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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–602 PDF 2008

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ‘‘LAW ENFORCEMENT 

OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004’’ (PUB. L. 

NO. 108–277) AND ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

EFFORTS AIMED AT EXPANDING THE AUTHORITY TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, 

AND HOMELAND SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Serial No. 110–120 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

DARRELL ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

PERRY APELBAUM, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JOSEPH GIBSON, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia, Chairman 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

BOBBY VASSAR, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL VOLKOV, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENT 

The Honorable Robert C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, 

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

The Honorable J. Randy Forbes, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Virginia, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security .......................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Chief Scott Knight, Firearms Committee Chairman, International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, Alexandria, VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Sheriff Craig Webre, President, National Sheriff’s Association, Alexandria, 

VA 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

Mr. Thomas Penoza, National Treasurer, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of 

Police, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 24 

APPENDIX 

Material Submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 39 

(1) 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ‘‘LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2004’’ 

(PUB. L. NO. 108–277) AND ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS AIMED AT EXPANDING 

THE AUTHORITY TO CARRY CONCEALED 

FIREARMS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, TERRORISM,

AND HOMELAND SECURITY

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 

Room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert 

C. ‘‘Bobby’’ Scott (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Scott, Sutton, Forbes, and Coble. 

Staff present: Bobby Vassar, Subcommittee Chief Counsel; 

Ameer Gopalani, Majority Counsel; Mario Dispenza, (Fellow) 

BATFE Detailee; Veronica Eligan, Majority Professional Staff 

Member; Michael Volkov, Minority Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Minority Counsel; and Kelsey Whitlock, Minority Staff Assistant. 

Mr. SCOTT. The Subcommittee will come to order. The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security welcomes 

you to today’s hearing on the implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 and additional legislative efforts 

aimed at expanding the authority to carry concealed firearms. 

As part of today’s hearing, the Subcommittee will examine several important issues. First, we will hear testimony about how the 

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 is currently being implemented. Second, the Subcommittee will examine arguments in 

favor and against expanding the scope of the bill through H.R. 

2726, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007.’’ 

Finally, the Subcommittee will examine proposed legislation that 

would allow Federal judges, prosecutors, and other Department of 

Justice employees to carry concealed weapons under circumstances 

that would be specified by the attorney general. In 2004, the 108th 

Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Act of 2004, which 

amended the Federal criminal code and authorized qualified, active 

duty, and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms at all times, including in jurisdictions in which they are not 

employed as officers. 

2 

During our Committee’s past consideration of the measure, several concerns were pointed out, namely, highlighting the overlybroad definition of ‘‘law enforcement officer,’’ which was written to 

include corrections, probation, and parole, and judicial officers. It 

also included police, sheriff, and other law enforcement officers who 

had or have statutory arrest power, or who are engaged in the prevention, detection, investigation, supervision, and incarceration of 

alleged violators of law. 

The second concern I raised centered around the overall message 

that legislation seemed to send. The measure seemed to suggest, if 

not also encourage, law enforcement officers to assist in protecting 

the public in jurisdictions outside of the State in which they are 

employed. At that time, several concerns were mentioned, and we 

highlighted instances whereby even within the same jurisdiction 

off-duty, plain clothes law enforcement officers had shot other offduty officers in gun battles where those in plain clothes were mistaken for criminals. Today we will submit additional articles. 

Finally, it was pointed out with regard to types of concealed firearms which kinds of firearms would be brought into the jurisdiction by out-of-State officers and how these weapons were managed. 

But, unfortunately, those concerns were not considered appropriately back in 2004. 

H.R. 2726, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007,’’ 

will make certain changes. Turning away from the focus of our previous debates and on the new ones, we are here to consider the bill 

introduced by my friend and Virginia colleague, Mr. Forbes, H.R. 

2726, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007, which 

would expand the bill and expand the law in two significant ways. 

First, it would add Amtrak active duty and retired officers to the 

definition of qualified law enforcement officer. Second, it would 

amend the language in such a way to add officers who don’t retire 

from a particular law enforcement agency, but merely depart from 

it having served 15 years, to qualify as a qualified law enforcement 

officer and obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon, provided 

they satisfy other limited criteria. 

The bill also fixes a problem that some officers are finding in 

seeking to take advantage of the law. Some States have not developed a certification process called for in the law to allow retired officers to carry concealed weapons interstate. We don’t have a particular problem with that part of the bill, although we do have concerns with others. 

And finally, the last topic to be taken up involves the carrying 

of concealed weapons by attorneys and Federal judges in Federal 

courthouses. A number of incidences over the past few years, including the murders of family members of a Chicago judge in 2005, 

the killing less than 2 weeks later of a State judge, a court reporter, and a sheriff’s deputy in an Atlanta courthouse have 

prompted this Committee to consider various legislative proposals 

to strengthen security in State and Federal courthouses. 

In fact, during the course of one of the Committee’s recent debates during our consideration of H.R. 660, the ‘‘Court Security Improvement Act of 2007,’’ the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, offered an amendment that would authorize judicial officers, U.S. attorneys, and other employees of the Department of Justice, whose 

3 

duties include representing the United States in a court of law, to 

carry firearms in both private and public places, subject to regulations promulgated by the attorney general. Today we will hear testimony about the proposal and whether or not it is needed at this 

time. 

With that, it is my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee, my Virginia colleague, Mr. Forbes, who represents Virginia’s 4th Congressional District. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Chairman Scott. I want to thank you for 

scheduling this hearing to examine implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Act of 2004 and Congressman King’s proposal to 

authorize Federal judges and prosecutors to carry firearms. 

Law enforcement officers are never off duty. They are sworn to 

uphold public safety, whether or not they are in uniform or on 

duty, and serve in the front lines of our communities against terrorists, gangs, and other criminals. 

Congress recognized this in 2004 when it passed the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which authorized retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms, particularly when traveling 

outside of their jurisdiction. By doing so, Congress intended to promote public safety by increasing the number of active and retired 

qualified law enforcement officers authorized to carry firearms. 

There are approximately 800,000 sworn law enforcement officers 

currently serving in the United States. While a police officer may 

not remember the name and face of every criminal he or she has 

locked behind bars, criminals often have long memories. Law enforcement officers are targeted in uniform and out, active or retired, on duty or off. 

Since enactment of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act it 

has become clear that some jurisdictions have sought to prevent 

qualified retired officers from complying with the law. In many 

cases, retired officers have experienced significant frustration in 

getting certified to lawfully carry a firearm. That is why I introduced H.R. 2726, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 

2007.’’ 

