined to speed, my speed detector on my dash, or radar detector 

on my dash would be illegal. It would be a liability if I had one, 

and I don’t know how many people stop at the State line and put 

52

them in the trunk. But it’s the same thing, in our opinion—and I 

agree with you that any jurisdiction, the neighboring city that for 

me has laws that I’m not familiar with, but I’m allowed to carry 

in that jurisdiction. I just do not believe that that liability question 

is any greater than any other liability with any other product that 

we would have. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Superintendent Ruecker? 

Mr. RUECKER. Thank you. I would tend to agree with you except 

that in the unique circumstance here, a firearm in the possession 

of a police officer and when used as deadly physical force is just 

for one purpose. You don’t draw that weapon for any other reason 

than to shoot somebody. So the consequences are much greater for 

this particular type of circumstance than for other types of regulation. No one would support the notion of—— Mr. GOODLATTE. But aren’t the consequences equally as severe 

when that officer is present in that State and faces a situation in 

which deadly force might be necessary, or at least removing the revolver to attempt to deter somebody from using deadly force themselves or to stop a crime for occurring? Isn’t the risk just as great 

on the other side? Don’t we take that risk every day with every police officer in every community in the country? 

Mr. RUECKER. Yes, we do. However—— Mr. GOODLATTE. And for good reason. 

Mr. RUECKER [continuing]. Persons out of their jurisdiction, far 

out—the problem associated with this is that that officer is only 

going to have one tool available to them, no communications, no 

other resources, maybe not even an ability to be recognized by 

other officers that he or she is a police officer, and that is what 

worries me. I think that there are a lot of things about this bill 

that would not be problematic and the IACP does not want to be 

perceived as saying otherwise. There are many points on which we 

would agree. 

But I and we are very concerned about the unintended negative 

consequences that could come from this. It’s almost a certainty that 

some police officer or somebody and their family is going to get 

killed as a result of the passage of this bill as not. Certainly——

Mr. GOODLATTE. But don’t you think that there are going to be 

plenty of other people—I would argue there would be far more people whose lives would be saved, including perhaps some police officers, because they are able to have this weapon with them because 

they’ve been trained to use that weapon and that’s the very purpose for which they carry the weapon, is to protect themselves and 

the lives of others. 

That being the case, and I certainly understand that there are 

different rules and different protocols and additional risks attached, but I would think they would be far outweighed by the benefit of having effectively additional law enforcement presence in 

areas where crimes might take place. 

Mr. RUECKER. Yes, sir. My final comment would be that it’s not 

about the main—to me, it’s the scope. It’s, you know, without restriction, all retirees. I don’t have in my State the ability to sort 

of decertify somebody that’s retired and maybe they haven’t been 

a police officer for 30 years. They no longer know the law. I mean, 

certainly they know how they were trained in the core of their duVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:10 Aug 12, 2004 Jkt 089266 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CRIME\061504\94197.000 HJUD1 PsN: 94197
53

ties, but things change over time. People’s health deteriorates. I’m 

not going to have any ability to limit that. If they can show up at 

the range and qualify, they’re going to be good to go for the rest 

of their life. Is that the best policy? I’m not sure. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you, Superintendent. My time is expired, 

Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if you want to allow the other two witnesses to answer the question or not, but——

Mr. COBLE. That would be fine. Go ahead. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Thank you. Regarding the Second Amendment concern that some folks might have, our view is——

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Johnson, if you would suspend. What was your 

question, Bob? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It was rather lengthy, but the question was why 

we should be concerned about this particular potential liability 

when people enter other States by the millions every day——

Mr. COBLE. Okay. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. And have all kinds of different liabilities that they may not be aware of when they enter those 

States——

Mr. COBLE. You may continue, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [continuing]. And wouldn’t the benefit of having 

an additional law enforcement officer present outweigh the additional risk which certainly would be attendant to somebody who 

didn’t know all the rules. 

