The following info was provided by John Ewald.
This cleans up the problems and confusions from the 218 Bill
House Passes LEOSA Amendments Bill!!! S. 1132 will go to the President to be signed into law
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed action in the U.S. House of Representatives, which passed S. 1132, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act Improvements Act,” last night by voice vote under a suspension of the rules.
Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was the sponsor of S. 1132. With the active support of the Judiciary Committee’s Ranking Member, Senator Jefferson B. Sessions III (R-AL), the legislation was favorably reported by that committee in March of this year and passed by unanimous consent in May.
“I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Leahy and Majority Leader Hoyer for their commitment to this issue,” Canterbury said. “Both of these gentlemen are FOP champions who worked very hard, first to win passage in the Senate and then to get the bill on the calendar for action in the House before the end of the regular session. They deserve a lot of the credit for today’s victory.”
The House companion bill, H.R. 3752, as introduced by Representative J. Randy Forbes (R-VA) and championed by Representatives Steny H. Hoyer (D-MD), the House Majority Leader, and Lamar S. Smith (R-TX), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. Representative Robert C. Scott (D-VA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security and an opponent of the original LEOSA, had previously announced his intention to hold the bill in subcommittee, which would have killed the bill for the year. FOP members in his home State and District, as well as continuous contact with the FOP’s Washington staff and personal contact with Chairman Leahy eventually prevailed on Rep. Scott to release the bill for a floor vote.
“Many of our retired officers are facing significant hurdles because some States have failed to implement the law as intended by Congress. This bill, which the President has promised to sign, will help them overcome those obstacles,” Canterbury said.
The bill, which was crafted in large part by the FOP, was given a high priority by the organization. No other law enforcement organizations or police groups took played any role in its successful passage despite intense interest in the bill on the part of active and retired officers. The legislation will improve certain provisions of the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act (LEOSA), especially with respect to retired law enforcement officers, and will make clear that law enforcement officers employed by the Amtrak and Federal Reserve Police Departments, as well as those employed by the executive branch of the Federal Government who are classified as a GS-0083 branch–especially the U.S. Department of Defense–meet the definition of “qualified law enforcement officer” in current law. The bill would also lower the aggregate years of service needed to meet the definition of “qualified retired law enforcement officer” from fifteen (15) to ten (10) and removes confusing language related to that same definition.
The bill will be transmitted to the President to be signed into law.
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the country with more than 328,000 members.
To remove your name from our mailing list, please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org with REMOVE and the State you live in, in the Subject Line
Questions or Comments? E-mail us at email@example.com or call (202)
547 – 8189.
Grand Lodge Website | Legislative Office Homepage
The following info was provided by Bruce Cochran.
Subject: PROPOSED HR 218 CLEAN-UP LEGISLATION
Current FOP Proposed HR 218 Clean-up Legislation
“The FOP worked closely with Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) and his staff on the drafting of S. 3835, which was introduced a few days before the Senate went into its August recess. The bill includes several provisions similar to that of S. 1605, the “Law Enforcement Officers’ Protection Act,” which was introduced by Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with the FOP’s strong support earlier last year.
Senator Cornyn’s bill is included as subtitle C of Division D of the draft conference report on the Defense reauthorization bill and retaining that language is a priority for the FOP this fall. In addition to creating mandatory minimum penalties for assault, murder, kidnapping, and manslaughter of Federal law enforcement officers and Federal judges and retaliatory attacks against their families, the bill would also make several small but important changes to the Law Enforcement Officers’ Safety Act (LEOSA), better known to FOP members as H.R. 218.
Specifically, the Cornyn language would reduce the aggregate years of service necessary to meet the definition of a qualified retired law enforcement officer from fifteen (15) to ten (10) and eliminate the provision in current law that requires a qualified retired law enforcement officer to have a “nonforfeitable right to benefits under the retirement plan of the agency”.
