Leahy Introduces Bill To Improve Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act

[HiredGoon]

Since the subject of LEOSA comes up a lot, thought I'd post this:

UPDATE ON LEGISLATION AMENDING LEOSA

Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Chairman of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary, introduced S.1132, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act
Amendments Act," which aims to make improvements to the Law Enforcement
Officers' Safety Act (LEOSA), especially with respect to retired law
enforcement officers. The language of the bill was drafted in close
cooperation with staff in the National Legislative Office.

The legislation would amend the LEOSA in several ways. To begin with, the
bill would expand the exemption to any ammunition not specifically
prohibited by Federal law. The new language would also expressly include law
enforcement officers employed by the Amtrak Police Department (APD). Under
current law, these officers are not "employees of a governmental agency"
(despite the fact that APD is widely considered to be a Federal law
enforcement agency) and thus do not currently meet the definition of
"qualified active or retired law enforcement officer."

In addition to APD officers, all law enforcement officers employed by the
executive branch of the Federal government will be defined as "qualified
active or retired law enforcement officers." This language is intended to
make absolutely clear that civilian Federal law enforcement officers (any
employee categorized as a "police officer" by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM)) are to be exempt from local and State prohibitions on the
carriage of concealed firearms. We hope that this will clarify the
contention of certain Federal agencies and Departments which do not share
the FOP's opinion that their officers meet the definitions in current law.

The remaining language would amend 18 USC 926C, which defines "qualified
retired law enforcement officers" and provides them with the exemption to
local and State prohibitions on the carriage of concealed firearms. The new
bill would delete the term "retired" and replace it throughout the law with
"separated from service." This will clarify that officers who do not
officially "retire" from their agency still qualify for the exemption. The
bill would also reduce the aggregate number of years of service from fifteen
(15) to ten (10).

The most significant changes proposed by the bill address the problems
encountered by retired law enforcement officers who have difficulty in
obtaining the paperwork they need to demonstrate that they have qualified
with the firearm they choose to carry. While Federal legislation is not a
substitute for proper implementation of procedures to qualify retired
officers at the State or agency level, we do believe the legislation will
benefit those officers in States which are refusing to certify retired
officers.

The new language would provide that a "qualified retired law enforcement
officer" would have to meet "the standards for qualification in firearms
training for active law enforcement officers as set by the officer's former
agency, the State in which the officer resides or, if the State has not
established such standards, a law enforcement agency within the State in
which the officer resides." The officer would still have to meet these
qualifications annually.

The bill would allow the document certifying the officer's qualification to
be issued by the State in which the individual resides (which is the case in
current law) OR by a "certified firearms instructor that is qualified to
conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that
State." It is the intention of the bill and our expectation that this will
help retired officers who reside in States which have failed to implement
procedures by which they can obtain the documents needed to lawfully carry
under existing Federal law.

[BSH]

And why should former Federal LEOs be exempted from state & local firearms statutes? What a crock.

Strictly speaking, I would argue this creates an equal protection violation, as it treats Federal employees fundamentally differently from anyone else. I submit that there is no foundation for this that would meet a "strict scrutiny" consideration.

[Skullz]

For whatever good it will do, I'll be contacting my congress critters to oppose this.

LEOSA never should have passed, and neither should this.