Mr. COBLE. I just didn’t hear the question. Go ahead, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that 

the Congress would be extending, protecting the right that is included in the Second Amendment to a particularly well-qualified 

group of individuals. 

Regarding the various patchwork of laws and potential liability 

across—that exists today across the United States, our view is that 

H.R. 218 helps solve that problem because it creates a unified Federal rule that clearly defines who may carry legally across the 

United States. We’re actually helping to solve this problem of liability and patchwork application of laws that exists today by creating and allowing well-qualified individuals who are already authorized by their own agencies to carry a firearm to do so nationally. 

Just one final point. In 19—it was either 1988 or 1989 when the 

State of Florida enacted legislation that allowed private citizens to 

carry a concealed firearm. There were predictions that this would 

be the Old West. People would have six-guns on their hip. There 

would be shootouts in the streets of Miami. It didn’t happen. The 

type of people, like law enforcement officers, who play by the rules, 

who are well qualified, who undergo rigorous background checks, 

criminal checks, psychological stability checks, retraining every 

year, these are the type of people that we want out there, that we 

already trust to use good judgment in carrying a weapon, and we 

would all benefit as well as the officers themselves would benefit 

from this additional protection for the public. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. 

54

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman—

oh, Mr. Eisenberg, do you want to respond to that? 

Mr. EISENBERG. Only very quickly. I think as the legislation is 

written, police officers are put in harm’s way. In response to your 

question, a gun is different. Its consequences are greater than just 

about anything else I can think of in terms of the situations we’re 

talking about, and if the law enforcement officers——

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Eisenberg, far more people are killed every 

year with automobiles than with guns. 

Mr. EISENBERG. I understand, but we’re talking here about something where somebody does something intentionally. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Sometimes they do them intentionally with 

automobiles. 

Mr. EISENBERG. Well, okay. People——

Mr. GOODLATTE. And there’s a great debate over whether somebody who enters an automobile under the influence of various 

things are doing their act intentionally, but——

Mr. EISENBERG. In this circumstance, a police officer is acting as 

if he or she were on duty. They are taking a step in a jurisdiction 

that they do not know well, with the procedures that they do not 

know well—there are certain procedures when you can draw your 

weapon, when you can fire that weapon, and under what circumstances. These are things that put these people in jeopardy if 

not appropriately addressed, not just legal, not just liability at 

being sued. If somebody gets sued and they have to pay the judgment, it can cost them quite a bit for the rest of their lives. 

In other cases, it’s a legal liability. If you do something that that 

law says you cannot do in a State and you don’t know about it and 

you pull that trigger, now you’re dealing with misdemeanor or felony and it’s a tragedy for all concerned. 

I just ask, think about this and how to fix the problem. I’m not 

saying not to do something, I’m saying think about those liabilities 

and how you will fix that problem——

Mr. COBLE. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Superintendent Ruecker, and I apologize for being out of the 

room for much of the time, but I heard your testimony. I think you 

said that you think with the passage of this legislation, it is just 

as likely that a law enforcement officer or his family would be 

wounded as if a crime were to be thwarted or a criminal were to 

be apprehended. Could you explain that, because I’m not sure I 

quite follow that. 

Mr. RUECKER. Yes, sir. Certainly statistically, that would be a 

lower number of incidents. But what I’m saying is having police officers carrying firearms outside their jurisdiction and concealed, as 

the bill would allow, would most certainly produce some outcomes. 

But just as certainly, it would—there’s almost a certainty that 

there would be accidents that wouldn’t happen because you just 

have firearms around in a place where a person is maybe not have 

their usual places of storage, care, and retention and all that. 

You’re in a hotel room someplace on vacation. You’ve got a firearm. 

You wouldn’t otherwise have it with you. 

55

I’d just say that—or in some circumstance out on the street, 

somebody is going to be mistaken for a bad guy when they’re a 

good guy or a good gal and someone’s going to get in a situation 

that is going to go badly because people don’t know who’s who. 

Mr. GREEN. But that latter point is an argument against all concealed carry laws around the nation, not this legislation, correct? 

