19–010

Calendar No. 29

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 1st Session 108–29

THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SAFETY ACT OF 2003

MARCH 26, 2003.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. HATCH, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL AND MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 253] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

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

(S. 253) to amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified 

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

same, reports favorably thereon, and recommends that the bill 

pass.

CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. Background on the legislation ...................................................................... 2

III. Need for the legislation ................................................................................. 3

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

V. Committee consideration ............................................................................... 6

VI. Section-by-section analysis and discussion .................................................. 9

VII. Congressional Budget Office cost estimate .................................................. 9

VIII. Regulatory impact statement ........................................................................ 10

IX. Minority views of Senator Kohl .................................................................... 11

X. Minority views of Senator Kennedy ............................................................. 12

XI. Changes in existing law ................................................................................ 20

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of S. 253, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act 

of 2003,’’ is to amend title 18, United States Code, to authorize 

2

1 In his Minority View, Senator Kennedy claims that S. 253 takes the unprecedented tack of 

permitting certain governmental employees the right to carry weapons in ‘‘violation’’ of state and 

local laws. He is mistaken in his recollection of precedent. In 1993, Congress passed the ‘‘Armored Car Industry Reciprocity Act’’, Public Law No. 103–55, which permitted armored car 

guards who have a license to carry a firearm in one State to continue to carry a firearm in other 

States while protecting shipments—notwithstanding the laws of the States. If Congress extended these benefits to private security guards, it is difficult to discern why we should not extend them to qualified law enforcement officers who have substantially more training and experience in using firearms. 

qualified off-duty law enforcement officers and qualified retired law 

enforcement officers carrying photographic identification issued by 

a governmental agency for which the individual is, or was, employed as a law enforcement officer, notwithstanding State or local 

laws, to carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. This Act, however, does 

not seek to supersede Federal law or limit the laws of any State 

that permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the 

possession of concealed firearms on their property; or prohibits or 

restricts the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.1

II. BACKGROUND ON THE LEGISLATION

THE 107TH CONGRESS

During the 107th Congress, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002,’’ S. 2480, was introduced on May 8, 2002 by Senate 

Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Member Hatch. Forty-one Senators— including Senate Judiciary Committee Members Thurmond, 

McConnell, Edwards, Feinstein, Grassley, Sessions, Brownback, 

Cantwell, DeWine and Kyl—cosponsored S. 2480 in an effort to 

make communities safer and to better protect law enforcement officers and their families. 

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

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

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

Representative Cunningham reintroduced versions of this legislation in the House in the 103rd, 104th, 105th, 106th and 107th Congresses. In the 105th Congress, as the ‘‘Community Protection Act,’’ this legislation was ordered to be reported, as amended, by voice 

vote by the House Judiciary Committee and placed on the Union 

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

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

similar legislation, by a vote of 372–53, as a floor amendment during its juvenile justice debate before the overall legislation was defeated. 

In the 107th Congress, Representative Cunningham reintroduced 

the ‘‘Community Protection Act,’’ H.R. 218 on January 3, 2001 and 

it garnered 275 cosponsors. On November 11, 2001, a motion was 

filed to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of H. 

Res. 271, which provided for the consideration of H.R. 218. The discharge petition (No. 107–4) obtained 44 of the required 218 signatures for further action. No further action on H.R. 218 was taken 

by the House during the 107th Congress. 

3

2Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to S. 253 to prohibit certain sales of armor piercing 

ammunition. This Trojan horse amendment did not command the support of the Judiciary Committee. To the contrary, a decided majority of members concluded that such a ban would do little 

to protect law enforcement officials, and would unnecessarily bog down the overwhelming bipartisan support for S. 253. Indeed, the data cited by Sen. Kennedy—Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics which show that nineteen law enforcement officers have been killed when their 

body armor was pierced—did not remotely support his proposed amendment. Each of these 19 

reprehensible murders was committed with a rifle—a high-powered weapon against which 

standard body armor offers little protection. Indeed, many of these murders did not even involve 

armor piercing ammunition. See http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2001leoka.pdf, Table 11. Notably, 

Senator Kennedy offers not a single example where law enforcement officers were killed with 

armor piercing ammunition that was fired from a handgun. 

Chairman Leahy introduced the ‘‘Local Law Enforcement Officers 

Safety Act of 2002’’ in the Senate at the request of the late National President of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Lieutenant 

Steve Young of Ohio. Lt. Young and the FOP have long dedicated 

themselves to this matter, and led the campaign to focus Congress 

on this measure that will help make our communities safer and 

protect those who are sworn to guard and serve the American public. 

THE 108TH CONGRESS

During the 108th Congress, on January 30, 2003 Senator Campbell, Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Leahy and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Hatch introduced the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003’’. Forty Senators—including 

Senate Judiciary Committee Members Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions, Feinstein, Schumer, Craig, Edwards, Graham and Cornyn—

have cosponsored the bill in an effort to make communities safer 

and to better protect law enforcement officers and their families. 

The bill, S. 253, was introduced in the same form as reported out 

of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 107th Congress. 

Again, during the 108th Congress, Representative Cunningham 

introduced the companion to this bill, H.R. 218, in the House of 

Representatives with one-hundred fifty eight cosponsors. 

III. NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION 2

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

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

When there is a threat to the peace or to our public safety, law enforcement officers are sworn to answer that call. The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 enables law enforcement officers 

nationwide to be armed and prepared when they answer that call, 

no matter where, when, or in what form it comes. 

There are approximately 740,000 sworn law enforcement officers 

currently serving in the United States. Since the first recorded police death in 1792, there have been more than 16,300 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. A total of 1,800 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty over the last decade, an average of 180 deaths per year. In 2001 alone, there were 232 police 

deaths, representing a 49 percent increase from the 156 officers 

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

while taking law enforcement action in an off-duty capacity. On avVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:12 Mar 27, 2003 Jkt 019038 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR029.XXX SR029
4

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

Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reports. 4Senator Kennedy imagines that this legislation will undermine discipline and control within 

police departments. This is so, he contends, because S. 253 will strip the ability of police departments to enforce the rules and policies regarding what weapons officers may carry while onduty. Nothing of the sort is true. S. 253 imposes no restriction on what weapons local police 

departments can require its officers to carry—or not carry—while on-duty. It is settled law, 

moreover, that local police departments have the authority to regulate certain legally protected 

erage, more than 62,000 law enforcement officers are assaulted 

each year, resulting in some 21,000 injuries.3

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

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

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

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

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, S. 253, is designed to protect officers and their families from vindictive criminals, and to allow thousands of equipped, trained and certified law 

enforcement officers, whether on-duty, off-duty or retired, to carry 

concealed firearms in situations where they can respond immediately to a crime across state and other jurisdictional lines. 

As Lt. Steve Young stated in his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Among the many tools of a professional law enforcement 

officer are the badge and the gun. The badge symbolizes 

the officer’s authority and, in worst-case scenarios, the gun 

enforces that authority. These tools are given to the officer 

in trust by the public to enforce the peace and fight crime. 

In asking Congress to pass this bill, we seek a measured 

extension of that trust. In certain emergency circumstances, an officer’s knowledge and training would be 

rendered virtually useless without a firearm, as would his 

ability to provide for his own self-defense or that of his 

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

that training and answer the call to duty when need 

arises. 

Today, a complex patchwork of Federal, state and local laws govern the carrying of concealed firearms for current and retired law 

enforcement officers. Many members of the law enforcement community, including the FOP, the National Association of Police Officers (NAPO), Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association 

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

believe that national legislation is necessary because of this patchwork of concealed-carry laws. This bill addresses this need by establishing national measures of uniformity and consistency to permit law enforcement officers to respond immediately to a crime 

when off duty, as well as to protect officers and their families from 

vindictive criminals. 

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 creates a 

mechanism by which law enforcement officers may travel interstate 

with a firearm. Qualified active-duty law enforcement officers will 

be permitted to travel interstate with a firearm, subject to certain 

limitations, provided that officers are carrying their official badges 

and photographic identification.4

5

activities while officers are on duty. Not surprisingly, police departments can require its officers 

to wear certain uniforms and bar its officers from carrying certain equipment—even though the 

officers are free to wear and carry whatever they want on their own time. See Kelley v. Johnson, 

425 U.S. 238 (1976) (upholding police uniform and grooming standards); Daniels v. City of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500 (5th Cir. 2001). The right supplied by S. 253 simply does not bar the authority of local police departments to govern the duty standards of its officers. 

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

firearm under S. 253 if he or she is authorized to engage in or supervise any violation of law, is authorized to carry a firearm, is not 

subject to any disciplinary action by the agency, and meets any 

agency standards with respect to qualification with a firearm. In 

his or her official capacity, though, a law enforcement officer is permitted to carry weapons whenever Federal, state, or local law allows. This bill is not intended to interfere with any law enforcement officer’s right to carry a concealed firearm, on private or government property, while on duty or in the course of official business. 

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

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

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

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 would permit 

qualified law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement officers across the nation to carry concealed firearms in most 

situations. It also preserves, however, any State law that permits 

citizens from restricting a concealed firearm on private property 

and any State law that restricts the possession of a firearm on 

State or local government property. 

In order to qualify for the bill’s exemptions to permit a qualified 

off-duty law enforcement officer to carry a concealed firearm, notwithstanding the law of the state or political subdivision of the 

state, he or she must have authority to use a firearm by the law 

enforcement agency where he or she works; not be subject to any 

disciplinary action; satisfy every standard of the agency to regularly use a firearm; not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving 

a firearm; and carry a photo identification issued by the agency. 

The bill preserves any State law that restricts concealed firearms 

on private property, and preserves any State law that restricts the 

possession of a firearm on State or local government property or 

park. 

For a retired law enforcement officer to qualify for exemption 

from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms, he 

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

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

fifteen years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire 

due to a service-connected disability; have a non-forfeitable right to 

retirement plan benefits of the law enforcement agency; meet the 

same state firearms training and qualifications as an active officer; 

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

carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This section 

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

property or park. 