Under current law, qualified retired law enforcement officers 

must carry required documents and a State-issued identification 

verifying the officer’s firearms qualification. Some States have simply refused to issue identification verifying the officer’s firearm 

qualifications in order to frustrate Congress’ intent. 

To address this issue, my legislation would provide an alternative to a State-issued document, require law enforcement officers 

to carry a certification, from a firearms instructor, that they meet 

the active duty standards for qualifications in firearms training, as 

established by the State or a law enforcement agency in that State. 

This will ensure that qualified retired law enforcement officers will 

no longer be prevented from carrying their firearms over what is 

simply a paperwork issue. 

In addition to these adjustments, the bill also makes clear that 

Amtrak officers, along with officers of the executive branch of the 

Federal Government, are covered by the law. Though these changes 

broaden the reach of the law, the requirements for eligibility still 

include a 15-year term of service for a retired officer to qualify. 

4 

Federal judges and prosecutors also should be authorized to 

carry firearms. Congressman King’s proposal to authorize the carrying of such firearms is a common sense solution to an increasingly dangerous job, prosecuting and administering justice in the 

Federal justice system. 

Congressman King’s proposal was enacted by Congress in the 

109th Congress and would authorize judges and attorneys to carry 

a firearm subject to specific requirements, training, and certification in the use of firearms. Threats against Federal judges continue at a disturbing rate. Prosecutors handling dangerous cases 

are threatened, shot at or otherwise attacked. Current Department 

of Justice policies and procedures authorizing a prosecutor to carry 

firearms through a special deputation process are entirely too slow 

and ineffective. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and to working 

with my friend, Mr. Scott, on these important issues. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Forbes. 

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses here today to help 

us consider the important issues which are before us. Our first witness is Police Chief Scott Knight, chairman of the firearms committee of the International Chiefs of Police. 

Chief Knight has over 30 years of law enforcement experience 

and has served as the Chaska, Minnesota chief of police since January 2000. He has also served as a faculty member for the William 

Mitchell College of Law, Centers for Law Leadership and the 

Upper Midwest Community Policing Institute. 

Our second witness will be Sheriff Craig Webre, president of the 

National Sheriff’s Association. He was elected sheriff of Lafourche 

Parish, Louisiana in 1991, and began his law enforcement career 

over 25 years ago as the police officer in the city of Thibadaux, 

later served as deputy sheriff and a State Trooper for the Louisiana State Police. He holds a B.A. degree in criminal justice and 

a J.D. from Loyola University School of Law. 

Our final witness will be Tom Penoza, national treasurer for the 

Paternal Order of Police. He is a retired captain from the Newark, 

Delaware Police Department, where he served for over two decades. And the last 13 years he has held the position of special investigator for the Delaware State’s attorney general’s office. The 

primary role in this office is to investigate white collar crime. He 

also attended and graduated from the 150th session of the FBI National Academy. 

Each of our witnesses’ written statements will be entered into 

the record in its entirety. I would ask each of our witnesses to summarize his testimony in 5 minutes or less. And to help you stay 

within that time is the timing device right in front of us. The light 

will start with green. It will switch to yellow when there is 1 

minute left in the 5 minutes. When the light turns red, it signals 

that the witness’ 5 minutes have expired. 

Chief Knight? 

5 

TESTIMONY OF CHIEF SCOTT KNIGHT, FIREARMS COMMITTEE 

CHAIRMAN, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHIEFS OF 

POLICE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Mr. KNIGHT. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Scott, 

Mr. Forbes, and all present today. I am pleased to be here this 

morning to present the views of the International Association of 

Chiefs of Police on the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act and 

the proposed changes that are under consideration. 

The IACP is the world’s oldest and largest association of law enforcement executives with more than 22,000 members in 100 countries. Before I address our concerns, I would like to express my 

gratitude to you for your support of our Nation’s law enforcement 

agencies and our law enforcement officers. 

As you know, the IACP strongly opposed to the Law Enforcement 

Officers Safety Act during its consideration in the 109th Congress 

and is opposed to H.R. 2276, which would amend current language. 

Our opposition was, and 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, the 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 that State’s requirements. The IACP believes it is 

essential that State governments maintain the ability to regulate 

who is carrying weapons in our communities and what type of 

weapons they are. This applies to laws that cover private citizens 

as well as active or former enforcement personnel. 

The IACP also believes that each State should retain the power 

to determine whether it wants 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-of-force policies, and firearms training 

standards vary significantly from State to State. Why should a police chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, 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? 

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. There is 

no doubt. 

We understand that the proponents of this law 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. 

One of the reasons that this legislation is especially troubling to 

our Nation’s 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 

6 

local officers wherein events unfold in seconds and identities are 

unknown and tragic results ensue. 

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 fellow officers will respond when facing 

different situations. And it can be so detailed as to code words that 

they all know will disclose who is undercover and who is not. 

Injecting an armed, unknown officer, who has received different 

training and is operating under different assumptions, can turn an 

already dangerous situation deadly. Further, the IACP is concerned 

that the law specifies that only an officer who is not subject to a 

disciplinary action is eligible. Since passage, this provision has 

raised several concerns for law enforcement executives as they 

have struggled to comply with the provisions of the law. 

For example, what types of disciplinary actions does this cover? 

Does this provision apply only to current investigations and actions? How are officers to 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 law does contain some requirements to 

ensure that retirees qualify to have a concealed weapon, they are 

insufficient and would be difficult to implement. The law and subsequent proposals to amend it has failed to take into account those 

officers who have retired under threat of disciplinary action or dismissal for emotional problems that may not have risen 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 problems that makes him or her unfit to carry a concealed 

weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police management in 

what we call early warning systems to ferret out any problems. 

Finally, the IACP is also concerned over the liability of law enforcement agencies for the actions of an off-duty officer who uses 

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

uses or misuses his or her weapon while in another State, it is 

surely likely that his or her department will be forced to defend 

itself against liability charges in that other State. The resources 

that mounting this defense would require would be better spent 

serving our communities, the communities we serve. 

I am sorry. I see the red light. Thank you. 

Before I conclude, I would like to speak briefly about the IACP’s 

concern with H.R. 2726. Particularly troubling to the IACP are provisions that appear to weaken severely the ineligibility, or the eligibility and training requirements for retired police officers to carry 

concealed weapons. 