I mean, do you really think that suddenly allowing law enforcement officers going from one State to another to have concealed 

carry, that suddenly the public is going to be so alerted to this that 

they’re going to wonder if every single person walking down the 

street might be packing? I mean, I—— Mr. RUECKER. No, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. Right. I didn’t think so. 

Let me ask this question of Mr. Johnson. Superintendent 

Ruecker’s testimony, he seemed to be raising the issue of whether 

retired law enforcement would be keeping their skills and their 

training over the years. I think I heard you testify earlier that in 

order for a retired officer to be using concealed carry that they’d 

have to be in good standing. Could you tell me what exactly that 

means and what sort of training, what sort of practice they have 

to maintain? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir. And I was referring to proposed section 

926(c), subsection (c)(5), talking about retired law enforcement officers. Among other qualifications, one of the qualifications they 

have to have is that, quote, ‘‘during the most recent 12-month period, that that officer has met, at the expense of the individual, the 

State standards for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms.’’ Mr. GREEN. So this isn’t a case where someone is suddenly, you 

know, 10 years after retiring or walking away from the force, 

they’ve received no training, no practice, they haven’t had to think 

about this or follow good practices that they’re carrying a weapon. 

We’re talking about someone who has had to have at least taken 

the active steps of—at his or her own cost—maintained his good 

standing—— Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir, and has actually demonstrated that to the 

satisfaction of the agency, that they are still able to correctly and 

safely and accurately handle their firearm. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay, good. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the gentleman. 

Folks, we’re about ready to go into a markup. Let me visit with 

my friend from the land of the palmetto, my neighbor to the South. 

Mr. Canterbury, this will be a friendly question because I’m a cosponsor of the bill, but let me play devil’s advocate with you for a 

minute. In your testimony, I believe you said that the great majority of the States permit officers to carry concealed weapons back 

and forth. An opponent of this bill would say to you, well, why do 

we need H.R. 218 then? How would you respond to that? 

Mr. CANTERBURY. That would be in their own jurisdictions or in 

their own State. For instance, in South Carolina, I can carry anywhere in my State. But when I cross over into Brunswick County, 

I would be in violation of North Carolina law. 

Mr. COBLE. I got you. Okay. Thank you, sir. 

56

Gentlemen, we appreciate very much you all being here. I thank 

you for your testimony. The Subcommittee appreciates this contribution. 

This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 218. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. COBLE. This concludes the legislative hearing on H.R. 218, 

the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. The record will 

remain open for 1 week, and we will now move on to markup of 

H.R. 218. We stand adjourned, and you gentlemen are excused. 

Thank you again for your attendance. 

Just be at ease for a few minutes. We’ll rearrange the room for 

the markup. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(57)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE

ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

I would like to thank Chairman Coble and Ranking Member Scott for their efforts 

in holding today’s legislative hearing and markup of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement 

Officers Safety Act of 2003, sponsored by Mr. Cunningham of California. This legislation, that proposes to allow qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officers 

to carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction, can have many beneficial effects in 

our efforts to curtail crime in our communities. 

In February, I had the opportunity to meet with several members of the Texas 

Fraternal Order of Police and the Houston Police Patrolmen’s Union to talk about 

the pro’s and con’s of this bill. Because they made such a compelling case as to the 

benefits that it would bring to our crime reduction effort, I requested to become a 

co-sponsor. 

H.R. 218 has 296 cosponsors and is strongly supported by the Law Enforcement 

Alliance of America, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Troopers Coalition, 

the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Brotherhood of 

Police Officers, and many others. In most cases, H.R. 218 is their #1 legislative priority. 

The officers who visited me discussed the fact that this legislation promises to 

bring an immediate, no-cost benefit to communities by simply allowing trustworthy 

officers to carry a concealed firearm full-time. Furthermore, they added that the lifesaving benefits extend to the officers as well. Unlike officers, criminals are ‘‘on duty’’

around the clock. Many have knowingly targeted police officers and their families, 

recognizing that the officer was likely to be unarmed at home. 

