Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've seen that an attempt has been, or is being, made to modify the original bill.

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

It has been referred to the Judiciary Committee. Does anyone know the current status of the proposed changes and whether, in light of all the other goings on in Washington, any action is likely to be taken in the near future?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,271 Posts
Link:
Please resubmit your search
Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
D'oh!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
242. S.1132 : A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] (introduced 5/21/2009) Cosponsors (3)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 5/21/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Pretty scary stuff in that judiciary committee.

306. S.1684 : A bill to establish guidelines and incentives for States to establish criminal arsonist and criminal bomber registries and to require the Attorney General to establish a national criminal arsonist and criminal bomber registry program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (1)
206. S.650 : A bill to abolish the death penalty under Federal law.
Sponsor: Sen Feingold, Russell D. [WI] (introduced 3/19/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 3/19/2009
218. S.843 : A bill to establish background check procedures for gun shows.
Sponsor: Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] (introduced 4/21/2009) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/21/2009
282. S.1464 : A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to establish the transfer of any nuclear weapon, device, material, or technology to terrorists as a crime against humanity.
Sponsor: Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. [PA] (introduced 7/16/2009) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
288. S.1526 : A bill to establish and clarify that Congress does not authorize persons convicted of dangerous crimes in foreign courts to freely possess firearms in the United States.
Sponsor: Sen Feinstein, Dianne [CA] (introduced 7/28/2009) Cosponsors (5)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2009
all bills of course were authored by whackos. Here's a good site to keep up with your representatives.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1132

Try putting in the info from above bills.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I was particularly interested in the revision to paragraph e, definition of firearm, and also permitting any ammo that's legal under Federal law. These would have removed some of the oddities of different state laws. However, I think it has been dropped from subsequent versions, although I can't confirm that. Printed results of the link:


The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 7,739 bytes.[Help]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1132 IS


111th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1132
To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 21, 2009
Mr. LEAHY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers, and for other purposes.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SAFETY PROVISIONS OF TITLE 18.

(a) In General- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(f) For the purposes of this section, a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department or a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government qualifies as an employee of a governmental agency who 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.'.

(b) Active Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926B of title 18, United States Code is amended by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:

`(e) As used in this section, the term `firearm'--

`(1) except as provided in this subsection, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

`(2) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

`(3) does not include--

`(A) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(B) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(C) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title).'.

(c) Retired Law Enforcement Officers- Section 926C of title 18, United States Code is amended--

(1) in subsection (c)--

(A) in paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `retired' and inserting `separated from service'; and

(ii) by striking `, other than for reasons of mental instability';

(B) in paragraph (2), by striking `retirement' and inserting `separation';

(C) in paragraph (3)--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking `retirement, was regularly employed as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 15 years or more' and inserting `separation, served as a law enforcement officer for an aggregate of 10 years or more'; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking `retired' and inserting `separated';

(D) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) during the most recent 12-month period, has met, at the expense of the individual, the standards for qualification in firearms training for active law enforcement officers, as determined by the former agency of the individual, the State in which the individual resides or, if the State has not established such standards, a law enforcement agency within the State in which the individual resides;'; and

(E) by striking paragraph (5) and replacing it with the following:

`(5)(A) has not been officially found by a qualified medical professional employed by the agency to be unqualified for reasons relating to mental health and as a result of this finding will not be issued the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1); or

`(B) has not entered into an agreement with the agency from which the individual is separating from service in which that individual acknowledges he or she is not qualified under this section for reasons relating to mental health and for those reasons will not receive or accept the photographic identification as described in subsection (d)(1);';

(2) in subsection (d)--

(A) paragraph (1)--

(i) by striking `retired' and inserting `separated'; and

(ii) by striking `to meet the standards' and all that follows through `concealed firearm' and inserting `to meet the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training as established by the agency to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm';

(B) paragraph (2)--

(i) in subparagraph (A), by striking `retired' and inserting `separated'; and

(ii) in subparagraph (B), by striking `that indicates' and all that follows through the period and inserting `or by a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State that indicates that the individual has, not less than 1 year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the State or a certified firearms instructor that is qualified to conduct a firearms qualification test for active duty officers within that State to have met--

`(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or

`(II) if the State has not established such standards, standards set by any law enforcement agency within that State to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm.'; and

(3) by striking subsection (e) and inserting the following:

`(e) As used in this section--

`(1) the term `firearm'--

`(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921 of this title;

`(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

`(C) does not include--

`(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

`(ii) any firearm silencer (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(iii) any destructive device (as defined in section 921 of this title); and

`(2) the term `service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer' includes service as a law enforcement officer of the Amtrak Police Department, or as a law enforcement or police officer of the executive branch of the Federal Government.'.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.gov
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
I will oppose this bill, and encourage others to do so, for one small oddity:

`(I) the active duty standards for qualification in firearms training, as established by the State, to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm; or
By my quick glance and interpretation that would mean that off duty I would be forced to carry a firearm of the "type" that I qualify with at work.

