Bill S-253/H.R.218 [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

C/O Waterboy

09-30-2003, 02:47 AM

Look, this is not a secure site and many non-LE people see it, so I am not going to reveal secure info... but those of us in the "Biz" know things, and having an off-duty officer from anywhere may be in our best interest, as a group.
We fight crime every day, we how to handle ourselves. We are professionals and will act professional while off-duty, even in another state.
With budgets getting smaller and gangs/crime getting bigger, we need something to help us in our plight against crime.
I swore to uphold the law and protect society, but I also swore to protect and support my bothers/sisters when/where they need it.

ProWriter

10-01-2003, 02:31 PM

I don't see how referencing past instances of off-duty back-ups is secure info, but here's the info you're looking for Bro':

Congressional Legislation Details

Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003
Bill # S.253

Official Title as Introduced:
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2003

Status:
01/30/2003: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
03/06/2003: Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported without amendment favorably.
03/06/2003: Committee on the Judiciary. Reported by Senator Hatch without amendment. Without written report.
03/06/2003: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 29.
03/11/2003: Star Print ordered on on the bill, as reported.
03/26/2003: By Senator Hatch from Committee on the Judiciary filed written report. Report No. 108-29. Additional and Minority views filed.

Committee/Subcommittee Activity:
Judiciary: Referral

Amendment(s):
***NONE***

Sponsor/Cosponsor(s) 66:

C/O Waterboy

10-01-2003, 05:55 PM

Past incidents aren't what I was refering to... but thanks for the info just the same. I was hoping for more recent info regarding the actual passing of the bill.
I thought the bill was in limbo, and I guess I am correct... just gotta wait.
Thanks again.

Invisiblecop

10-05-2003, 04:39 PM

Skip the the State Senate site and go to the heart of the matter. The "Law Enforcement Alliance Of America" is the organization which composed H.R. 218!

Their website is : www.leaa.org

I'm a Lifetime member of this organization. I've spoken to 1000's of L.E.O.'s and Non - L.E.O.'s to raise their awarness concerning the importance of this Bills passage!
H.R. 218 may be viewed in its entire length at the above site.

I cannot understand WHY anyone would not support a Bill that will be beneficial to everyones safety and security especially post 9-11!

Invisiblecop

10-05-2003, 04:45 PM

retired seems to have a problem with the Bills concept. I can't understand WHY anyone would oppose this Bill especially post 9-11!
It would only ADD to overall security not DETRACT from it!

C.O. Waterboy : Since this is NOT A SECURED site as you've stated PM me for any additional information. I'll be glad to assist! As you stated there are SENSITIVE Subject Matter that shouldn't be openly posted!

retired

10-05-2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
retired seems to have a problem with the Bills concept. I can't understand WHY anyone would oppose this Bill especially post 9-11!
It would only ADD to overall security not DETRACT from it!

C.O. Waterboy : Since this is NOT A SECURED site as you've stated PM me for any additional information. I'll be glad to assist! As you stated there are SENSITIVE Subject Matter that shouldn't be openly posted!

I think I already explained my reason for opposition. I am not opposed to LEO's carrying in other states as long as they meet the weapon training standards established by that state, and that state decides they will allow out of stae LEO's to carry. My primary opposition is that the federal government really doesn't have the constitutional authority to pass such a bill, and personally, I don't want the feds to continue to tell the states what they must and must not do. Perhaps you want an ever expanding federal government, I don't!

As far as post 911, I'm not paranoid about it at all. In fact, I would rather off-duty cops NOT get involved in off-duty incidents. They usually turn into a can of worms.

Invisiblecop

10-05-2003, 07:59 PM

retired : If you go to the LEAA site you can read the entire Bills proposal. It includes REQUIRED training.

In so far as 9-11 you don't live here in New York City nor are you Privy to the sensitive information as I am. Terrorism will NOT disappear anytime soon. The U.S.A.'s Achilles Heel has been found. Just as EASILY New York City was targeted anywhere else in the States is VULNERABLE small towns included! Paranoia has nothing to do with the issue sensibility does. Would it not be WISER to close Ranks and be Alert rather than having the Gate open for anyone to walk through and commence a "repeat performance?"

flatbadge

10-05-2003, 09:16 PM

The problem I have seen, are non-leo's. They seem to think their ccw right should be attached to a LEO issue. To differant things. I have no problem with nation wide ccw for the public.