These advocates cited several individual cases that evidence the need for the Law 

Enforcement Officers Safety Act: 

* Only on the force one year, a quick-thinking off-duty deputy sheriff picking relatives up at a bus terminal killed an armed suspect near Orlando, Fla., this past 

July. After seeing the subject shoot at another person outside the bus station, the 

plainclothes deputy confronted the shooter who then turned his gun on the officer. 

Finding himself in a life-threatening situation, the deputy fired his gun, fatally 

wounding the man. 

* A retired officer in Long Island, N.Y., was at the right place at the right time 

when a man in a black hood decided to rob a bank in August. The robber waved 

around a realistic-looking toy gun and ordered the midday customers to lie on the 

floor. The retired officer followed the robber as he fled to a nearby gas station, and 

then attempted to apprehend him. Suddenly, the gunman turned his weapon on the 

officer. Left with no other option, the ex-officer shot the robber who then fled in a 

vehicle and crashed into a tree about 100 yards away; he did not survive. 

* An off-duty police sergeant was beaten by a Brooklyn teen armed with a hammer shortly after midnight this past summer. The sergeant, who had just used an 

ATM, refused to hand his money over when the thug decided to use force. Fortunately, the 13-year police veteran was able to defend himself and shot his attacker 

in the thigh. The sergeant was later treated at a local hospital and needed several 

stitches to close a wound to the head. 

* A Staten Island robber was fatally shot in the chest last year by an off-duty 

New Jersey officer. Three thugs reportedly try to rob the officer as he walked with 

a friend down the street shortly after 3 a.m. The officer says he felt a gun in his 

back as the robbers demanded money; then the officer spun around and responded 

with deadly force; the other two suspects fled. 

58

I reiterate that I generally support the spirit of this legislation; however, I do 

have an inquiry that would clarify its scope and identify a potentially problematic 

provision. 

I would like to clarify to whom liability would be assigned in the event that a 

‘‘qualified law enforcement officer’’ or a ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’’

acts outside the scope of his/her duty and commits an act of negligence in the course 

of enforcing the law. 

Subsection (d) of Section 1(page 3), line 20 requires that the identification carried 

by the officer be that which was issued by the government agency ‘‘for which the 

individual is, or was, employed as a law enforcement officer.’’ The ‘‘was’’ language 

implies (1) that the officer could have been terminated for an infraction of low moral 

turpitude; (2) that the identification required can be expired; (3) or that the officer 

is not required to still be employed by the issuing agency to exercise the right to 

carry and use concealed firearms. As such, liability for the actions of the officer 

would not clearly be assigned to the government agency. This ambiguity will cause 

litigation and could preclude the victim of an accidental or mistaken shooting from 

recovering damages for negligence or wrongful death. 

I would hope that my colleagues will clarify this area of ambiguity so that there 

can be strong support from as many Members as possible. In crafting legislation to 

empower individuals to fight crime, we must be very careful not to infringe the 

rights to remedy or any other civil rights of the general public. Furthermore, we 

must ensure that the most qualified individuals obtain this legal privilege. 

I thank my colleague for his hard work in drafting this bill, and I thank the 

Chairman and Ranking Member for having held this meeting.

59

LETTER FROM WILLIAM J. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ORGANIZATIONS


NAPO.eps
60

MEMORANDUM, ‘‘H.R. 218/S. 253, THE CALL OF DUTY’’ FROM THE GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE

Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained body of men and women, 

who, unlike other professionals, are rarely ‘‘off-duty.’’ As first responders, police officers are sworn to answer the call of duty wherever and whenever there is a threat 

to the peace or to public safety. Given their unique role in helping to secure the 

homeland while still protecting the peace and fighting crime, the passage of H.R. 

218/S. 253 has become more than just a critical officer safety issue—it is now a critical public safety and homeland security issue. 

