The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions.
The LEOSA was considered during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218.[1]
Contents |
If a person is recognized as a serving or retired law enforcement officer by the Act, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof", he or she may carry a concealed firearm in any state or political subdivision thereof.[1][n 1] Thus, the LEOSA-qualified person does not generally require a state-issued permit for carrying concealed firearms.
However, there are two types of state laws that are not overridden by the federal law, these being "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."[1] This does not mean that LEOSA-qualified persons are prohibited from carrying concealed firearms in such areas, but only that they must obey whatever state laws apply on those two points. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.
The LEOSA overrides state and local laws, but not other federal laws, e.g., the federal Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 which prohibits carrying a firearm within 1000 feet of any elementary or secondary school. LEOSA-qualified individuals must continue to obey federal laws and agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands.
Whether or not a person is covered by the LEOSA depends entirely on whether or not he or she meets the definitions in the federal law for either "qualified law enforcement officer" or "qualified retired law enforcement officer." It does not matter whether or not a given individual is defined as a "law enforcement officer" under the law of his state; only the definition in the federal law applies.
The original requirements of the 2004 Act were later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010, which is included below.[2]
In order to be covered as a "qualified law enforcement officer", a person must meet every one of the following criteria, that is to say they must:[3]
The law was specifically extended in 2010 to include:
as being "authorized by law to engage in or supervise the prevention, detection, investigation, or prosecution of, or the incarceration of any person for, any violation of law", and to have "have statutory powers of arrest".[2]
In order to exercise the privilege, the person must carry "the photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer."[3]
In order to be considered a "qualified retired law enforcment officer", a person must:[4]
Such a person must possess either:[4]
In 2010, the minimum term served was lowered to 10 years, and the provisions for disqualification on mental health grounds and the provisions regarding qualifications to carry a firearm were amended.[2] The law was also specifically extended in 2010 to include:
as "service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer".[2]
In order to attract the protection of LEOSA, both serving and retired law enforcement officers must not:[3][4]
Although the general effect of LEOSA is to override state and local law, this is subject to limitations. LEOSA does not override:[3][4][5]
Although the general exemption from state and local laws is clear, there is debate over the effect and scope of policies issued by individual law enforcement agencies in relation to their own employees, where such policies would appear to restrict the ability of a law enforcement officer to carry a firearm.[5] Some argue that the law does not override the internal policies of a department or agency.[6][7][8] However, when LEOSA was under consideration in the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, considerable representations were made to the effect that it would override agency-specific policies, leading to opposition to the Act from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the United States Conference of Mayors, which was expressed as a dissenting view in the report of the Committee. Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) proposed an amendment to the Bill to provide that it "shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency," but this amendment was opposed by the sponsors of the bill, and was rejected by the Committee 21-11, so the enacted law contains no such exception.[9]
LEOSA does not override federal law or federal regulations.[5] Therefore, the prohibition on carrying firearms within 1000 feet of a school contained within the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1995 (which authorizes on-duty law enforcement officers to carry firearms in such circumstances) still applies to off-duty and retired law enforcement officers who would otherwise be allowed to carry firearms under LEOSA.[6] Federal regulations prohibiting the carriage of firearms on airplanes and into federal buildings also continue to apply.[5]
The first known criminal prosecution involving LEOSA occurred in New York in People v. Rodriguez, Indictment No. 2917 (2006).[10] Rodriguez was a full-time construction worker who was also employed as a Pennsylvania State Constable. He was arrested in New York City for criminal possession of a weapon. He testified in a hearing that he was authorized, qualified, and certified to carry a weapon in his state as a constable. The Court took judicial notice of the various Pennsylvania statutes that authorize constables to carry firearms, make arrests, serve process, and enforce the law. Upon applying LEOSA in terms of the known facts, the Court dismissed the charge against Rodriguez and held that he was covered by section 926B though constables are elected law enforcement officers and they lack government funding.[10]
A number of other courts have held that Coast Guard boarding officers are qualified under LEOSA. In People Against Benjamin L. Booth, Jr., Indictment No. 2007-940 (2007), an Orange County, New York, county court dismissed a criminal charge against Booth, an off-duty member of the Coast Guard, who had been arrested for carrying a loaded handgun in a vehicle. The court held that Booth was authorized to carry a firearm while acting as a Coast Guard boarding officer, adding, "Although the proof at the hearing indicates that the defendant engaged in a violation of rules, regulations and policies of the United States Coast Guard by possessing a handgun for which he had no license, these violations do not act to lessen the scope of LEOSA as it is applied in this instance."
Another Coast Guardsman, Reserve Petty Officer Jose Diaz, was arrested for carrying an unloaded handgun in a vehicle in San Fernando, California, in November 2007, but the charge was later dismissed and Diaz won a $44,000 settlement from the city for false arrest. The Coast Guard has issued a formal directive to advise Coast Guard personnel of which Coast Guard personnel are considered to be covered by LEOSA, and the limitations of such coverage. [11]