Recently, the Grand Lodge office of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) put out misinformation about NAPO’s (as well as other police group’s) position on the ‘Community Protection Act of 1997’, H.R. 218.  The bill, if passed into law (as originally drafted), would allow both active and retired law enforcement officers to carry their weapons, on or off duty, across state lines, provided that they possess the minimal qualifications to carry a gun and are not currently under the care of a doctor for psychological problems.  The FOP’s material claimed that NAPO was not a supporter of this bill.  The material was sent to scores of law enforcement organizations and individual officers (including non-FOP members) across the country.  NAPO stresses in clear and simple terms that nothing could be further from the truth.

NAPO has been on record since the 103rd Congress as a strong supporter for the right of qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry their firearms across state lines when on or off duty.  This has been reported in NAPO’s Washington Report as recently as August 13, and July 6, 1998 to both NAPO members and law enforcement trade media (available on the NAPO website <www.napo.org>).  Congressional record will confirm that NAPO representatives have submitted both oral and written congressional testimony on the matter, and dozens of articles have been printed on the topic quoting NAPO’s material in support of the issue.

Not only did the FOP send out misinformation about NAPO, but the organization appears to be neglecting to tell it’s own membership the whole truth.  The ‘Community Protection Act of 1997’, H.R. 218, underwent markup by the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime on June 19, 1998.  During this markup, Chairman Bill McCollum (R-FL) offered an amendment that would give this same type of “right to carry” privilege to citizens.  The bill received full committee approval on August 5, 1998, and NAPO, in turn, reported to our membership and the media that we feared that this amendment would serve as an obstacle when it comes to vote by the full House of Representatives.  Our fears came to reality this week when the bill was removed from the Suspension Calendar (which would have put it on the floor for a full House vote) due to the controversial amendment.

The McCollum amendment added language that would create a ‘National Standard for the Carrying of Certain Concealed Firearms’ for private citizens.  Under this amendment, each state will be classified into the following categories based on the existing state laws:  1) “Class I” state – a state that is required to issue a license to anyone who meets the criteria established under law (this is commonly known as a “shall” state); and 2) “Class II” state – a state that is authorized, but not required, to issue a license to anyone who meets the criteria under established law (this is commonly known as a “may” state).  If a state prohibits the right to carry a concealed weapon, then licenses are not issued.  A person with a “Class I” or “Class II” permit will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in a “Class I” state.  A person with a “Class I” or “Class II” permit will be allowed to carry a concealed firearm in a “Class II” state, if the Governor has opted to permit out of state CCW license holders in his or her state.

No where in their material did the FOP acknowledge this significant amendment to H.R. 218, which as originally drafted proved to be a solid, non-controversial bill that was well on its way to passage thanks to NAPO’s and other national police groups’ lobbying efforts.  Perhaps the bill will still pass with this controversial amendment attached, but please recognize that there are very significant facts being left out of the FOP’s report on H.R. 218.  NAPO urges the FOP to be upfront and truthful with their report on this bill, both to their membership and to the rest of the nation’s law enforcement officers.
 

###