The fifty-eight (58) officers listed below appear on the Wall of Remembrance in 

Judiciary Square because they were killed in the line of duty. But, unlike most officers on the Wall, these officers were not ‘‘on-duty’’ when they were killed. Yet even 

though they were not on the clock, the circumstances of their death qualified them 

as having died ‘‘in the line of duty.’’ Why were those deaths considered line of duty? 

Because in each instance, the officers below were responding to a public safety 

emergency or were targetted and killed because they were a professional law enforcement officer. 

None of the men and women listed below were on the clock and, to the best of 

our knowledge, none were armed when they answered the call of duty and paid the 

ultimate price. If they had been armed, would they have lived? More than one hundred armed and uniformed officers die in the line of duty each year. But one thing 

is certain: even one life saved demonstrates the need for this legislation. 

Detective Thomas G. Newman, a twelve-year veteran of the Baltimore City Police Department in Maryland had been shot and wounded while off-duty in 2001. 

He testified against his assailant, who was sentenced to thirty years in prison. On 

23 November 2002, Detective Newman was shot to death by three suspects, friends 

and relatives of the criminal that Detective Newman had sent to jail, in an act of 

criminal retaliation. 

Police Officer Joseph Jerome Daniels, a ten-year veteran of the Birmingham 

Police Department in Alabama was shot and killed on 11 November 2002. The officer was eating his dinner at a local restaurant when a man entered, announced that 

he was robbing the establishment and ordered everyone on the floor. Officer Daniels 

immediately took action and was shot several times in a struggle with the robber. 

He died of his injuries on the scene. 

Deputy Sheriff Damacio S. Montano, a three-year veteran of the Valencia 

County Sheriff’s Office, was with his brother, State Patrolman Eric Montano, at a 

restaurant on 6 October 2002. They assisted the owner of the restaurant in breaking 

up a fight and escorted two suspects outside. An unknown gunman opened fire on 

the officers, wounding his brother and killing him. 

Detective Jaime Betancourt, a nine-year veteran of the New York City Police 

Department, was knifed to death on 31 May 2002 while attempting to make an offduty arrest. The man was attempting to force entry into a woman’s home when Detective Betancourt attempted to make an arrest. The attacker drew a knife and 

stabbed the officer to death. 

Detective Donald Miller, a ten-year veteran with the New Bern Police Department in North Carolina was off-duty on 23 December 2001. He and his wife had 

just completed a visit to their newborn child in the hospital when the detective observed a man driving recklessly through the hospital parking lot. He confronted the 

man, who drew a handgun and fired—striking Miller in the head. Detective Miller, 

father of two, died two days later on Christmas Day. 

Detective Kevin Darrell Rice, Sr. was off-duty on the evening of 3 August 2001 

when he approached two suspicious men loitering near the construction site of his 

new home. The fourteen-year veteran of the Rockford, Illinois Police Department 

was shot and killed by the men he confronted. 

Officer Dominick J. Infantes, Jr., a seven-year veteran with the New Jersey 

City Police Department, was attacked by two men wielding a pipe on 4 July 2001. 


FOP.eps
61

He died two days later from severe head injuries. Infantes was off-duty when he 

asked two men to stop setting off fireworks near playing children. He identified himself as a police officer, but the two killers did not believe him because Infantes did 

not have a gun. 

Officer Jose Torres-Rodriguez, a five-year veteran with the Puerto Rico Police 

Department, was killed on 11 March 2001. He was off-duty when he arrived at a 

local restaurant. A couple there was having a violent argument, so he identified 

himself as a police officer and offered his assistance. The male suspect drew a handgun, fired, and killed the officer. 

Correctional Officer Leslie John Besci, a sixteen-year veteran with the North 

Carolina Department of Corrections was beaten to death with a baseball bat in an 

unprovoked attack. The officer had just returned from work when he was attacked 

by two former inmates of the prison where he worked. 

Corrections Officer Anthony L. Brown, a seven-year veteran of the Nassau 

County Sheriff’s Department in New York, broke up a fight between a man and his 

girlfriend while off-duty. The man returned later and shot and killed the officer. 