6

IV. HEARINGS

On July 23, 2002 during the 107th Congress, the Senate Judiciary Committee held one hearing on ‘‘The Law Enforcement Officers 

Safety Act of 2002, S. 2480.’’ Testimony was received from six witnesses, including Senator Max Baucus of Montana and Representative Cunningham. The other witnesses were: Lieutenant Steve 

Young, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police; Mr. Arthur Gordon, a National Executive Board Member of the Federal 

Law Enforcement Officers Association; Deputy Chief of Police 

David Johnson of the Cedar Rapids Police Department in Cedar 

Rapids, Iowa; and Colonel Lonnie J. Westphal, Chief of the Colorado State Patrol. 

V. COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION DURING THE

107TH CONGRESS

The Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, met in 

open session for an executive business meeting on September 19, 

2002, to consider S. 2480, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety 

Act of 2002.’’

The Committee approved by voice vote an amendment introduced 

by Senator Durbin. The Durbin amendment increased the service 

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

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

amendment explicitly provided that an active officer does not qualify under the bill if he or she is prohibited by federal law from receiving a firearm. 

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

Committee, on a 9–9 roll call vote, defeated this amendment. The 

Committee did not complete consideration of S. 2480 on September 

19. 

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

2480, but no amendments were offered, and the Committee did not 

complete consideration of the bill.

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

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

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

section 921 of title 18). The Committee then ordered the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002 to be reported favorably to 

the full Senate, with Senator Kennedy dissenting, with a recommendation that the bill do pass. 

VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE DURING THE 107TH CONGRESS

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

7

The rollcall vote on the amendment by Senator Kennedy barring 

officers from carrying any concealed firearm unless the officer was 

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

Tally: 9 Yes, 9 No, 1 Not Voting 

Democrats (10) Republicans (9) 

N Leahy (Vt.) N Hatch (Utah) 

Y Kennedy (Mass.) N Thurmond (S.C.) 

Y Biden (Del.) N Grassley (Iowa) 

Y Kohl (Wis.) Y Specter (Pa.) 

Y Feinstein (Calif.) N Kyl (Ariz.) 

Y Feingold (Wis.) N DeWine (Ohio) 

Y Schumer (N.Y.) N Sessions (Ala.) 

Y Durbin (Ill.) N Brownback (Kan.) 

Y Cantwell (Wash.) N McConnell (Ky.) 

NV Edwards (N.C.)

The Committee approved without objection the amendment by 

Chairman Leahy and Senator Hatch regarding the types of firearms covered by the legislation. 

The Committee then ordered the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2002, as amended, to be reported favorably to the full 

Senate, with Senator Kennedy dissenting, with a recommendation 

that the bill do pass. The full Senate took no action on S. 2480 during the 107th Congress. 

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION DURING THE

108TH CONGRESS

The Committee on the Judiciary, with a quorum present, met in 

open for an executive business meeting on March 6, 2003, to consider S. 253, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003.’’

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to clarify that the bill 

does not interfere with the ability of State or local law enforcement 

agencies from regulating the conditions under which their officers 

may carry firearms. 

The Committee, on a 16–3 rollcall vote, tabled this amendment. 

The vote to table this amendment was as follows: 

Tally: 16 Yes, 3 No 

Republicans (10) Democrats (9) 

Y Hatch (Utah) Y Leahy (Vt.) 

Y Grassley (Iowa) N Kennedy (Mass.) 

Y Specter (Pa.) Y Biden (Del.) 

Y Kyl (Ariz.) Y Kohl (Wis.) 

Y DeWine (Ohio) Y Feinstein (Calif.) 

Y Sessions (Ala.) N Feingold (Wis.) 

Y Graham (S.C.) Y Schumer (N.Y.) 

Y Craig (ID) N Durbin (Ill.) 

Y Chambliss (Ga.) Y Edwards (N.C.) 

Y Cornyn (Tex.)

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to expand the definition 

of armor piercing ammunition and to require the Attorney General 

to promulgate standards for the uniform testing of projectiles 

against body armor. 

8

The Committee, on a 10–6–3 rollcall vote, tabled this amendment. The vote to table this amendment was as follows: 

Tally: 10 Yes, 6 No, 3 not voting 

Republicans (10) Democrats (9) 

Y Hatch (Utah) Y Leahy (Vt.) 

Y Grassley (Iowa) N Kennedy (Mass.) 

Y Specter (Pa.) NV Biden (Del.) 

Y Kyl (Ariz.) N Kohl (Wis.) 

NV DeWine (Ohio) NV Feinstein (Calif.) 

Y Sessions (Ala.) N Feingold (Wis.) 

Y Graham (S.C.) N Schumer (N.Y.) 

Y Craig (ID) N Durbin (Ill.) 

Y Chambliss (Ga.) N Edwards (N.C.) 

Y Cornyn (Tex.)

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to permit individual 

States to opt out from the provisions of the Act. 

The Committee, on a 15–4 rollcall vote, tabled this amendment. 

The vote to table this amendment was as follows: 

Tally: 15 Yes, 4 No 

Republicans (10) Democrats (9) 

Y Hatch (Utah) Y Leahy (Vt.) 

Y Grassley (Iowa) N Kennedy (Mass.) 