I think it is a joke officers cant' carry nationwide.

gotta love america....

flatbadge

10-05-2003, 09:16 PM

I also think officer standards should be the same nationwide...

Invisiblecop

10-05-2003, 11:16 PM

FlatBadge : I'm GLAD someone clearly "sees" my point! Too often Non L.E.O.'s think they're being deprived of something or we're recieving "Preferred Treatment!" Thanks for your support!

retired

10-05-2003, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
retired : If you go to the LEAA site you can read the entire Bills proposal. It includes REQUIRED training.

In so far as 9-11 you don't live here in New York City nor are you Privy to the sensitive information as I am. Terrorism will NOT disappear anytime soon. The U.S.A.'s Achilles Heel has been found. Just as EASILY New York City was targeted anywhere else in the States is VULNERABLE small towns included! Paranoia has nothing to do with the issue sensibility does. Would it not be WISER to close Ranks and be Alert rather than having the Gate open for anyone to walk through and commence a "repeat performance?"

First off, you have no idea what information I am privy to or not privy to. But go ahead and tell me just what I or ten other out of state cops on vacation would have done in NY with our guns when the WTC was hit? Educate me how we with our guns could have stopped the attack? Of course terrorism isn't going to disappear, it's been with us for a long time. We had more bombings of public buildings and police cars in the 70's and 80's then in the last two years. If the those who hate us want to repeat another major blow against us, I am confident that off-duty cops on vaction carrying their weapons won't make one damn bit of difference.

I thought we had already closed ranks years ago, and are always alert?

Now, to repeat myself, I don't object to LEO's carrying nationwide as long as each state agrees to it. I hope that is clear?

Invisiblecop

10-06-2003, 01:58 AM

Obviously you're MIXING APPLES and ORANGES! H.R. 218 is a Bill concerning ALL L.E.O.'s granted permission to carry nationwide. Training will be deemed by each state.

In MY OPINION any information you're privy must not be too engaging because you APPEAR to have DIVORCED yourself completely from your former position as an L.E.O.

C/O Waterboy

10-06-2003, 04:24 AM

I want to hit on a few points:

1) In regards to meeting each states firearm training requirements, I am sure that EVERY police department in the NATION trains their officers better than any CCW class offered in any state in the Union. I received a minimum of 40 hours range time and 40 hours classroom instruction while in the academy alone. So, that should about cover any doubt in any local-yocal's mind;

2) I agree that having out-of-state, off-duty officers carrying firearms would not have been benificial at the WTC on 09/11/01, but that is not the type of action that I am refering. If you ARE privy to sensitive LE information, you should know that there are many other threats that directly affect police officers, specifically, in and about the the Nation. I swore to pretect and serve... ANYWHERE!

3) This Bill is not intended to undermine any local, county, or state law. I feel that it is intended to create a sense of NATIONAL brotherhood within the law enforcement community... for out-of-state, off-duty officers to protect Joe Citizen, himself, or fellow officers where ever they may be.

Face it, we live in a dangerous world... and police budgets are getting smaller and smaller per capita. We need to tip the scales to OUR advandage for a change.

Oh, yea... my dept. has a policy regarding off-duty incidents; don't do it unless there is imminent danger... also, the uniformed officer ALWAYS has control.

P.S. Invisiblecop, thanks for the link to LEAA...

retired

10-06-2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
Obviously you're MIXING APPLES and ORANGES! H.R. 218 is a Bill concerning ALL L.E.O.'s granted permission to carry nationwide. Training will be deemed by each state.

In MY OPINION any information you're privy must not be too engaging because you APPEAR to have DIVORCED yourself completely from your former position as an L.E.O.

Well if you can't discuss the issue without insults, let's forget it.

Invisiblecop

10-07-2003, 11:57 PM

retired:
You've recieved my PM insults weren't intended. It's difficult to gauge opinions when dealing with message boards. You've previously expressed the same. Additionally you've a NON-L.E.O.'s who are vey antagonistic in many respects.

retired

10-08-2003, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Invisiblecop
retired:
You've recieved my PM insults weren't intended. It's difficult to gauge opinions when dealing with message boards. You've previously expressed the same. Additionally you've a NON-L.E.O.'s who are vey antagonistic in many respects.