In particular, the IACP is deeply troubled that provisions proposed in section 2 (b) of H.R. 2726 would effectively eliminate the 

ability of States and localities to determine what firearm standards 

a retired law enforcement officer must meet before qualifying to 

carry a concealed firearm in his or her jurisdiction. Specifically, the 

provisions of section 2 (b) would appear to mandate that, in the abVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:04 Oct 28, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CRIME\090607\37602.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
7 

sence of any State standard, the standards set by any police department within the State would become the de facto standard for 

the entire State. 

Additionally, the IACP is concerned that by weakening the current definition of eligibility from retired to departed, problems 

could arise when a law enforcement officer leaves the policing profession and embarks on an entirely new career. Definitions of departed, what led to the departing—all those things are of great concern and are not defined. 

As I stated earlier, the ability of law enforcement agencies to establish, implement, and maintain firearms standards and training 

requirements varies greatly from State to State and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have developed rigorous 

training programs and have established strict standards of accountability and stringent firearms polices, while, frankly, other jurisdictions have not. This legislation would undercut the ability of 

State, tribal and local enforcement agencies to determine what 

standards best meet the needs of the departments and the communities we serve. 

This does conclude my statement. And I am happy to take any 

questions. And I thank you for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Knight follows:] 

8 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT KNIGHT


SK-1.eps
9 


SK-2.eps
10 


SK-3.eps
11 


SK-4.eps
12 


SK-5.eps
13 


SK-6.eps
14 


SK-7.eps
15 


SK-8.eps
16 


SK-9.eps
17 


SK-10.eps
18 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

We have been joined by the gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Sutton, 

and the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Coble. 

Sheriff Webre? 

TESTIMONY OF SHERIFF CRAIG WEBRE, PRESIDENT, 

NATIONAL SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION, ALEXANDRIA, VA 

Mr. WEBRE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. My name is Craig Webre. I am the elected sheriff of 

Lafourche Parish, LA, located about 50 miles southwest of the city 

of New Orleans, a post I have held for 15 years. And I am appearing here in my capacity as the president of the National Sheriff’s 

Association, representing over 3,000 of America’s elected sheriffs 

and a membership of over 21,000, making us one of the largest law 

enforcement associations in the country. 

We appreciate the opportunity to address your Committee. And 

our written comments have been submitted for the record and for 

your review. 

I am appearing this morning to testify against the proposed 

amendments to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007, 

which is codified in 18 U.S.C. Section 926 (C). In particular, our association is strongly opposed to the modifications to section C, 

which would greatly broaden and enhance the category of retired 

law enforcement officer. Under the current legislation, the 2004 

version, a retired qualifying law enforcement officer must meet two 

criteria. They have to have been employed for at least 15 years, 

regularly employed as a law enforcement officer, and they must 

have earned a nonforfeitable right to a benefit and be in good 

standing. 

The amendment would eliminate the requirement of a benefit, a 

nonforfeitable right to a benefit in good standing. And the Senate 

version would further weaken this legislation by reducing the requisite period of time from 15 years to 10 years. 

If enacted, we believe that this would compromise the integrity 

of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act. It would further complicate the implementation of the act, and it would be a tremendous disservice to the actual bona fide retired law enforcement officers across this country who have truly sacrificed and are committed to public safety. 

Let me briefly address each point for the Committee. With respect to a clear definition and understanding, all of us in law enforcement understand and have credentials for active law enforcement. 

Similarly, we understand and have credentials for bona fide retired police officers who have rights to a pension. In most cases, the 

agency that they retire from will provide them with a photograph 

identification commission card that they will carry with them to 

identify them as a police officer. To deviate from that standard and 

to reduce it from 15 to 10 years invites a category or a class of people that we will know very little about in terms of background, 

suitability or history of employment. 

My experience and the experience of the colleagues that I have 

spoken to about this issue suggests that the 10- to 15-year time period is a threshold event in a police officer’s career. By that I mean 

19 

most officers who are going to leave law enforcement leave before 

10. If they reach 10, then they are in for the long haul. 

Those who leave in that 10-to 15-year period are often forced to 

leave or leave because they are a problem officer. And they move 

from agency to agency to agency. So we believe it is a greater probability that officers falling within that timeframe and who don’t officially retire may have separated under less than ideal circumstances. 

In addition, you may have an officer, as the chief mentioned, who 

went to work in 1970 or 1975 for 10 years or 15 years, left law enforcement, and now here we are 25, 30 years later, and we have 

advanced in laws and changes to the criminal justice system that 

these officers have not kept abreast of. More particularly, we believe that CEOs, chiefs, sheriffs, and law enforcement managers 

will be more concerned from the liability standpoint if a person 

who did not retire with their agency is now calling upon them to 

provide some sort of verification of employment. So we believe 

there are far too many what ifs and unknowns to broaden the category of retired law enforcement officer qualifications under 

LEOSA. 

My second point is the implementation complications. The stated 

goals and purposes, as was mentioned, are to enhance public safety, to provide for police officer safety, and an added benefit and 

coming from south Louisiana where we experienced the Katrina 

tragedy, is when officers come into our jurisdiction, they come with 

the ability to bring a weapon without violating laws. However, we 

can’t say that those other goals have been achieved or realized to 

the extent that the original act hoped that they would. 

We know that the implementation has been very problematic. I 

mentioned that I have been a sheriff for 15 years. We have 250 

sworn officers in the Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Office who would 

qualify under this act. 

Since its implementation, not a single deputy has ever presented 

himself for the right to carry out-of-State concealed pursuant to 

LEOSA, nor have any of the retirees asked to be trained or sought 

credentials to provide themselves or avail themselves of the privileges of this act. Nor am I aware of any law enforcement officer 

from another jurisdiction coming into our area. 

Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. May I continue? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes. 

Mr. WEBRE. Thank you. So despite this statute, we see that it 

is not being implemented, at least in our region. 

One of the other things that would happen is if an officer were 

allowed to aggregate their time without retiring, say they worked 

for three agencies for 5 years each, which agency do they get certification from? Do they go to three agencies and get three identification cards? Do they go to one agency that certifies the other two 

agencies? 

Is there an issue of forum shopping where they will go to the 

agency that they had the best record and avoid the agencies where 

they may have had disciplinary records? Do they run into the situation of creating falsified or counterfeit credentials? 