Y Specter (Pa.) Y Biden (Del.) 

Y Kyl (Ariz.) N Kohl (Wis.) 

Y DeWine (Ohio) Y Feinstein (Calif.) 

Y Sessions (Ala.) N Feingold (Wis.) 

Y Graham (S.C.) Y Schumer (N.Y.) 

Y Craig (ID) N Durbin (Ill.) 

Y Chambliss (Ga.) Y Edwards (N.C.) 

Y Cornyn (Tex.)

Senator Kennedy offered an amendment to clarify that the bill 

does not supersede State or local laws that prohibit or restrict the 

possession of concealed firearms in various public places. 

The Committee, on a 14–4 rollcall vote, tabled this amendment. 

The vote to table this amendment was as follows: 

Tally: 14 Yes, 4 No, 1 not voting 

Republicans (10) Democrats (9) 

Y Hatch (Utah) Y Leahy (Vt.) 

Y Grassley (Iowa) N Kennedy (Mass.) 

Y Specter (Pa.) Y Biden (Del.) 

Y Kyl (Ariz.) N Kohl (Wis.) 

NV DeWine (Ohio) Y Feinstein (Calif.) 

Y Sessions (Ala.) N Feingold (Wis.) 

Y Graham (S.C.) Y Schumer (N.Y.) 

Y Craig (ID) N Durbin (Ill.) 

Y Chambliss (Ga.) Y Edwards (N.C.) 

Y Cornyn (Tex.)

The Committee then ordered S. 253, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003, to be reported favorably to the full Senate 

with a recommendation that the bill do pass on a vote of 18–1, SenVerDate Jan 31 2003 19:47 Mar 27, 2003 Jkt 019038 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR029.XXX SR029
9

ator Kennedy dissenting. The Committee vote on S. 253 was as follows: 

Republicans (10) Democrats (9) 

Y Hatch (Utah) Y Leahy (Vt.) 

Y Grassley (Iowa) N Kennedy (Mass.) 

Y Specter (Pa.) Y Biden (Del.) 

Y Kyl (Ariz.) Y Kohl (Wis.) 

Y DeWine (Ohio) Y Feinstein (Calif.) 

Y Sessions (Ala.) Y Feingold (Wis.) 

Y Graham (S.C.) Y Schumer (N.Y.) 

Y Craig (ID) Y Durbin (Ill.) 

Y Chambliss (Ga.) Y Edwards (N.C.) 

Y Cornyn (Tex.) 

VI. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Section 1. Short title 

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

Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003. 

Section 2. Exemption of qualified law enforcement officers from 

state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms 

Section 2 would permit qualified law enforcement officers to 

carry a concealed firearm notwithstanding the law of the state or 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal law. 

Section 3. Exemption of qualified retired law enforcement officers 

from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms 

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

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

enforcement officer under this section must have retired in good 

standing, have been qualified by the agency to carry or use a firearm, have been employed at least fifteen years as a law enforcement officer unless forced to retire due to a service-connected disability, have a non-forfeitable right to retirement plan benefits of 

the law enforcement agency, annually meet State firearms training 

and qualifications that are the same as active law enforcement officers, not be prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm, 

and be carrying a photo identification issued by the agency. This 

section preserves any state law that permits restrictions of concealed firearms on private property and preserves any state law 

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

Federal law. 

10

VII. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

The cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the bill would result in no costs to the 

federal government, would not affect direct spending or receipts, 

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

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 12, 2003. 

Hon. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 253, the Law Enforcement 

Officers Safety Act of 2003. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark Grabowicz. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 253—Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003

S. 253 would exempt certain current and retired law enforcement 

officers from most state and local laws prohibiting the carrying of 

concealed handguns. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would result in no costs to the federal government. Enacting S. 253 

would not affect direct spending or receipts. 

S. 253 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 

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

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

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

thus would not exceed the threshold established by UMRA ($59 

million in 2003, adjusted annually for inflation). S. 253 contains no 

new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

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

federal costs), and Greg Waring (for the impact on state and local 

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

Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

VIII. REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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

concludes that S. 253 will not have significant regulatory impact. 

(11)

IX. ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR KOHL 

While I supported S. 253 in the Judiciary Committee, I did so 

with one major reservation. 

Wisconsin has a 130 year old prohibition against carrying concealed weapons. Efforts to overturn the ban in the state legislature 

and the state courts have been denied time and time again. Indeed, 

the Wisconsin legislature addressed the issue as recently as March 

2002. 

Wisconsin is one of only a handful of states that do not permit 

concealed weapons to be carried. An overwhelming majority of Wisconsinites—68 percent—oppose a concealed carry law for private 

citizens. Among law enforcement officers, 48 percent oppose permitting citizens to carry concealed weapons and only 45 percent support it. Additionally, the Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association has 

consistently opposed legislation that would lift the ban. 

I expect that Wisconsin will have the opportunity to continue 

this prohibition on concealed carry laws if the state legislature 

chooses. We certainly trust our law enforcement professionals, but 

I would prefer that Wisconsin decide for itself the policy on this important issue. For this reason, I support S. 253, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003 with the expectation that either 

before it passes the full Senate or in conference with the House 

version of the bill, a state opt-in or state opt-out provision will be 

included. I prefer a requirement for states to decide whether or not 

they will opt-in, however under no circumstances should a bill be 

signed into law that does not take into consideration a state’s 

choice to prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons within that 

state. 

