HR 218 Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (H.R.

This Bill was forced in to law by Randy "Duke" Cunningham the first Viet nam Fighter ace. This law is hoped to safe 100's of Law enforcement officers lives.

 

Remarks made by Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA), sponsor of H.R. 218, on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives

June 23, 2004

Mr. SPEAKER, I rise today to congratulate the Fraternal Order of Police on their outstanding victory today on the passage of the Law Enforcement Officer's Safety Act (H.R. 218).

This afternoon, H.R. 218 passed the House by a voice vote, affirming this body's support for police officers across America. H.R. 218 is the number one priority for law enforcement across the country and allows qualified off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons in any jurisdiction. The bill has broad bi-partisan support with 296 cosponsors.

The F.O.P. has been absolutely instrumental in working with Members of Congress to bring this legislation to the floor. The F.O.P. is an outstanding organization that has served their membership well in their tireless work to bring their number one legislative priority to the House Floor. Many of us know the long history of H.R. 218 and I can safely say that were it not for the efforts of the F.O.P., their current President Chuck Canterbury, and former President Steve Young, this bill may have never seen the light of day.

The benefits of H.R. 218 are two-fold—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 every day 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.

Mr. SPEAKER, I am grateful to the F.O.P. for all their efforts on behalf of H.R. 218 and for cops across the country. Today, I am happy to join with them in celebrating House passage of this crucial legislation and look forward to working with the F.O.P. in the future to see H.R. 218 signed into law.

interesting legislation , i find it refreshing to see the recognition of the threats and competency of these americans

Interesting take on "universal CCW".  You may well know that a bill for nationwide reciprocity for all states having CCWs was narrowly defeated back about May of 2009.  However, I think it incumbent upon us to "police" our own industry.  Consider my own experience.

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 every day when they go to work be afforded the right to protect their families and themselves while they are off-duty.

sabretech2001 ?

What is your occupation if I may ask? Yes there is certain occupational hazards that come with every job, and we choose to do that. However is an electrician still in danger at home after work watching TV or out at the grocery store from his job? Is an airline pilot in danger in a restaurant eating with his family when he is not flying his aircraft? No there not. A Law enforcement office that has incarcerated numerous criminals is in constant danger both from criminals that he knows and when he is off duty from ex cons looking for revenge, that is why this law was in acted, not to give him special Privileges. How many electricians have been hunted down and electrocuted in a grocery store with his family by a light fixture that he took down and threw away?  How many air line pilots have been stalked and murdered by a Pratt and Whitney Turbo Fan engine that was taken out of service for not operating correctly. Law enforcement officers are in danger 24 hours a day do to their occupation.

 

I understand that every citizen is in the same danger as a Law enforcement officer do to every day life. Everyone under the constitution has the right to protect there self  I agree. But is that law wrong?    

 

 

LE Owner,

My issue isn't allowing LEO some sort of national carry permit, it's that this isn't being proposed for every single one of us, regardless of occupation.