Effects of H.R.218

[Hypnogator]

Ok, it's been two years now since President Bush signed H.R.218: The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004 into law. Despite the predictions of the anti-gunners and some large municipal law enforcement administrators, I'm not aware of any actual instances in which an off-duty or retired officer carrying under provisions of this law was injured or killed by an on-duty officer, or in which an off-duty or retired officer killed or injured an innocent person. Neither am I aware of any actual instances in which an off-duty or retired officer used his or her weapon to prevent a crime or apprehend a criminal. Certainly some must have occurred.

Because arguments against off-duty or retired officers carrying concealed firearms are exactly the same as the arguments against all citizens having the right to carry concealed, it seems to me that data showing a lack of "unfortunate" incidents would be useful in refuting the usual "blood will run in the streets" objections to citizen carry, whether or not we can document instances of direct benefits.

Soooo, I turn to the eyes and ears of TFL members for help. I would greatly appreciate any members posting incidents they have heard of where an officer carrying under H.R.218 has (1) used his or her weapon to stop a crime or capture a criminal, or (2) has been killed or injured by an on-duty officer, or has killed or injured an innocent person. If possible, include the location of documentation for the incident you're reporting.

I'll use the data to support an effort to have Congress expand the provisions of H.R.218, with an eye towards the establishment of a national CCW reciprocity law.

All info appreciated.

 

[Pilgrim]

California is still waiting for enabling legislation before implementing H.R. 218 for its retired officers.

Pilgrim

 

[Steve in PA]

So.......national CCW'ers will undergo physicals, pysch tests, annual training, weapons quals, have mandated and documented training, will be required to carry specific handguns/ammo, etc? Don't think that is what you want.

 

[Hypnogator]

So.......national CCW'ers will undergo physicals, pysch tests, annual training, weapons quals, have mandated and documented training, will be required to carry specific handguns/ammo, etc? Don't think that is what you want.

No, all I have to do is go to the range and qualify on the state law enforcement qualification course annually. It's a PITA, but not an unreasonable requirement.

 

[xd9fan]

I still say that having the LEO's get it before "we the people" speaks volumes.
Govt first.....I thought it was about the people first and that Govt served us?!

 

[Steve in PA]

Not an unreasonable requirement, however in PA all you have to do is breath and have a clean record. No qualification required, no knowledge of firearms required (load, unload, safety, etc), the person may not have a clue as to what end the bullet comes out, but they can carry a gun.

Do you think that a state which requires its CCW'ers to have some type of testing is going to allow residents from states that have no such requirement to carry in their state? I don't think so.

Some states do, as PA has reciprocity with a handful of states but I doubt very highly that you will see all 50 states agree to it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

National Reciprocity

Is this bill going nowhere? http://www.georgiapacking.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=383&highlight=national+reciprocity
If not, why not?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

And there is a second bill in that link I had forgotten about, a Senate Bill to do the same thing.

There are two bills in Congress on this issue.