Didn't realize that I was antagonistic, but hey, I've survived well over three years on this board. But what does my being a non-LEO as you put it have to do with anything. Actually I thought I was a former or retired LEO.:confused:

retdetsgt

10-08-2003, 11:46 PM

Actually, I've been reading Retired's posts for a while now and have never found him antagonistic. We've disagreed on several subjects and he's never dropped to personal attacks or questioned anyone's concern for other cops. Because some of us don't buy everything some people sell here doesn't make us any less loyal to the profession.

The crack about him not being LEO was just that, a smartass crack and
not terribly professional. And frankly, a little bush league might better discribe it.

And yes, Retired and I are technically no longer LEO's, but we just might have more experience and wisdom that some of the younger people here give us credit for....

Jim

ProWriter

10-09-2003, 01:09 AM

I don't think Retired is exactly the one with a little chip on his shoulder around here either:rolleyes:...and he seems a LOT more secure about his "retired" LE status than some other people are who have to keep emphasizing over and over and over again that THEIR LE position is equivalent to a bona-fide PO position in case anybody dare think otherwise (and I'm not suggesting that it is or isn't, just commenting on an apparent preoccupation about it). Personally, I think Retired has a VERY long fuse not to get ****ed at being told he "mixed apples and oranges" when all he did was disagree with a conclusion, and at being told (basically) that all the information he knows is crap and that he's not considered a LEO (or "abandoned his LEO status" or whatever) after a long career in the field.

I was attacked and accused of "gathering information against LE" and accused of wanting to "execute the elderly and reinstate Hitler" :confused: on a thread where there wasn't even any controversy or argument going on at all about the topic and where my question was an innocent follow-up to something posted by a LEO about general competence in the field and where everybody else gave an honest response without taking offense to it at all.
Excecuting The Elderly, Reinstating Hitler & Instigating Civil War (http://officer.proteus.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18694&perpage=20&pagenumber=3)

retdetsgt

10-09-2003, 01:49 AM

Pro Writer,

I agree with your analysis. Also I think I also smell a little "big shotitis" too. Some people don't seem to be able to be disagreed with...

Jim

Invisiblecop

10-09-2003, 02:38 AM

Retired : What you picked up was a typo!
What I you have Other Members who are NOT L.E.O.'s That are antagonistic --- I didn't mean you.

I re-read the post after your reply that's wwhen I caught the error! My apology! I'm sorry!

Invisiblecop

10-09-2003, 02:49 AM

Pro Writer : I don't know what the problem is I've had only ONE disagreem,ent with you! It was regarding the lagality of Peper Spray in New York City.

As far as defendening my position as a Correction Officer I don't see how that would affect you. If you read through that post where I was explicit there were more than a few "hints" that Correction Officers did not have a place among L.E.O.'s. These "comments" are usually from Non Law Enforcement Personnel who think that have a grip on everything. Moreover in New York City there's a fine line of difference in the status of P.O. and C.O. I was a member of BOTH Departments -- I'm not just blowing wind.

If my posts bother you ignore them.

retdetsgt

10-09-2003, 12:27 PM

Beyond all this, I don't have a problem with out of state LEO's carrying, but the idea of them jumping in to assist can be really touchy and dangerous. I've encounted problems with on-duty narc's getting involved in situations. To a uniform officer, unless he personally knows the off duty guy, he's just another creep with a gun....

One experience I had years ago was a big bar fight with bikers. A narc came into assist and got smacked pretty hard in the head with a Kel-Lite by my partner. We both knew the narc and he was kind of a friend, but in the heat of the battle, he was just another a@@hole in the fight.

Another time I damn near drilled an unknown off duty cop who had all the good intentions in the world. My partner and I were beefing with a several guys and admittedly having a rough time keeping up. Out of the corner of my eye, I saw a guy in civilian clothes come running up with a gun in his hand. I hadn't had my gun out until then and I drew down on him and almost didn't give him time to yell he was a cop.

I guess the point is, if you're going to get involved with some other agency, you damn sure better make certain they know who you are before you start waving a gun around.

Jim

Invisiblecop

10-09-2003, 12:44 PM

I AGREE 100%! The basis of H.R. 218 will permit Officers interstate carry is trying to "hammer" out the fine points now. As it stands liability - training annual requalification - will be incumbant upon the Officers home State. If his residence changes to another state training will continue to his state of relocation. H.R. 218 FROWNS upon the "Cowboy Mentality."