If they come into Lafourche Parish and a deputy encounters 

them and that deputy has to make a decision whether this person 

20 

should be arrested or released, and they don’t have the ability on 

the weekend or at night to verify their credentials, it puts them in 

a dilemma, as well. Actually, if the Congress chooses to create a 

national concealed carrier permit, then it probably ought to be a 

federalized process much in the way that we do gun checks or gun 

checks are done for Brady bill and purchase of guns. 

And my final point is the point I made earlier. I think we do a 

tremendous disservice to the men and women, the thousands of police officers across our country who have truly put in 15, 20, 25, 

30 and beyond years who have earned the right to carry a retired 

commission and receive a benefit and now would have the right 

under this benefit if we extend it to those who don’t retire. 

Thank you on behalf of the National Sheriff’s Association for this 

opportunity. And like my colleague, the chief, I am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webre follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG WEBRE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Craig Webre and I 

currently serve as the Sheriff of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana and President of the 

National Sheriffs’ Association. The National Sheriffs’ Association represents over 

3,000 elected sheriffs across the country and over 22,000 law enforcement professionals making us one of the largest law enforcement associations in the nation. I 

am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to express my concerns with the proposed measure that would amend the federal criminal code to authorize certain categories of current and retired law enforcement officers to carry 

concealed firearms. 

As you may be aware, sheriffs play a unique role in our criminal justice system. 

In addition to providing traditional policing within their respective counties, sheriffs 

also manage local jails and are responsible for providing court security. Over 99% 

of the sheriffs are elected and oftentimes serve as the chief law enforcement officer 

of their counties. Consequently, we have a keen understanding of the needs of our 

criminal justice system as well as of the local communities we serve. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA), enacted in 2004, allows two 

classes of persons—the ‘‘qualified law enforcement officer’’ as defined in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 926 (B) and the ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’’ as defined in § 926 (C)— 

to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of 

any conflicting state or local law, with certain exceptions. 

The National Sheriffs’ Association supported the Act in the 108th Congress based 

on the premise that allowing trained, active-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry firearms could only enhance public safety. It would also allow current 

and former officers to defend themselves against revenge attacks by those they once 

brought to justice. 

However, as a practical matter, it has been difficult for states to implement the 

Act. For example, LEOSA’s preemption of state and local concealed carry prohibitions can take effect without any action by state or local officials as long as the individual police officer in question meets all the requirements of the Act. Yet, many 

local agencies have said they will not issue the necessary credentials or attest that 

a given retired officer has fulfilled that agency’s training requirement. These agencies are understandably concerned about the potential liability they may face if they 

issue concealed-weapon credentials to an officer who later uses his or her weapon 

without justification. 

Further, the Act is confusing to officers traveling across state lines because they 

lack sufficient information about the concealed carry laws of other jurisdictions. 

What’s more, the law has yet to show that it has produced any benefit to public 

safety. In fact, rather than a reduction in the rate of violent crime—which we had 

hoped LEOSA would facilitate—we have instead seen a dramatic increase in the 

exact type of criminal activity the Act was intended to prevent. Given these disappointing results, I am here to express our reservations about the proposed measure, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (S. 376, H.R. 2726), which 

would amend 18 U.S.C. § 926 (C). We believe that the proposed amendment unnecessarily expands the term ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’’ who can carry 

a concealed firearm. 

21 

Specifically, we are concerned with the proposed revision that strikes paragraph 

(4) of § 926 (C) which would eliminate the requirement that the officer ‘‘has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency.’’ In addition, 

the Senate bill, S. 376, would change the requisite 15 years or more of law enforcement service to 10 years to be considered as a ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement 

officer’’ under this section. Similarly, the House bill, H.R. 2726, eliminates the requirement that a qualified retired law enforcement officer in fact be ‘‘retired.’’ Rather, under these proposed measures, a law enforcement officer who has ‘‘departed’’ 

from service would qualify to carry a concealed firearm anywhere in the nation 

under the previously defined ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement officer.’’ 

The Senate and House bills therefore seems to imply that any certified officer who 

is separated from his or her position as a law enforcement officer, regardless of 

whether they meet the longevity requirement needed to qualify for retirement benefits, would qualify as ‘‘retired’’ under the amended law. Once grouped into the ‘‘retired’’ category, these officers would have just as much right to carry a concealed 

firearm as officers with many more years of law enforcement experience. We believe 

that such a change would be contrary to the intentions of LEOSA’s drafters. 

It was not mere semantics that led LEOSA’s drafters and supporters to require 

that an officer be ‘‘retired,’’ rather than simply a ‘‘former’’ officer before being granted nationwide concealed-carry rights. The Act’s drafters did not intend that any officer who has received basic training and been employed for the minimum period of 

time to become certified be allowed to carry a concealed weapon. We believe that 

carrying a concealed firearm is a privilege that should be bestowed only upon those 

retired law enforcement officers who have extensive experience, have dedicated their 

lives to protect the safety of our citizens, and have demonstrated through their past 

conduct that they are deserving of such a responsibility. We strongly believe that 

when considering the expansion of such a privilege we must not act hastily, but 

must instead closely examine the potential unintended consequences of such a 

change. 

At this time, we are not convinced the proposed changes being considered by this 

Committee are necessary, or that the potential benefits would outweigh the unintended negative consequences. Before expanding the current law, we believe that 

further study to determine the practical effects of the Act would be a prudent next 

step. The proposed amendment to LEOSA is an attempt to find a simple solution 

to a complex problem. Simply enabling more people to carry concealed firearms is 

not a solution to providing additional public safety or addressing the recent dramatic increase in violent crime. 

I want to thank the Chairman and members of this Committee for conducting this 

hearing and listening to the concerns of the law enforcement community before taking action on this bill. As an elected official and a law enforcement officer, I am 

dedicated to ensuring the well-being and safety of all citizens, including my fellow 

men and women in uniform. With that in mind, I ask for your full consideration 

of my comments today. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. Penoza? 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS PENOZA, NATIONAL TREASURER, 

GRAND LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. PENOZA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

Members of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland 

Security. My name is Tom Penoza. I am here this morning at the 

request of Chuck Canterbury, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, which is the largest law enforcement labor 

organization in the United States, representing more than 325,000 

members in every region of the Nation. I am the national treasurer 

of the FOP and the longest-serving board member that serves on 

its executive board right now. 

I want to begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing and giving the FOP an opportunity to talk about the implementation of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, 

and the need to amend it by adopting H.R. 2726, a bill that goes 

22 

by that same name. One of the chief concerns with the implementation of the current law is fairness to retired officers. 