HERB KOHL. 

(12)

X. MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR KENNEDY 

I oppose S. 253, the ‘‘Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act.’’ If we 

had voted on the title of this bill alone, I would have supported it. 

Day in and day out, law enforcement officers put their lives on the 

line so that we can all live more securely. We should do everything 

we can to protect their safety. 

This legislation, however, is a serious step in the wrong direction. It will undermine the safety of our communities and the safety of police officers by broadly overriding state and local gun-safety 

laws. It will also nullify the ability of police departments to enforce 

rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry 

firearms. Because of the substantial danger that S. 253 poses to police officers and communities, it is vigorously opposed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors. 

A. S. 253’s Sweeping Override of State and Local Gun Safety Laws 

is Unprecedented and Unwarranted 

There is no precedent for what the supporters of S. 253 intend 

to accomplish. Congress has never passed a law giving current and 

former state and local employees the right to carry weapons in violation of controlling state and local laws. Congress has never 

passed a law interfering with the ability of state and local police 

chiefs to regulate their own officers’ carrying of firearms. 

Every year, thousands of our fellow citizens are killed by guns. 

The rate of firearm deaths among children is nearly twelve times 

higher in the United States than in other industrial countries. 

These deaths are senseless, and we all know that the vast majority 

of them could be prevented by sensible gun laws. It is shameful 

that we are not doing more in Congress to achieve gun safety and 

reduce gun violence. The ‘‘gun show loophole,’’ which allows firearms to be purchased illegally at gun shows, should have been 

closed long ago, and there are many other steps that Congress 

should take to protect our citizens from the scourge of gun violence. 

At the very least, Congress should refrain from interfering with 

gun-safety laws enacted by states and local governments. Today, 

each state has the authority to decide what kind of concealed-carry 

law, if any, best fits the needs of its communities. Each state can 

make its own judgment about whether private citizens should be 

allowed to carry concealed weapons, and whether on-duty, off-duty, 

or retired police officers should be included or exempted in any prohibition. 

There is no evidence that states or local governments have failed 

to consider the interests and needs of law enforcement officers. 

Consider, for example, New Jersey law. In 1995, retired police chief 

John Deventer was shot and killed while heroically trying to stop 

a robbery. This incident prompted New Jersey to enact a law allowVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:12 Mar 27, 2003 Jkt 019038 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR029.XXX SR029
13

ing retired officers to carry handguns under a number of conditions. In drafting this law, the New Jersey legislature made a deliberate effort to balance the safety of police officers with the safety 

of the public at large, by including a number of important safeguards that are not contained in S. 253. For example: • New Jersey’s law is limited to handguns. S. 253 is not. • New Jersey’s law has a maximum age—70. S. 253 does not. • Under New Jersey’s law, retired police officers must file renewal applications yearly. There is no application process under S. 

253. • New Jersey’s law requires retirees to list all their guns. No 

such record is required under S. 253. • New Jersey gives police departments discretion to deny permits to retirees. No such discretion is provided under S. 253. 

By enacting S. 253, Congress will be gutting all of the safeguards 

contained in the New Jersey statute—as well as the judgment of 

other states that have considered this issue. 

The sponsors of S. 253 have presented no evidence that states 

and local governments are unable or unwilling to decide these important issues for themselves. They have offered no explanation 

why Congress is better suited than states, cities, and towns to decide how to best protect police officers, schoolchildren, church-goers, 

and other members of their communities. Congress should bolster, 

not undermine, the efforts of states and local governments to protect their citizens from gun violence. 

In the House of Representatives, Chairman James Sensenbrenner has described this bill as ‘‘an affront to state sovereignty 

and the Constitution.’’ In the Senate Judiciary Committee, on 

March 6, I offered an amendment to give states the opportunity to 

opt out of the bill’s broad federal mandate. It would have allowed 

state legislatures to decide for themselves whether they would provide special privileges for current and former law enforcement officers, or whether they will address this issue on their own terms 

and keep their existing gun-safety laws intact. The Committee 

voted to table this amendment, 15–4. 

I also offered an amendment to preserve state and local laws 

that prohibit concealed weapons in churches, schools, bars and 

other places where alcohol is served, sports arenas, government offices, and hospitals. In many states, cities, and towns, these places 

are singled out as deserving special protection from the threat of 

gun violence. Michigan has a law that prohibits concealed firearms 

in schools, sports arenas, bars, churches, and hospitals. Georgia 

law allows active and retired police officers to carry firearms in 

publicly owned buildings, but not in churches, sports arenas, or 

places where alcohol is sold. Kentucky prohibits carrying concealed 

firearms in bars and schools. South Carolina prohibits concealed 

firearms in churches and hospitals.

S. 253 will override most such ‘‘safe harbor’’ laws at the state 

level. It will override laws that categorically prohibit guns in 

churches and other houses of worship, since only laws that permit 

private entities to post signs prohibiting concealed firearms on 

their property will remain in force. In most states, churches are not 

currently required to post signs in order to have a gun-free zone. 