Officer Robert Buitrago of the Winston-Salem Police Department in North 

Carolina, observed a robbery in progress while off-duty. He was shot and killed in 

an attempt to apprehend the suspect. 

Officer Ernesto Caballero-Vega, a three-year veteran with the Puerto Rico Police Department, was off-duty and travelling with his father when he witnessed an 

attempted car-jacking. He approached the criminal and identified himself as a police 

officer. The suspect shot the officer and his father to death. 

Officer Glanville Christopher-Figueroa of the Puerto Rico Police Department 

was shot and killed while attempting to stop a robbery in progress. He was off-duty. 

Auxiliary Officer Milton S. Clarke, a three-year veteran of the New York City 

Police Department was off-duty when he went to investigate gun shots from outside 

his home. After he identified himself as a police officer, he was shot and killed. 

Officer Ralph Dols, a three-year veteran of the New York City Police Department was off-duty when he was ambushed in front of his home. He was attacked 

by three men, who shot him a total of six times. The investigation into the officer’s murder suggest that the killing was in retaliation for the officer’s identification of 

suspects in a robbery who may have had some connection to organized crime. 

Officer Carlos J. Diaz-Martinez of the Puerto Rico police department was offduty when he walked into a barber shop where a robbery was in progress. He was 

shot and killed when he tried to take action. 

Deputy Antranik Geuvjehizian, a seven-year veteran with the Los Angeles 

County Sheriff’s Department was investigating a suspicious person lurking around 

a neighbor’s house while at home and off-duty. He was shot and killed after confronting the suspect and identifying himself as a law enforcement officer. 

Detective Charles Edward Harris, a twenty-year veteran with the Southern 

Pines Police Department in North Carolina was at home and off-duty when drug 

suspects rang his doorbell. The suspects targeted the officer after he attended a 

‘‘crime watch’’ meeting at an apartment complex. The officer was shot and killed, 

and his wife, home at the time, was also shot. 

Officer Jose Ramon Hernandez-Rodriguez, a six-year veteran with the Puerto Rico Police Department was shot and killed while attempting to prevent the robbery of himself and his family. Though off-duty and out of uniform, one of the suspects recognized him as a police officer and then shot him. 

Officer Clayton Wayne Hicks, Jr., a two-year veteran of the Memphis, Tennessee Police Department, was killed on 14 November 2000. It was his day off and 

he attended a party thrown by a friend. He was confronted there by a suspect whom 

he had arrested earlier on a domestic violence charge. The suspect shot Officer 

Hicks twice with an AK-47 assault rifle, killing him. 

Deputy Clarence Hill IV, a three-year veteran with the Harris County Sheriff’s 

Department in Texas was off-duty on 19 June 2000, when he witnessed a shooting. 

He followed the suspects when they fled in their vehicle. When they stopped, he approached their car and identified himself as a police officer. The suspects seized his 

arm and dragged Deputy Hill along the pavement. A second car, driven by friends 

of the shooting suspects, intentionally struck and killed him. 

Officer Milagros T. Johnson, a two-year veteran of the New York City Police 

Department was the victim of an armed robbery while off-duty. She identified herself as a police officer and was shot and killed by the suspects. 

Officer Robert L. Johnson, Jr., a police officer with Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. was off-duty and with another off-duty officer when 

he was involved in a parking dispute with a paroled offender. The pair identified 

themselves as police officers and the offender vowed to come back. He did—shooting 

and killing Officer Johnson and wounding the other officer. 

62

Detective Edward Stefan Kislo, an eighteen-year veteran with the Los Angeles 

Police Department, was off-duty when he confronted a prowler in a neighbor’s yard. 

The suspect shot and killed him. 

Senior Corporal Richard A. Lawrence was a twenty-two year veteran with 

the Dallas Police Department in Texas. He was off-duty when he was warned of two 

suspects lurking in the bushes near a parked car. He went to investigate and was 

ambushed and killed by the two suspects, who were attempting to steal the car. 