Under current law, qualified retired law enforcement officers 

must carry photographic identification issued by the agency from 

which they were employed, and they have to carry documentation 

that certifies that they have met active duty standards for qualification with a firearm. This document must be issued by the retired officer’s former agency or from the State in which he resides. 

Right now States which have not or have refused to adopt a procedure or mechanism for retired officers to qualify with their weapon are effectively preventing these retired officers from complying 

with the document requirements of Federal law. This issue was 

specifically addressed during the full Committee markup on H.R. 

218 3 years ago in an exchange between then Chairman Sensenbrenner and Representative Ric Keller, which made it clear that 

the qualification document requirement was not intended as a way 

for a State to get around the Federal law. 

Unfortunately, despite the clarity of the exchange, there are 

some States and agencies doing exactly this. To address this issue, 

the FOP strongly supports the adoption of H.R. 2726, which would 

provide that a certified firearms instructor could conduct and qualify retired law enforcement officers using the active duty standards 

for qualification in firearms training in those cases where States 

have chosen not to qualify the officers themselves. 

For example, my home State of Delaware does not have a procedure in place for retired officers who served outside the State and 

who now reside in Delaware. And we get a lot of them in our beach 

areas. 

If H.R. 2726 were adopted, these officers could be qualified by 

firearms instructors certified by the State of Delaware, and it 

would be based on our own State’s standards. Under existing law, 

these officers have to return to their own agencies to get requalified. 

If, for example, a State does not recognize a state-wide standard, 

the instructor would be able to certify a retired officer based on an 

existing standard from a law enforcement agency within that State. 

This will ensure that retired officers are treated equitably under 

our current law and can no longer be prevented from carrying 

under LEOSA over what is simply a paperwork issue. 

The FOP would also like to advise the Committee of several 

other implementation problems that have come to our attention. 

The first of these is the requirement that an officer have a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of his agency. 

This has been problematic in agencies which do not offer any retirement benefit plan for their officers, and it seems to have disproportionately affected deputy sheriffs. The receipt of a retirement 

benefit after an officer has left the service of his agency should not 

affect his authority to carry a firearm, which supports the language 

in H.R. 2726, which would delete this language. 

The FOP also advocates expanding the definition of qualified active retired law enforcement officers include officers employed by 

the Amtrak Police Department. Now, let me emphasize this point. 

23 

This is the only expansion of the current law which we support at 

this time. 

Amtrak is, under title 49, not a department, agency or instrumentality of the United States government. Therefore, police officers employed by Amtrak do not meet the definition in LEOSA, 

which requires them to be an employee of a Government agency. 

Yet, the Amtrak Police Department has been, and in many cases 

is, treated as a Federal law enforcement agency by the Federal 

Government. 

In fact, it is listed as a Federal law enforcement agency by the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Justice Department. For this 

reason, the FOP supports the expansion of the current definition 

to include officers employed by the Amtrak Police Department. 

We also feel strongly that the implementation of the law is not 

being fairly applied to Federal law enforcement agencies. Clearly, 

any Federal law enforcement officer classified as a GS-0083 who is 

employed by the executive branch meets the definition of qualified 

active or retired law enforcement officer in the current statute. 

Yet it has come to our attention that certain Federal law enforcement agencies within the Department of Defense have informed 

law enforcement officers in their employ that they do not have statutory powers of arrest. They have the power of apprehension, and 

thus cannot carry under LEOSA. 

As a matter of law, it is not clear that the Federal law enforcement officers employed by the DOD have powers of arrest or apprehension, nor is it clear that there is any legal difference between 

these two terms. My 5 minutes is up. Can I go ahead and finish? 

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, continue making your point. 

Mr. PENOZA. It is, however, certain that these officers can and 

do take suspected offenders into custody, book them, investigate 

the offenses, and testify in court. The only question is whether the 

individual they took into custody was arrested or apprehended and 

whether there is any distinction between those terms. 

If there is a genuine distinction, Congress should make it clear 

that it did not intend to exclude large numbers of Federal law enforcement officers from LEOSA. Congress adopted LEOSA to help 

make law enforcement officers safer. The problems have been encountered to date are primarily those of equitable treatment for retired officers. And I hope the Committee will help us address them. 

In conclusion, I would like to thank Representative Forbes for his 

leadership on this issue. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for holding this 

hearing. And I will answer any questions you may have of me. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Penoza follows:] 

24 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS PENOZA


TP-1.eps
25 


TP-2.eps
26 


TP-3.eps
27 


TP-4.eps
28 


TP-5.eps
29 


TP-6.eps
30 


TP-7.eps
31 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

We will now have questions. And we will try to comply with the 

5-minute as best we can. 

Mr. Penoza, on the present law, what does an officer have to do 

to get qualified to carry the weapons interstate? He has to go 

through a process of certification. 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes, he has to go through whatever that State requires. 

Mr. SCOTT. Whatever the State requires? That could be just firearms training? 

Mr. PENOZA. Well, whatever they require for firearms training. 

Mr. SCOTT. And—— 

Mr. PENOZA. Like my State has a specific criteria you have to 

meet as a law enforcement officer every year. 

Mr. SCOTT. And so, to carry the weapon, you would have to go 

through, get recertified every year? 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the officer were in a different jurisdiction, a different State, how would the other State know whether he had 

qualified or not? 

Mr. PENOZA. If he was in my State and got qualified? 

Mr. SCOTT. No, if an individual shows up in your jurisdiction and 

says he can carry a firearm, how do you know if he is, in fact, eligible to carry a firearm? 

Mr. PENOZA. He would have to have the card that certifies he 

qualified in that other State. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that has—— 

Mr. PENOZA. That is set out in the bill. 

Mr. SCOTT. And that has an expiration date? 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes, once every year. That has to be done every 

year. 

Mr. SCOTT. And do you have to go back to your former employer 

to get that certification? 

Mr. PENOZA. You would unless the State that you are living in 

would qualify you. 

Mr. SCOTT. They would have to verify your employment. 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes, sir, there would be a—I assume there would 

be some kind of forms. That is what we have in Delaware. Or that 

is what we are proposing. 

Mr. SCOTT. And what weapons are you allowed to carry? 

Mr. PENOZA. The weapon that you qualify with. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if you qualify with a machine gun in one State, 

you can carry the machine gun in another State? 

Mr. PENOZA. Well, under this law, whatever weapon you qualify 

with you would have to carry that weapon. Machine guns are excluded. 

