How People Voted
 |
 |
62% For, 38% Against
Take Action
  |
Alert Your Friends and Colleagues |
  |
Write Your Representative in Congress |
| Save & Share | |
 |
del.icio.us |
 |
Digg |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
Yahoo! |
S. 376, The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2007 (13 comments ↓)
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
S. 376 would amend title 18, United States Code, to improve the provisions relating to the carrying of concealed weapons by law enforcement officers.
()
[62 views]
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
George Weissinger
May 13, 2007, 6:02pm (report abuse)The intent of HR 218 and the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act was to make available, at no additional cost to the public, trained police and peace officers ready and willing to take action in the event of a terrorist act, or criminal event. However, many states prevent the implementation of the provisions of the law by preventing officers from receiving the yearly firearms qualification in order to carry concealed weapons outside the state of residence. S. 376 can correct this impediment by making qualified instructors more available. The bill to amend is lingering in the Senate now and should be passed without any problem. It is a simple amendment that will make the original law workable.
Charles Ruggiero
May 25, 2007, 12:32pm (report abuse)I am a GS-0083 Police Officer with an agency in the Executive Branch of the US Government. This bill seems as though it would fix problems with LEOSA applicability. However, I have already heard rumblings that some senior personnel in my agency do not, and will not, support our officers being covered by LEOSA. If agency officials are concerned about liability, I think that is a straw-man argument. Liability always rests with the individual carrying the firearm, and besides, our officers are trained, qualified, and are armed every day on the job. I hope this amendment does the trick and eliminates opposition from bureaucrats who do not walk the beat and have no personal exposure to crime and criminal activity.
George Weissinger
May 29, 2007, 1:46pm (report abuse)On May 17, 2007, the LEOSA was passed by voice vote and updates the 2004 law. See Sen Leahy's release at
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200705/051707.html
the wording includes (f)...or police officer of the exec. branch of the Fed. Gov't.
I am still trying to figure out if the bill S. 376, which passed as indicated is law yet, or if it has to go to the House or not and signed by the President. Anybody out there know the status?
Malcolm WIlliams
May 30, 2007, 10:48pm (report abuse)As a retired LEO I too would like to know the status of this bill.
Rick Wyatt
June 2, 2007, 5:58am (report abuse)S.376 still has to pass the Senate,
then the House then be signed by the president.On the govtrack.us wedsite you are able to get updates.
Rick Wyatt
June 2, 2007, 6:07am (report abuse)Sorry it should be website not wedsite, if and when,(most likely not till Jan.08) S376 is passed I think the problem then will be,will departments allow their firearms instructors to qualify retirees.
Malcolm WIlliams
June 4, 2007, 8:59pm (report abuse)Rick:
Why do you say not before Jan 08 before passage and signing
Rick Wyatt
June 5, 2007, 3:38pm (report abuse)The House still doesn't even have a bill before it on LEOSA that I can find, so it would have to be presented quickly and passed so the President could sign it into law so it could go into effect by July 1st. Laws go into effect ususlly on July 1st,and Jan.1st. The NRA website has a good update on LEOSA. So at this late date in the year probably it wouldn't become law until at least Jan. 1st.
At least thats my understanding.
George Weissinger
July 30, 2007, 8:30pm (report abuse)HR 2726 is now in the House Committee. It appears that the reduction from 15 years to 10 years is not in the House version. The qualification standards for retirees is still fuzzy (to me) but maybe it will clarify the impasse in HR 218 regarding same.
Rich Suess (ret P.O.)
March 28, 2008, 1:20pm (report abuse)Someone out in Wisconsin has to light a fire under Rep. (R) James Sensenbrenner, Committe chairman, he seems to be the "fly in the ointment". The F.O.P in his district needs to come alive on this guy. He claims to be pro L.E. but does not show it.
Adam D. Harris
September 10, 2008, 9:13pm (report abuse)Can states still enact laws that will prevent LEO from carrying outside there state of residence?
Tom Hogan
September 12, 2008, 11:21am (report abuse)Hr 218 never really was clear enough state to state it seems. If a democratic president is elected forget about it ever getting signed anyway!It is funny though guys like Senator Chuck Shumer D NY who has full carry permit would not care anyway. Have you ever heard of a sitting politician convicted of carrying an illegal weapon? Again the law abiding person be it a retired law enforcement person would be arrested and convicted though I bet!
Gene
October 31, 2008, 8:29pm (report abuse)My department doesn't want a retiree to carry concealed so they just do not issue a photo id to a retiree. This simple act renders HR 218 meaningless.