The amendment to LEOSA also addresses another persistent problem that qualified retired law enforcement officers have encountered in States which have failed to implement the LEOSA as intended by Congress. Under current law, qualified retired law enforcement officers must carry the photographic identification issued by the agency for which they were employed and documentation which certifies that they have met, within the most recent twelve month period, the active duty law enforcement standards for qualification for a firearm of the same type as the one they intend to carry. This document must be issued by the retired officer’s former agency or from the State in which he lives. Right now, States which have not or have refused to adopt a procedure or mechanism for retired officers to qualify with their weapon are effectively preventing retired officers within their State from being able to carry their firearms legally as Congress intended. To address this issue, S. 3835 and the language included in the Defense reauthorization bill would allow photographic identification issued by any State agency, such as a driver’s license, and a document issued by the State that certifies that the officer is authorized by the laws of that State to carry a concealed firearm, such as a concealed carry weapons (CCW) permit. This means that, if passed, retired officers in States or localities which have not properly implemented the law will still be able to carry legally under Federal law if they have the photographic identification issued by their former agency, a State-issued drivers’ license, and a CCW permit from their State of residence. Additionally, in States which “do not provide objective and mandatory standards for the issuance” of CCWs, any certification that the retired officer has completed a “firearms safety or training course for security guards or investigators” will also satisfy the law’s requirements. These changes will greatly benefit our retired officers who reside in States that have not, or have refused to implement LEOSA as adopted.
The amendment also clarifies the definitions of qualified active and qualified retired law enforcement officers to include officers serving in the Amtrak Police Department and civilian law enforcement personnel employed by any executive branch agency or department.”
Wayne is correct. HR218 requires the retired warden to be qualified/ certified in the state he/she currently resides.
The warden living out of state does need to have a retired ID from the Department. There would be no need to renew his department ID for concealed carry. In fact even if you live in California if you qualified (were certified) every year there may be no need for the Department to issue a CCW ID as the Federal Law only requires a valid ID and yearly certification.
AB 814 seems to modify the requirements of HR218 regarding the type of ID that would be required, i.e. being more restrictive.
Question from Wayne Caldwell, retired warden.
I’m aware of the new concealed carry law for retired peace officers. Since I live out of state, in Pennsylvania, I’m not sure how the D.F.& G. could certify us ‘out of stater’s’. I believe there’s a provision in the law that would allow, for instance, here in PA for the State Police to qualify a retired Peace Officer from another State. If you or anyone has any knowledge contrary to that info, please let me know.
Thank you, and take good care.
Regards, Wayne (firstname.lastname@example.org)
If anyone knows the answer to Wayne’s question, please let us know. I am sure that there are several wardens with the same question.
I sincerely hope some of you have contacted Chief Foley (NFoley@dfg.ca.gov), Captain Allen (RAllen@dfg.ca.gov), or Dan Duran (DDuran@dfg.ca.gov), regarding HR 218- the federal law that allows you to carry a concealed weapon in any state. It only takes a minute or so to call or E-mail. Most of you, at some time, will travel out of California and it would be nice to have this federal law to back you up just in case of some misfortune. Even if you do not plan to travel out of state or travel without a concealable weapon it would be nice if you would still contact Chief Foley. I know the rest of us would appreciate it.
If we do not put some pressure on the Department it could be a long time, if ever, before the Department establishes a policy that will allow us this Federal protection.
If anyone has contacted the Department I(we) would like to hear what the Department’s response was.
HR 218 has been the law since 2004. Through my research on this law I have found that many states and agencies have taken a proactive approach in order to protect their retired safety officers and have established policies allowing retired safety officers to meet the standards of HR218.
There is currently a bill- AB 814- that has passed the Assembly and is waiting for Senate action. It would Change PC12027- referring back to HR218…. However there is no need for the Department to wait for this change to occur in order for us to meet the requirements of HR218.
Leonard Blissenbach (email@example.com)