Mr. SCOTT. Chief Knight, what is wrong with having officers 

from other States come into your State carrying firearms if they 

need those weapons to protect themselves? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Firstly, if they are on duty and actually working in 

the capacity and they are in my jurisdiction, they are in concert 

with us typically, and certainly, they need to be armed to protect 

themselves. If they are on vacation, I think that whether or not 

they need to carry that weapon is certainly debatable. 

32 

You know, earlier we talked about police officers. There was reference made honorably that officers are never off-duty. I submit 

that I, my colleagues, sheriff try very, very hard to make sure that 

when our officers are off duty they are off duty, and for a host of 

mental health reasons and balance of life issues. You are never off 

duty when you are carrying a gun. You shouldn’t be. 

You have to have an elevated sense of hyper-vigilance when you 

are handling and carrying a weapon. The problem we have is if 

someone were to come into my city, my officers don’t know them. 

We don’t know what level of training they have or haven’t had. 

If the State doesn’t provide it, they can go to the lowest common 

denominator in the particular State where they are from. And we 

don’t know what that is. We don’t know how often they qualify 

with that weapon. 

We don’t know if that is the weapon, indeed, they qualified with. 

Perhaps they purchased another, or, as is common, officers have 

multiple weapons. So the problem is the unknown and who is then 

in an enforcement capacity, potentially, armed, taking action in jurisdictions locally. 

Mr. SCOTT. Do the officers carrying these firearms check in with 

the local police when they show up? 

Mr. KNIGHT. No, they don’t. 

Mr. SCOTT. Wouldn’t they know whether they need protection 

rather than the local police? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, I think again that is debatable. I think we all 

have our perceptions, and we all have a feeling of our own personal 

security and safety. I can tell you I had no concerns about coming 

here unarmed. And when I am on vacation I don’t feel I need to 

be armed. And I have worked in a number of capacities. And in my 

entire career, I have probably carried a gun off-duty maybe five 

times. 

Mr. SCOTT. I think one of you mentioned the question of civil liability if an officer gets into a situation where there is a lawsuit. 

Has that ever happened? Anybody? Has that ever happened? 

Mr. KNIGHT. You know, I don’t know that answer. I know it has 

not happened with my jurisdiction. But I would find it hard—I 

think it would be easily discovered that perhaps there has been 

something like that, and, indeed, it has happened. 

Mr. SCOTT. My time is just about up. Do you know of examples 

when officers have gotten in trouble dealing with officers from 

other jurisdictions, Chief Knight? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly. From my department, no, I don’t. I know 

from my colleagues in larger cities that, indeed, they have. In fact, 

they have had that issue with their own undercover people when 

things are unfolding fast and furiously not knowing who is who. 

Mr. SCOTT. If your association has documentation for those incidents, we would appreciate you forwarding them. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Mr. FORBES. First of all, let me thank you all for being here and 

for what you do to keep us all safe. And let me be clear of a couple 

of things as we come to the hearing today. First of all, both Chief 

and Sheriff, I know that your organizations were against the Law 

Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004. Is that correct? 

33 

Mr. KNIGHT. That is correct. 

Mr. WEBRE. That is not correct, Congressman. 

Mr. FORBES. Before that act. 

Mr. WEBRE. The NSA did support LEOSA 2004. 

Mr. FORBES. All right. And, Chief, your organization was against 

it? 

Mr. KNIGHT. We did oppose, correct. 

Mr. FORBES. But you both understand that is the law, that is the 

policy. It was passed by the House of Representatives, by the Senate, signed by the President. We are not here to debate that policy 

today. 

What I would want you to laser in on—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Speak for yourself. 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman can put in legislation to repeal it. 

That is not before us. You know? 

I encourage him to do that if that is what he would like to do. 

But what we are lasering in on is H.R. 2726, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007.’’ 

Sheriff, let me ask you. Have you read that act? 

Mr. WEBRE. Yes, sir, I have. 

Mr. FORBES. And you are familiar with that? The questions I had 

asked you pertaining to that you could answer for me? Is that correct? 

Mr. WEBRE. I would do my best. 

Mr. FORBES. Now, if that act has been passed—and you have just 

heard Mr. Penoza indicate that some States are just saying, ‘‘No, 

we don’t care what the policy was that Congress established, the 

Senate established, the President established. We are just not 

going to issue those documents.’’ You think that is appropriate for 

the State to do? 

Mr. WEBRE. If the State has a legitimate legal argument based 

on either a preemption issue or separation of powers, they certainly 

can advance that. 

Mr. FORBES. Have you heard in any such legal argument that 

has been put forward? 

Mr. WEBRE. I have read in various documentations concerns that 

States’ rights issues have been raised with respect to this Federal 

legislation preempting their ability to regulate concealed carrying, 

yes. 

Mr. FORBES. We have documents that you talked about that 

some of your deputies get that suggest that they have certain retirement benefit rights, that they are given a certification in that. 

Could the State just come out and say, ‘‘No, we are not going to 

issue that?’’ 

Mr. WEBRE. I can’t give you an answer on that. 

Mr. FORBES. But if it would, it would kind of be inappropriate 

for the State to just say we are not going to issue it? 

Mr. WEBRE. If there is a Federal law that requires a State to 

issue a document, it would seem to suggest that they would issue 

it. 

Mr. FORBES. And that is what Mr. Penoza is basically coming 

here and saying. He said this policy has been established. Chief, 

you lost the fight. You might have been against it. You lost the 

fight. You guys enforce laws all the time that you don’t particularly 

34 

agree with and you don’t particularly—wouldn’t have passed if you 

had have had the choice to do it. 

Mr. Penoza’s saying that is the law. They are just simply looking 

us in the face and saying we are not going to issue the document. 

It has nothing to do with whether our people are qualified to carry 

the firearm. They are just not going to issue the documents. 

Chief, have you ever had a death threat? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Absolutely. 

Mr. FORBES. Have you ever had any threats to your family? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Not directly. 

Mr. FORBES. Have any of the people under you and under your 

employ ever had death threats? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes, they have. 

Mr. FORBES. Have they had threats to their families? 

Mr. KNIGHT. I am not aware. 

Mr. FORBES. How many would you say, percentage-wise, of officers that were under your employ have had such threats made to 

them at some point in time in their career? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Serious, legitimate threats? 

Mr. FORBES. Any threats. I mean, I think it depends. A threat 

to you may not be serious to me. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Exactly. 

Mr. FORBES. A threat to me becomes very serious. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Exactly. I would say the bona fide, serious threats 

is a very small percentage. 