S. 253 will also override laws that prohibit concealed weapons in 

14

places where alcohol is served. Surely, it is reasonable for a state 

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

At the local level, S. 253 inexplicably overrides all gun-safety 

laws, without exception. In the 1990’s, Boston, New York, and 

other cities made great strides in the fight against crime precisely 

because they were able to pass laws that addressed the factors that 

lead to violence—including the prevalence of firearms in inner cities. As Congressman Henry Hyde has said, ‘‘the best decisions on 

fighting crime are made at the local level.’’ By overriding all local 

gun-safety laws, S. 253 will undermine the ability of cities to fight 

crime. The bill will indiscriminately abrogate ‘‘safe harbor’’ laws in 

Boston, New York City, Cincinnati, Columbus, Chicago, Kansas 

City, and many other cities and towns. 

Congress has no business overriding the judgment of states and 

local governments in deciding where concealed weapons should be 

prohibited. My amendment sought to preserve at least a few basic 

‘‘safe harbors’’ from the threat of gun violence. The Committee 

voted to table this amendment, 14–4. 

B. S. 253 Will Undermine the Safety of Our Communities and the 

Safety of Police Officers 

The Committee majority argues that S. 253 is needed because 

the ‘‘complex patchwork of Federal, state and local’’ concealed-carry 

laws prevents officers from protecting themselves and their families from ‘‘vindictive’’ criminals. Supporters of this bill have distributed two lists of officers and prison guards who were killed while 

off-duty or in retirement. The stories of these slain men and women 

are tragic, and their killers deserve to be severely punished. But 

none of these incidents involved officers who were killed outside 

their home state. They do not demonstrate a need for a federal 

override of state and local gun-safety laws. To the contrary, as New 

Jersey’s response to the tragic shooting of Chief Deventer shows, 

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

enforcement officers, and also protect the public at large. 

The supporters of S. 253 also argue that by authorizing officers 

to carry guns across state lines, in violation of whatever state and 

local gun-safety laws would otherwise apply, they will be able to effectively respond to crimes and terrorist attacks. As the majority 

argues, the bill will enable ‘‘law enforcement officers nationwide to 

be armed and prepared when they answer that call, no matter 

where, when, or in what form it comes.’’ The Committee apparently 

envisages a nation-wide unregulated police force, consisting of retired officers and off-duty officers who are armed while on vacation 

or traveling outside their home jurisdictions. 

This bill is no way for the federal government to support state 

and local law enforcement. Congress should be providing full funding for first responders employed by state and local governments; 

communications gear and other law enforcement technology; and 

specific assistance programs such as the COPS Universal Hiring 

Program, the Byrne Grant program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. Congress should also enact needed 

gun-safety measures to protect the safety and security of all AmeriVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:12 Mar 27, 2003 Jkt 019038 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR029.XXX SR029
15

cans. We should strengthen Brady Law criminal background checks 

for gun purchases, close the ‘‘gun show loophole,’’ reauthorize the 

assault weapons ban, and amend federal law to ensure that all ‘‘cop 

killer’’ bullets are banned. 

On this last issue, at the Judiciary Committee’s meeting on 

March 6, I offered an amendment to close the loopholes in the federal ban on armor-piercing ammunition. Current law lacks a ‘‘performance based’’ standard for handgun ammunition that can penetrate body armor. Even more important, there are no restrictions 

on armor-piercing ammunition used in centerfire rifles. According 

to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, nineteen law enforcement 

officers were murdered in the last decade after bullets penetrated 

their armored vests. Fourteen of these officers were killed by bullets fired from .223 caliber rifles or 7.62 caliber assault weapons—

and armor-piercing bullets for these weapons continue to be marketed on web sites today. Because it has no place in our society, 

I offered an amendment banning all such armor-piercing ammunition. The Committee defeated my amendment by a vote of 10–6, 

with three members not voting. 

S. 253 stands in stark contrast to such needed gun-safety legislation. Allowing off-duty or retired officers with concealed weapons to 

go into other jurisdictions will only make conditions more dangerous for police officers and civilians. As the Executive Director of 

the IACP explained in a letter dated February 12, 2003:

One of the reasons that this legislation is especially 

troubling to our nation’s law enforcement executives is 

that it could in fact threaten the safety of police officers by 

creating tragic situations where officers from other jurisdictions are wounded or killed by the local officers. Police 

departments throughout the nation train their officers to 

respond as a team to dangerous situations. This teamwork 

requires months of training to develop and provides the officers with an understanding of how their coworkers will 

respond when faced with different situations. Injecting an 

armed, unknown officer, who has received different training and is operating under different assumptions, can turn 

an already dangerous situation deadly.

S. 253 neither promotes consistent training policies among different police jurisdictions nor limits the conditions under which officers may use their firearms. The idea that more crimes will be 

prevented when more concealed weapons are carried by untrained 

and unregulated out-of-state, off-duty, and retired officers is pure 

fiction. 