Sergeant Keith R. Levine, a six-year veteran of the New York City Police Department was off- duty when he observed a suspect robbing a man at an automatic 

teller machine. He was shot and killed by the suspect. 

Sergeant Rudy Lopes was shot and killed on 11 October 2000. Sergeant Lopes, 

a fifteen-year veteran with the Bexar County Sheriff’s Department in Texas was offduty when he was robbed by two killers, who took his wallet and truck, bound his 

hands and, discovering he was a law enforcement officer, shot him in the head and 

left him in an abandoned building, where he was discovered the next day. 

Patrolman Michael D. Love, a five-year veteran of the Rochester Police Department in Pennsylvania, was off-duty when the woman he was dancing with at a club 

was shot. The officer tried to act and was shot and killed by the woman’s assailants. 

Officer Alejo Maldonano-Serrano, a ten-year veteran of the Puerto Rico Police 

Department was off-duty when he was attacked by an individual whom he had arrested several months earlier. The officer was killed in this act of revenge. 

Detective Donald James Manning, a six-year veteran of the Fort Worth Police 

Department in Texas, was shot and killed by one of four suspects while off-duty in 

an unprovoked attack following a robbery. 

Officer Angel Luis Marquez-Rivera of the Puerto Rico Police Department was 

off-duty and out of uniform when suspects, identifying him as a police officer, shot 

and killed him during a robbery attempt. 

Officer Johnny L. Martin, a four-year veteran with the Chicago Police Department in Illinois, was off-duty when he observed a suspicious person tampering with 

some cars. The suspect, once observed, shot and killed the officer. 

Officer Shynelle Marie Mason, a two-year veteran with the Detroit, Michigan 

Police Department, was shot and killed on 14 July 2000 by a man she had previously arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. She encountered the man while 

off-duty; he confronted her and shot her several times in the chest. 

Officer Todd Merriwether, a one-year veteran with the St. Louis Police Department in Missouri, was off-duty when an individual attempted to rob him. After identifying himself as a police officer, the suspect shot and killed him. 

Correctional Officer Andre Motley in Essex County, New Jersey, was off-duty 

and on his way home when he stopped to break up a fight in his neighborhood. He 

was shot and killed by one of the brawlers. 

Sheriff Ben P. Murray of Dimmit County, Texas, had been a law enforcement 

officer for twenty years. He was shot and killed in his home while off-duty by suspects with a vendetta against him. 

Patrolman James M. O’Connor was a two year veteran with the Chicago Police 

Department in Illinois. While off-duty, he witnessed a robbery and pursued the fleeing suspects. They shot and killed the officer. 

Police Agent Santos Febus Ocasio, a fifteen-year veteran with the Puerto Rico 

Police Department was attacked, shot and killed while off-duty because he was 

working on antinarcotics activities in the department. 

Officer Carmelo Ortiz-Rivera was off-duty when he was shot and killed in 

front of his home by drug suspects. The officer was doing undercover drug work and 

expected to testify in court against the suspects who shot him. 

Sergeant Tomas Pantojas de Jesus, a 25-year veteran of the Puerto Rico Police 

Department was off-duty and at a gas station when a robbery occurred. He was shot 

and killed attempting to stop the suspects. 

Investigator Ricky J. Parsian was an eight-year veteran with the New York 

State Police. While off-duty, the officer was shot and killed attempting to stop a robbery in-progress. 

Agent Lawrence B. Pierce, a 15-year veteran with the Border Patrol, attempted to subdue a suspect who had, within the sight of the officer, fatally stabbed 

another man. When Agent Pierce identified himself as a law enforcement officer, the 

suspected attacked and killed Pierce. 

Officer Louis Anthony Pompei was shopping off-duty when he witnessed a robbery in progress. The seven-year veteran of the Glendora, California Police Department, was shot and killed while attempting to stop the robbery. 