Mr. FORBES. Very small percentage. 

How about you, Sheriff? Have you ever had a threat to your life? 

Mr. WEBRE. Absolutely. 

Mr. FORBES. Have any of your deputies ever had threats to their 

lives? 

Mr. WEBRE. Yes, sir, they have. 

Mr. FORBES. Now, we are sitting in here trying to strike this balance that, Chief, you talked about. You couldn’t come up with a 

single situation where that was a problem with an officer who had 

just not had the proper identification. You said you had read about 

some of them, but you never had one. 

Sheriff, did you have any in your jurisdiction where you had a 

problem in identifying another officer with a firearm that was in 

your jurisdiction? 

Mr. WEBRE. No, I have testified no one has ever presented themselves in our jurisdiction. 

Mr. FORBES. Neither of you have had those problems. But both 

of you have had problems where you have had people under your 

employ who have had threats to their family. We have got law enforcement officers out there. 

Mr. Penoza, how many people do you have in your organization 

that have had threats that have been made to them or to their 

families? 

Mr. PENOZA. I don’t know how many, but I am sure it is a lot. 

Mr. FORBES. A lot of them. And so, when we are trying to strike 

that balance, you know, one of the things that we are very much 

concerned with is when you talk about a police officer being off 

duty, the officers that we have had come to us in support of this 

legislation and the previous legislation say, you know, when I am 

35 

on duty and I have these threats and the threats to my family, I 

have an obligation to try to protect my family, to try to protect me. 

I am trained to be able to do that. 

But you have pulled that gun, that weapon that I have been 

trained to be able to utilize to protect myself and to protect my 

family. You have taken it away from me. And you can’t come up 

with a single situation except the hypotheticals, the things that we 

have read, where we have the problems with the I.D. problems that 

you suggest. 

But we can come up with documentation after documentation of 

law enforcement officers, people under your employ, who have had 

problems and threats to them and to their family. That is one of 

the things that we were very concerned about when we passed this 

legislation initially. 

Now, let me look at this particular piece of legislation with just 

the requirements that are in here. Let us look at the retirement 

versus leaving employment. 

And, Sheriff, you indicated—I think I quoted you right—that we 

were doing a grave disservice to people who had served 20 to 25 

years by giving it to people who had only served 15. 

Mr. WEBRE. People who did not achieve a retirement benefit, 

people who were not bona fide retirees. 

Mr. FORBES. All right. Do you really think this legislation was 

designed to reward somebody and that was the purpose of this legislation, that it was designed to be a reward if you pulled a certain 

number of years in service? 

Mr. WEBRE. I believe the legislation was designed to acknowledge or identify those people who were committed to law enforcement, who lived a law enforcement officer’s life, and who received 

a bona fide retirement. I don’t believe it was designed for the officer who jumps from agency to agency to agency and has a spotty 

work history and simply comes up with 10 or 15 years of combined 

service and says I am a police officer. 

Mr. FORBES. You are not going to suggest that just because 

somebody had 15 years versus 20 years that they had a spotty 

work history or jumped from agency to agency, are you? 

Mr. WEBRE. I am going to suggest that if they have ever got to 

a point of a legitimate, bona fide law enforcement retirement, then 

they are not as committed to the profession. 

Mr. FORBES. Do you have deputies that are in your organization 

that have no retirement benefits? 

Mr. WEBRE. All of the deputies that meet our criteria under Louisiana law will receive retirement. 

Mr. FORBES. Under Louisiana. I am talking about under your association. Do you have deputies that do not have retirement benefits? 

Mr. WEBRE. No, sir. If—— 

Mr. FORBES. So every deputy that is covered under your organization has a retirement benefit? 

Mr. WEBRE. Every officer who meets the 12-year threshold for 

vesting rights will get a benefit. In fact, in Louisiana, participation 

in the retirement system is a condition of employment. 

36 

Mr. FORBES. Mr. Penoza, your testimony was that there were 

certain officers that never reached a retirement benefit, didn’t have 

it available to them. Is that correct? 

Mr. PENOZA. That is why I have been there so long—that 401(k). 

I am sorry. I know people around the country that don’t have a 

retirement plan, they don’t get a pension when they retire. They 

have some sort of investment plan of their own. And the department or the State doesn’t have a retirement plan. 

Mr. FORBES. Sheriff, you are not familiar with any of those people that Mr. Penoza is talking about? 

Mr. WEBRE. No, sir, I am not. 

Mr. FORBES. Chief, are you familiar with anybody in your whole 

organization? I am not talking about just your local organization. 

But I am talking about under the chief’s association, any of the law 

enforcement people who have no retirement benefit. 

Mr. KNIGHT. No, not any. 

Mr. FORBES. All right. The last question because my time is out 

is do you think the Amtrak officers should be covered under this 

legislation. And if not, tell me how you differentiate, Sheriff, if you 

would. 

Mr. WEBRE. We have no objection to that provision. 

Mr. FORBES. So you don’t have any objection to that. 

Chief, how about you? 

Mr. KNIGHT. No. 

Mr. FORBES. So you don’t have any. So you don’t object to the 

Amtrak provision? The main objection you have, Chief, as I understand it, under the legislation proposed, not under the previous legislation, was the fact that you think that vesting someone with retirement benefits makes them in a safer position to carry a firearm. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. KNIGHT. It provides an opportunity to get documentation 

that is acceptable, credentials that are common in the industry, 

and a commitment as opposed to the officer who may have been 

terminated or resigned under duress and hopped from agency to 

agency to agency and never had a commitment to the extent that 

they would gain any kind of a status. 

Mr. FORBES. And, Chief, your position is the same? 

Mr. KNIGHT. That is correct. 

Mr. FORBES. You don’t have a problem with Amtrak. You just 

think that people ought to have a retirement benefit. Is that correct? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Well, I hope we all have retirement benefits. 

Mr. FORBES. Yes, I am talking about as far as the qualifications 

to carry firearms. 

Mr. KNIGHT. That is correct. 

Mr. FORBES. And you want to explain why you think the qualification to retirement benefit helps somebody carry a firearm in a 

more safe manner? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Certainly, absolutely. First, let me say you are absolutely correct. We lost the fight. But, you know, we are all cops, 

and one thing we learn is we keep standing up, we keep coming 

back. 

In regards to the retirement, it shows a period of tenure, investment, and that it has not been a situation where someone has put 

37 

in a minimum amount of time and perhaps changed careers. That 

is as simply as I can state that. 