It is important to note that in giving off-duty and retired police 

officers broad authority to nullify state and local gun-safety laws, 

S. 253 is not limited to the carrying of officers’ authorized weapons. 

In most police departments, officers may seek authorization to 

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

other than his service weapon (typically, a nine-millimeter semiautomatic pistol), he must prove that he is qualified before the department will authorize him to carry it. To become qualified, the 

officer must demonstrate that he can handle that weapon safely. 

16

Rather than limiting its provisions to authorized weapons, the 

initial version of this bill provided that as long as an officer received authorization to carry a particular kind of firearm (such as 

his service weapon), he could carry concealed any other kind of firearm while off-duty or retired—even if he never received authorization from his own police department to carry that other weapon. 

Because the term ‘‘firearm’’ is defined very broadly under federal 

law, see 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3), as long as an officer was authorized 

to use his service weapon on the job, the initial version of this bill 

would have allowed him to carry a concealed bomb or grenade 

while off-duty or in retirement. 

In the 107th Congress, I introduced an amendment providing 

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

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

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

The Committee later adopted an amendment providing that the bill 

does not authorize the carrying of machine guns, silencers, and destructive devices such as bombs and grenades. This subsequent 

amendment took a step in the direction of common sense. Clearly, 

no civilian—not even an off-duty or retired police officer—needs to 

carry a machine gun, bomb, or grenade. It is equally clear, however, that off-duty and retired officers do not need to carry concealed shotguns, sniper rifles, or other weapons that their own police departments have not authorized them to carry. The Committee’s failure to limit the bill to authorized police weapons—or even 

to handguns, as New Jersey law provides—will further undermine 

the safety of American communities. 

Serious safety problems are also raised by the bill’s override of 

gun-safety laws for retired officers, a category that is defined to include anyone who has served in a law enforcement capacity for fifteen years ‘‘in the aggregate’’ before retiring or resigning and taking a different job. There is no requirement under S. 253 that a retiree demonstrate a special need for a firearm. While S. 253 provides that an officer must have technically left law enforcement in 

‘‘good standing,’’ it is well known that sub-par government employees are routinely released from their positions without a formal 

finding of misconduct. The bill does not draw a distinction between 

officers who served ably and those who did not. Officers who retire 

in ‘‘good standing’’ while under investigation for domestic violence, 

racial profiling, excessive force, or substance abuse could still qualify for broad concealed-carry authority for the remainder of their 

lives. As the International Association of Chiefs of Police has observed:

This 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 manageVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:12 Mar 27, 2003 Jkt 019038 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR029.XXX SR029
17

ment structure that identifies such problems in current officers.

Although Senator Durbin’s amendment, approved by the Committee in the 107th Congress and incorporated into the current bill, 

clarified the firearms training standards that retired officers must 

meet, these officers will not be subject to any continuing police department policies or guidelines. Section C, below, discusses the fact 

that S. 253 is likely to nullify the ability of police departments to 

enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can 

carry firearms. Even if courts interpret this legislation as not overriding police rules for active-duty officers, however, such rules will 

still not apply to retired officers. In that event, Congress will be 

perversely extending to former police officers greater authority to 

carry concealed weapons than it extends to active police officers. 

Community safety will be the casualty. 

C. S. 253 Will Undermine Discipline and Control within Police Departments 

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of S. 253 is its potential to undermine the effective and safe functioning of police departments 

throughout the nation. The bill removes the ability of police departments to enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry firearms. Police chiefs will lose the authority to prohibit their own officers from carrying certain weapons on-duty or 

off-duty. 

Section 2 of the bill provides that regardless of ‘‘any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,’’

any individual who qualifies as a law enforcement officer and who 

carries photo identification will be authorized to carry any firearm. 

In a variety of contexts, including the federal preemption of state 

law, courts have interpreted the term ‘‘law’’ to include agency rules 

and regulations. The Supreme Court has ruled that this term specifically includes contractual obligations between employers and 

employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices promulgated 

by state and local police departments. See Norfolk & Western Ry. 

Co. v. Am. Train Dispatchers’ Assoc., 499 U.S. 117 (1991). 

As discussed in Section B, above, there is no requirement in S. 

253 that active-duty officers be authorized to carry each firearm 

that they wish to carry concealed. All that subsection (c)(2) requires 

is that an officer be authorized to carry ‘‘a firearm.’’ Pursuant to 

subsection (c)(4), the officer need only satisfy the agency’s standards with respect to ‘‘a firearm.’’ In other words, once an officer 

qualifies to carry a service weapon, he will have the right under 

this bill to carry any gun, on-duty or off-duty—even if doing so violates his own police department’s rules. 

Thus, if Congress enacts this legislation, police chiefs will be 

stripped of their authority to tell their own officers, for example, 

that they cannot bring guns into bars while off-duty; that they cannot carry their service weapons on vacation; or that they cannot 

carry certain shotguns, rifles, or handguns on the job. 

As the International Association of Chiefs of Police stated in a 

letter to the Committee, ‘‘under the provisions of S. 253, police 

chiefs and local governments would lose the authority to regulate 

18

what type of firearms the officers they employ can carry even while 

they are on duty.’’