The concept behind the Bill is to STRENGTHEN personal Security of Officers and the Public when traveling - -- if they are confronted in a situation which would require the "Use Of Deadly Physical Force" or to PREVENT the commission of a SERIOUS CRIME taking place in their presence : i.e. - Rape - Murder - etc. The L.E.A.A. is currently drafting a "companion" Bill which if H.R. 218 is passed would afford the same privilige to citizens. The difference will be the training and length of. This would have to be paid for by the individual who desires tthis privilige.

retired

10-09-2003, 02:57 PM

retdetsgt,

This brings to mind the incident in I believe New Hampshire, where an off-duty Sgt, in the same department was shot and killed by two uniformed officers as he came to their aid. They didn't recognize him, and all they saw was a guy in civilian clothes with a gun in his hand running at them. Like you, I really have a problem with off-duty cops getting involved in anything. Of course a life threatening situation calls for some action, but even then, the risks are high.

Sentinel

10-10-2003, 08:08 AM

I have seen on duty plain clothes officers get shot or hit as well so I don't agree. Accidents will happen. It happens on duty in your own home area with guys you even know.

I do agree that getting involved off duty is always a dangerous proposition, however if I am anywhere, even a foreign country and I see a police officer in trouble I am going to try to help him. I cannot in good conscience stand there and let him die. I would prefer to be armed if that situation comes up.

I think that good tactics is crucial for an off duty situation. I have in the past helped on duty officers while I was off duty and even out of state unarmed. What I have done in the past was to walk up to the on duty officer in a non threatening manner and and state that I was a police officer and would he like my help. If he said yes then and only then would I draw my weapon if necessary and take action. I have had an occasion where the on duty officer said no and I stepped to the side and just watched.

I think that people are missing the point of this legislation. This law would only allow off duty/honorable retired officers to carry. It would NOT give you any law enforcement powers in any other state. Therefore you would be like a civilian in any state other than your own. This means that you would have to have a higher standard of proof to do anything. You would be making a citizens arrest if anything ever went down. No one wants to do that so I don't think it will become an issue of large numbers of off duty police officers running around the country making citizens arrests while on vacation with their families.

All it means is that if I am rolling around the street with some dirt bag on duty and close to losing my life and there is a Texas state trooper on vacation standing there watching the whole thing he can feel a little more safe coming forward, identifying himself and asking me if I need a little help. Or more probably a situation like this. A GA> LEO on vacation an hour from his house but in FL and he sees a guy he arrested a few days ago but now he is in FL which is another state even though it is only an hour from his house so he is unarmed. The criminal however has no such law so he carries illegally where ever he goes.

Monty Ealerman

10-14-2003, 07:48 PM

Hi, Guys.

RKBA legitimately applies to civilians, but various states and the USG ignore that, so the bill if passed will have a practical impact.

The vast majority of police officers would not violate CCW restrictions of other states.

Lifting the restriction on LEOs without lifting it on civilians would increase the "class distinction" between LEOs and civilians. LEOs are technically civilians when they are not in their home states, but being the only ones allowed CCW, even when they are not in their home states, would increase the distinction of their status compared to that of non-LEOs.

That status would go not just to legitimate LEOs, but also to political appointee sheriff's deputies, gangster badge-holders from tiny districts such as Dixmoor, IL, and various other positions that don't do real police work.

Regards,

Monty

C/O Waterboy

10-15-2003, 07:12 PM

It seems to me that the incidents where the off-duty officer got hurt or killed is when the on-duty officers were already taking care of business... that, my friends, a no-no. My department has about 2,000 officers, about 1,500 are on the street... I work in the jail, which means; I don't know 75% of the officers on MY dept. and they don't know ME! I don't expect them to believe me when I tell them that I am an officer... especially if I am coming at them with my weapon drawn.
As we all should know, the officer in uniform must be given 'primary.' Unless that officer is in grave danger, off-duty officers need not get involved. These two Bills, H.R 218 and S-253, are meant for the situations that happen in front of an off-duty officer, no uniformed officers are present, and there is imminent danger... Any other time would put your self at risk.