No thank you. I qualify with a Double Action Only Autoloader, but I often carry a Revolver on my time. I do not wish to give that up. Certain portions of this bill allow government and the employee's management to exert too much control over the employee.

Letters are on the way.

Biker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
Biker,

I'm not getting it. If you qualify with your revolver you should be OK.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
Biker,

I'm not getting it. If you qualify with your revolver you should be OK.
That's just it.

I don't qualify with a revolver, and there is no provision to do so with my employer.

LEOSA allowed me to carry a revolver as an active LEO. It allowed the working man or woman a little more "leeway" in what they choose to carry on their own time.

Now, that small joy will be gone from me. I don't give up pleasures willingly.

Biker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
Got it. I have to qualify with mine so I assumed you did as well.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
Under LEOSA you could carry what you wanted to, irregardless of your employer's policies.

That's a nice "benefit" when one takes a vacation out of their jurisdiction or local area.

Biker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
LEOSA was a bad law to begin with.

Revolver or autoloader doesn't matter much when they're adding in "at own expense" and "separated" instead of retired.

What exactly are they trying to do here? Limit liability? Add restrictions? Doesn't seem like much of an improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
If a camel is a horse designed by a committee, that's what any amendment will turn into. Any attempt to make changes to the law as it stands will give those who never liked it a chance to water it down and make it less useful. If I stop an out of state LEO in my jurisdiction, how am I to know what his department qualifies with? The whole point of the original law was just to know someone was a LEO without going into more detail that might not be known or subject to easy determination at the time of the stop. Having said that, I don't think I'd get too excited by what a certified law enforcement officer, as defined in the law, was carrying concealed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
First read, it appears that they've opened it up to include 'separated' vs. only retired. The ammo provision gets around some state laws prohibiting HP's.

As far as 'type' goes, this has been rather liberally interpreted under LEOSA. I've been told 'type' is auto vs. revolver, but again, interpretation is the issue.

I really don't have heartburn with any of the revisions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Under LEOSA you could carry what you wanted to, irregardless of your employer's policies.

That's a nice "benefit" when one takes a vacation out of their jurisdiction or local area.

Biker
Currently, retired officers have to be qualified with the weapon that they carry. Not sure about active officers, if your department doesn't let you qualify with an off-duty weapon. Personally, I'd hate to get into a shooting while out-of-state and not have shot a qualification course with the handgun that I used, if carrying under LEOSA. Just something else for a prosecutor to bring up, if the shoot winds up being "questionable" in his/her opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
225 Posts
LEOSA requires you carry under the 'type' of firearm from your department. It is my understanding, 'type' means just that. It is not specific firearm oriented. If your department is ONLY X, then you're going to be restricted based on your department.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
My agency doesn't allow BUGs and we cannot qual with anything but our issued guns. If I want to carry a revolver I need to use my state CCW. I don't appreciate the restrictions and the definition of "Camel" is certainly valid. Having said all that, I do generally carry my issued gun 99% of the time and another auto about half of the other 1%.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,252 Posts
LEOSA requires you carry under the 'type' of firearm from your department. It is my understanding, 'type' means just that. It is not specific firearm oriented. If your department is ONLY X, then you're going to be restricted based on your department.
Sorry, but I will disagree here.

Per my agency's legal beagles I am allowed to carry any handgun type I want to under LEOSA.

The "type" part comes in for retired LEO's, not active. I had a long conversation regarding this, with a classroom full of students when I was at FLETC. I am positive that one or two remember the conversation, and can thus serve as witnesses, if needed, at a later date.

I specifically asked about carrying Revolvers and Single Action Autoloaders off duty under LEOSA. Part of the reason I stay where I am is because I CAN carry a revolver off duty, and don't need a silly Permit.

Leave the law the way it is, as crappy as some parts of it are, and we can work around it. Start changing things and everything will get all messed up. The problem with this country, one of many, is that we have too many laws already.

Biker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Retired LEO from Illinois

here in Illinois, we need to advise the testing agency of which type of handgun we will qualify with or if we are going to qualify with both. The face of the ID card indicates semiauto or pistol (or both).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,616 Posts
My agency doesn't allow BUGs
That's a problem.

There should be a choice to carry a BUG and it shouldn't be the agencies. I guess they have full faith in that duty gun?
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top