Officer Robert Porter, a seven-year veteran with the Philadelphia Police Department, was killed in an ambush. While dropping off an item at a local tavern, 

his partner was confronted by several bar patrons whom he had previously arrested. 

63

The two officers left the tavern when the argument was settled and drove away. The 

three suspects caught up with the two partners, drove up to the passenger side and 

fired into the vehicle. Officer Porter, though not the intended target, was killed. 

Officer Ronald Levert Richardson served nine years with the Washington, 

D.C. Department of Corrections. He was shot and killed outside his home by suspects seeking to prevent him from testifying at a drug trial. 

Officer Armando Rosario, an Auxiliary Officer with the New York City Police 

Department, interrupted a robbery in progress. He was shot and killed when he 

moved to thwart the robbers. 

Officer Carlos William Sepulveda-Caraballo, a three-year veteran with the 

Puerto Rico Police Department, attempted to intervene in a heated and escalating 

argument. He was shot and killed after identifying himself as a law enforcement 

officer. 

Officer Hilario Serrano, a six-year veteran with the New York City Police Department, attempted to stop a robbery in progress. He was shot and killed by the 

armed robbers. 

Officer Benjamin Louis Short, a seven-year veteran with the Police Department in Detroit, Michigan, was off-duty at a local bar when a fight broke out. He 

intervened after one of the brawlers drew a handgun, and was shot and killed by 

that suspect. 

Officer Oliver Wendell Smith, Jr., of the Metropolitan Police Department in 

Washington, D.C. was off-duty when he was robbed at gunpoint. Upon discovering 

the victim was a police officer, the robbers shot and killed him. 

Officer Deadrick Taylor, a nine-year veteran with the Sheriff’s Department in 

Shelby County, Tennessee, was killed in an ambush. Four men, reportedly gang 

members directed by an inmate in the county jail where Taylor worked, attacked 

and killed the officer just outside his home following his shift. The men shot Officer 

Taylor repeatedly with an handgun and an AK-47 assault rifle. 

Officer Rudolph P. Thomas, Jr., a two-year veteran with the New York City 

Housing Authority Police, was shot and killed during a robbery attempt. 

Officer Charles Kirksey Todd, a three-year veteran of the Police Department 

in Mayfield, Kentucky was attending a wedding off-duty when one guest attacked 

another with a knife. The officer was fatally stabbed trying to subdue the attacker. 

Officer Joey Tremayne Vincent, a six-year veteran with the Greenville Kentucky Police Department, was killed on 27 June 1999. His mentally-ill cousin, Terry 

Wedding, had been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital by the family. Officer Vincent’s parents asked him to accompany them while he was off-duty because 

they felt they might need a police officer and believed that Terry would feel better 

if he were with family. The trip turned into a massacre—Terry Wedding shot and 

killed Officer Vincent, his wife and parents. 

Officer Ernest Andrew Whitten, a twelve-ear veteran of the Albertville Police 

Department in Alabama, was shot and killed in his home because of a case he had 

made against the suspect. 

Corporal Amos Williams, a five-year veteran with the District of Columbia Department of Corrections, was confronted by two assailants while off-duty. He was 

shot once and while the criminals were patting him down for his wallet, they discovered his badge. They subsequently shot him once in the back of the head, killing 

him. 

Officer Thomas Bentley Worley, a Safety Police Officer in Los Angeles County, 

was shot and killed during a robbery in progress. The off-duty officer attempted to 

keep the suspect from leaving the scene when he was killed. 

Deputy Sheriff Shayne Daniel York, a Deputy Sheriff in Los Angeles County, 

was off-duty and unarmed at a hair salon when it was robbed by armed men. After 

seeing York’s badge, the robbers shot him in the back of the head—execution style. 

Law enforcement is a dangerous profession; there is no legislation, act of Congress 

or government regulation which will change this sobering fact. However, the passage of H.R. 218/S. 253 is one of the most important ways to increase the level of 

personal safety for police officers and their ability to respond to public safety emergencies.

Æ