[gc70]

And it occurs to me that if we can get to the heart of why this legislation got passed, and can apply this same reasoning, we might find an in-road for ourselves.

The record of the debate in the House of Representatives before LEOSA's passage is in the June 23, 2004 issue of the Congressional Record between pages H4811 and H4818.

The best summary of reasons for LEOSA start on page H4816:

The benefits of the legislation are twofold — officer safety and improved public safety. Many jurisdictions do not allow off-duty officers to carry concealed weapons. Due to the unique responsibilities and dangers that come with law enforcement, off-duty officers are at a greater risk than most Americans. It is not uncommon for off-duty officers to run into people they have arrested or helped to incarcerate. There have been documented instances where felons have sought retribution against officers who helped to put them in jail or prison. It is only right that the men and women who put their lives on the line everyday when they go to work be afforded the right to protect their families and themselves while they are off duty.

These concerns apply not only to off-duty officers, but to retired officers as well. A criminal who is seeking retribution does not care that the officer who put them away is retired. It is a disservice to those men and women who risked their lives to perform a public service to be deprived of the right to defend themselves and their families simply because they retired.

Legal issues are also posed when neighboring jurisdictions have different regulations for carrying concealed weapons. An off-duty officer is faced with a problem when he is traveling state to state or even city to city. In a circumstance where his/her home jurisdiction requires off-duty officers to carry, but he is traveling to a jurisdiction where the law prohibits carrying concealed weapons, the officer is forced to choose which law to break. Does he leave his gun at home and break the law in his home jurisdiction, or take it with him and break the law when he enters the next jurisdiction?

Aside from the issues of self-defense and jurisdictional conflicts, H.R. 218 provides additional officers to prevent crime, without the cost. There are countless stories of retired and off-duty officers who have prevented crime and protected everyday citizens because they were allowed to carry concealed weapons. In this time of heightened security, it seems only logical that additional means to prevent crime and even terrorism be implemented. Off-duty and retired law enforcement officers have the training to recognize suspicious activity and prevent crime. When qualified off-duty and retired police officers are allowed to carry, more law enforcement officers are put on the street at zero cost to taxpayers.

The best summary of reasons against LEOSA start on page H4815:

In Federalist Paper number 45, James Madison, in explaining the division of power between the States and the Federal Government envisioned, stated, ‘‘The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.’’

This legislation takes away the ability of the 50 States to govern their internal order. Just look at the title of the bill: ‘‘To amend title 18, United States Code, to exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from State laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.’’ In exercising its authority to keep internal order, the State has traditionally controlled who, within its borders, may carry concealed weapons and when law enforcement officers may carry firearms.

This legislation undermines the power of the individual states and frustrates the principles of Federalism. As long as they do not infringe on the rights granted under the second amendment to the Constitution, laws regulating the carrying of concealed firearms should remain within the jurisdiction of the State government where they can be more effectively monitored and enforced.