As a result, the legislation would effectively eliminate 

the ability of a police department to establish rules restricting the ability of officers to carry only department-authorized firearms while on duty. The prospect of officers 

carrying unauthorized firearms while on duty is very troubling to the IACP for several reasons. 

First, an unauthorized weapon is unlikely to meet departmental standards. This in turn means that the officer 

will not have received approved departmental training in 

its use, and will not have qualified with the weapon under 

departmental regulations. Carrying an unauthorized weapon thus presents a risk of injury to the officer, fellow officers, and citizens, for the weapon itself may be unsafe or 

otherwise unsuitable for police use, and the officer may not 

be sufficiently proficient with its use to avoid adverse consequences. 

In addition to the risk of injury involved, the carrying of 

unauthorized weapons is a major source of police civil liability in the U.S. today. An officer who fires an unauthorized weapon in the line of duty risks civil liability for the 

officer and for the department, even though the shooting 

may have been otherwise legally justified. A number of 

civil-suit plaintiffs have contended that the mere fact that 

the weapon that caused the plaintiff’s injury was unauthorized is, in itself, sufficient legal grounds for a finding 

of liability. 

For these and other reasons, the IACP concluded that S. 253 ‘‘has 

the potential to significantly and negatively impact the safety of 

our communities and our officers.’’

Law enforcement executives face extremely difficult challenges 

today. As crime rates have started to rise again and new concerns 

about domestic security have emerged, police chiefs are forced to do 

more with less. The weak economy has forced cities and states to 

cut back on funding for law enforcement. The Administration’s 

budget proposes to eliminate all federal funding for such critical 

programs as the COPS Universal Hiring Program, the Byrne Grant 

program, and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program. 

The last thing Congress should do now is pass a bill that expands the civil liability of police departments and nullifies the ability of police chiefs to regulate their own officers’ use of firearms 

and to maintain discipline. At the Committee’s meeting on March 

6, I offered an amendment providing that S. 253 would not supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, and practices of any 

state or local law enforcement agency. The Committee defeated this 

amendment by a vote of 16–3. By denying police chiefs the right 

to run their own departments, the Committee dealt a blow to common sense and public safety. 

D. Conclusion 

Each state and local government should be allowed to make its 

own judgment as to when citizens and out-of-state visitors may 

19

carry concealed weapons—and whether active or retired law enforcement officers should be included in or exempted from any prohibition. In the words of the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police, it is ‘‘essential that state and local governments maintain 

the ability to legislate concealed carry laws that best fit the needs 

of their communities.’’ S. 253 will unnecessarily damage the efforts of states and local 

governments to protect their citizens from gun violence. It will also 

expose state and local governments to unnecessary liability and 

nullify the ability of police chiefs to maintain discipline and control 

within their own departments. I regret that the Committee did not 

adopt the amendments that I offered to correct the bill’s most serious flaws. The nation will be better served if Congress puts this 

misguided legislation aside, and turns its attention to measures 

that we know will reduce crime and enhance the safety of police 

officers and all Americans. 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY. 

(20)

XI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by S. 253, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

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

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

UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 18—CRIMES AND CRIMINAL 

PROCEDURE

Part Section 

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

* * * * * * *

PART I—CRIMES

Chapter Section 

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

* * * * * * * 

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

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS

Sec. 

921. Definitions. 

* * * * * * * 

926. Rules and regulations. 

926A. Interstate transportation of firearms. 

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

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

* * * * * * *

§ 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms 

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or 

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

lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where 

he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such 

transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor 

any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is diVerDate Jan 31 2003 18:12 Mar 27, 2003 Jkt 019038 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR029.XXX SR029
21

rectly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a 

compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm 

or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than 

the glove compartment or console.

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

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State 

or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification 

required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has 

been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b). 

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the 

laws of any State that— (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the 

possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State 

or local government property, installation, building, base, or 

park. 

(c) As used in this section, the term ‘‘qualified law enforcement officer’’ means an employee of a governmental agency who— (1) is authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for any violation of law, and has statutory 

powers of arrest; 

(2) is authorized by the agency to carry a firearm; 

(3) is not the subject of any disciplinary action by the agency; 

(4) meets standards, if any, established by the agency which 

require the employee to regularly qualify in the use of a firearm; 

and 

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

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

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

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

does not include—

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

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

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

§ 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired 

law enforcement officers 

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State 

or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm 

that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b). 

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the 

laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the 

possession of concealed firearms on their property; or 

22

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State 

or local government property, installation, building, base, or 

park. 

(c) As used in this section, the term ‘‘qualified retired law enforcement officer’’ means an individual who— (1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency 

as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental 

instability; 

(2) before such retirement, was authorized by law to engage 

in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation 

of law, and had statutory powers of arrest; 

(3)(A) before such retirement, was regularly employed as a 

law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more; or 

(B) retired from service with such agency, after completing 

any applicable probationary period of such service, due to a 

service-connected disability, as determined by such agency; 

(4) has a nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement 

plan of the agency; 

(5) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the 

expense of the individual, the State’s standards for training and 

qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry firearms; and 

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

(d) The identification required by this subsection is photographic 

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

Æ