Mr. FORBES. And 15 years wouldn’t be a minimum amount of 

time? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Fifteen years is substantial, but there is discussion 

about the tenure period. 

Mr. FORBES. The bill before us says 15 years. 

Mr. KNIGHT. All right, then. Fifteen? 

Mr. FORBES. You are comfortable that that establishes a minimum commitment to service, the 15-year period? 

Mr. KNIGHT. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES. Okay. 

Mr. Penoza, any response to that? I mean, how do you feel about 

that, the retirement benefit? Does that give any assurances that 

you are going to be able to carry a firearm in a—— 

Mr. PENOZA. I don’t think it should make any difference. I didn’t 

know people 3 years ago—I didn’t know there were people that 

didn’t have some sort of retirement. Because from my area of the 

country, everybody I work with does. But since this has been enacted, that is one of the issues that has come up. 

Mr. FORBES. People have contacted your association saying they 

have had a problem because—— 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes. 

Mr. FORBES [continuing]. They have had their 15 years, they just 

were not covered by a retirement benefit and they still wanted to 

carry the firearm under the act? 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. But they were being denied the privilege to do this. 

Is that correct? 

Mr. PENOZA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

And, Mr. Coble? 

Mr. COBLE. I will be very brief because I know we are on a tight 

timeframe here. I don’t think this has been asked. 

Gentlemen, are you all aware of any instances where a law enforcement officer possessed a firearm pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act where someone was harmed, a, or, b, 

where a crime was prevented and perhaps a criminal apprehended? 

Are you familiar with either of those situations? 

Mr. KNIGHT. First to me? 

Mr. COBLE. Either of you. 

Mr. KNIGHT. The answer is no to the first and—I am sorry. You 

want to know is this—— 

Mr. COBLE. If anyone was harmed, any innocent bystander 

harmed, a, or, b, was a crime prevented or an arrest or a criminal 

apprehended. 

Mr. KNIGHT. I know of no one being harmed. I don’t know of any 

crime that has been thwarted. 

Mr. WEBRE. I know of neither a or b. 

Mr. PENOZA. The same answer. I don’t. 

Mr. COBLE. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

38 

And I thank our witnesses for being with us today. This has been 

very helpful. And we look forward to considering the bill. 

Mr. WEBRE. Thank you. 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you. 

Mr. SCOTT. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:59 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY


A-1.eps
41 

f 


A-2.eps
42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME, 

TERRORISM, AND HOMELAND SECURITY

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I am confident that working 

together with all members of the subcommittee we can address and resolve the real 

challenges regarding the safety and security of the nation’s law enforcement personnel and the public. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is three-fold. First, we seek to receive testimony 

from our witnesses regarding the effectiveness of the Law Enforcement Officers 

Safety Act of 2004, which was enacted in the 108th Congress as Pub. L. 108–277. 

Second, during this hearing we will consider whether the scope of the privileges and 

responsibilities contained in that legislation should be expanded. Finally, we will 

hear testimony from our witnesses on the subject of whether federal judges, prosecutors and other Department of Justice employees whose ‘‘duties include representing 

the U.S. government in a court of law’’ should be permitted to carry concealed weapons in Federal courthouses and other public and private places. 

Let me extend a warm welcome to each of our witnesses: 

• Chief Scott Knight, Firearms Committee Chairman, International Association 

of Chiefs of Police 

• Sheriff Craig Webre, President, National Sheriff’s Association 

• Thomas Penoza, National Treasurer, Grand Lodge, Fraternal Order of Police 

Mr. Chairman, I was a co-sponsor of the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 

2003, which authorized qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to 

carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction. On balance, I was persuaded that such 

authorization could have many beneficial effects in our efforts to curtail crime in 

our communities. 

Before reaching this conclusion, I held several discussions with several members 

of the Texas Fraternal Order of Police and the Houston Police Patrolmen’s Union. 

Law enforcement officers in my district strongly supported the legislation, which I 

was proud to co-sponsor. 

I was not alone. The legislation garnered more than 290 cosponsors and was 

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 law enforcement organizations. 

One of the reasons the legislation attracted broad support is because it offered the 

promise of an immediate, no-cost benefit to communities by simply allowing trustworthy officers to carry a concealed firearm full-time. Further, the life-saving benefits extended to the officers as well. Unlike law enforcement officers, active criminals 

are ‘‘on duty’’ around the clock, 24–7. Many even knowingly targeted police officers 

and their families, recognizing that the officer was likely to be unarmed at home. The 

legislative record documented several instances which illuminated the need for the 

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act: 

• In Orlando, Florida, a quick-thinking off-duty deputy sheriff picking relatives 

up at a bus terminal killed an armed suspect. 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 lifethreatening situation, the deputy fired his gun, saving his own life but fatally 

wounding the assailant. 

• In Long Island, N.Y., a retired officer was at the right place at the right time 

when a man in a black hood decided to rob a bank. The robber waved around 

a realistic-looking toy gun and ordered the customers to lie on the floor. The 

retired officer followed the robber as he fled to a nearby gas station, and 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. 

• In Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police sergeant was beaten by a teen 

armed with a hammer shortly after midnight. The sergeant, who had just 

used an ATM, refused to hand his money over when the attacker decided to 

use force. This alert 13-year police veteran was able to ward off his assailant 

by shooting him in the leg. 

• A Staten Island robber was fatally shot in the chest by an off-duty New Jersey officer. Three men 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 

43 

his back as the robbers demanded money; the officer spun around and responded with deadly force; the other two suspects fled. 

As I stated, I supported the legislation in the 108th Congress and I am very interested in hearing from our witnesses how effective this legislation has been in 

achieving its intended purposes and whether circumstances warrant an additional 

legislative response, be it expansive or restrictive. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. I yield back my time. 

f 

44 


BA-1.eps
45 


BA-2.eps
46 


BA-3.eps
47 

f 


BA-4.eps
48 


C-1.eps
49 


C-2.eps
50 


C-3.eps
51 


C-4.eps
52 

f 


C-5.eps
53 


D-1.eps
54 


D-2.eps
55 


D-3.eps
56 

f 


D-4.eps
57 


E-1.eps
58 


E-2.eps
59 

f 


E-3.eps
60 


F-1.eps
61 

f 


F-2.eps
62 

f 


HR1751.eps
63 


HR2726-1.eps
64 


HR2726-2.eps
65 


HR2726-3.eps
66 


HR2726-4.eps
67 


HR2726-5.eps
68 

Æ 


HR2726-6.eps