As for police officers being civilians when in other states... well, legally that may be so, but... we have had FAR more training regarding how to handle crime situations. Have much training does the average civilian have? how about a person with a CCW? how about a security guard? The answer is; VERY LITTLE!! So please do not compare an off-duty officer out of his juridiction to Joe Public... that is like comparing apples to rocket ships.
I am all for CCWs, and most states have non-resident CCWs... Nevada is one. Also, I have felt that a Nationwide CCW would be a good idea... with federal guidelines and training which EXCEEDS any state in the Union. At the permit holders expense, of course.

So, anyway... anyone know of an update regarding these Bills??

Public

11-04-2003, 09:43 PM

I would be against any law that gives the government any more "power" over us, regardless of how they coat it.

C/O Waterboy

11-05-2003, 10:22 AM

I don't feel that this bill/law is giving the government more 'power,' I feel that it is being less restrictive. It gives officers the legal right to protect citizens where ever the officer may be.
I chose this career because it is in my heart, not for money or power... I will expoit the training that I have to stop any bad guy!

retired

11-05-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by C/O Waterboy
I don't feel that this bill/law is giving the government more 'power,' I feel that it is being less restrictive. It gives officers the legal right to protect citizens where ever the officer may be.
I chose this career because it is in my heart, not for money or power... I will expoit the training that I have to stop any bad guy!

Whatever you call it, the bill gives the federal government the authority to tell the states what they MUST do. It doesn't leave the decision to the states. It is another expansion of the federal cancer. And I don't subscribe to the BS that it is so officers can protect citizens wherever they may be. How many out of state off-duty offficers are involved in protecting citizens?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

6233108

11-05-2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by retdetsgt
Actually, I've been reading Retired's posts for a while now and have never found him antagonistic. We've disagreed on several subjects and he's never dropped to personal attacks or questioned anyone's concern for other cops. Because some of us don't buy everything some people sell here doesn't make us any less loyal to the profession.

The crack about him not being LEO was just that, a smartass crack and
not terribly professional. And frankly, a little bush league might better discribe it.

Jim

Retired has made the same exact crack about others on this forum, I am aware because he made it about me. I could give two *****s because I know him as well as he knows me. It is kinda funny though to say such things on a forum board where no one really knows many others on the board (personally).

C/O Waterboy

11-06-2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by retired
Whatever you call it, the bill gives the federal government the authority to tell the states what they MUST do. It doesn't leave the decision to the states. It is another expansion of the federal cancer. And I don't subscribe to the BS that it is so officers can protect citizens wherever they may be. How many out of state off-duty offficers are involved in protecting citizens?:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Take some time and read the bill... you will find that it does not restrict or negate the individual state laws. It also does not give out-of-state officers free-run to do what ever they please.
I look at it as something similar to the law for drivers licenses... I mean; in Nevada, you can get a D/L @ 16 but in New Jersey you have to be 17... does that mean that a 16 year-old with a NV DL can't drive in NJ?? No, they are protected by the Federal government so that they can drive.
I'm sure that I can't change your mind, but understand that this bill is a good thing... and, heck, if it isn't, we could always have the bill repealed.

retired

11-06-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by C/O Waterboy
Take some time and read the bill... you will find that it does not restrict or negate the individual state laws. It also does not give out-of-state officers free-run to do what ever they please.
I look at it as something similar to the law for drivers licenses... I mean; in Nevada, you can get a D/L @ 16 but in New Jersey you have to be 17... does that mean that a 16 year-old with a NV DL can't drive in NJ?? No, they are protected by the Federal government so that they can drive.
I'm sure that I can't change your mind, but understand that this bill is a good thing... and, heck, if it isn't, we could always have the bill repealed.

Your'e correct, it isn't going to change my mind about the federal cancer expansion into our lives. That isn't going to change. I also don't think it is a good bill because it is a federal bill. Now I have never said that the concept of the bill itself is bad. I have said I would rather the states make the choice whether or not they want out of state officers to carry in their states. You know, states rights like mentioned in the constitution.

I don't know of any federal law that requires other states to recognize out of state drivers licenses. To the best of my knowledge it is a state reciprocity agreement, not a federal mandate.

But last but not least, what in the hell is so important that cops feel such a strong need to carry their gun in other states while on vacation. When I go on vacation, that is just what I do, vacation!

Sometimes I think this out of state carry issue is nothing more than an ego thing, and a sign of authority. :)