Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism and Homeland Security
National Association of Police Organizations
William J. Johnson, Esq., Executive Director
Chairman Coble, Ranking Member Scott, members of the House Subcommittee,
my name is Bill Johnson and I am the Executive Director of the National
Association of Police Organizations. NAPO is a coalition of police
unions and associations from across the United States that serves
here in Washington, D.C., to advance the interests of America’s
law enforcement through legislative and legal advocacy.
On behalf of NAPO’s 236,000 rank-and-file law enforcement
officers, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to testify
today on the bi-partisan supported law enforcement officer right
to carry legislation.
Today, I would like to remark on two fundamental reasons why H.R.
218 should be passed into law. What stands before us today is a
bill that will greatly improve the ability of law enforcement officers
to protect themselves, their families and our nation’s communities.
Never before has support for this goal been stronger. Never before
has the need for its passage been greater.
First, society asks the men and women of law enforcement to protect
the social welfare and stand between it and the anarchy of violence
and crime. On this front line, law enforcement defends the public’s
safety. They are constantly held in the crosshairs of crime.
Yet when off duty or traveling on vacation, officers are left unprotected
from this constant threat. Criminals, by definition, are not deterred
by state statutes. Criminals do not observe jurisdictional lines
when seeking revenge against officers who have enforced society's
laws against them.
What makes H.R. 218 so important is that criminals do not punch
a time clock. There is no off-duty for those who target police officers
and their families.
A typical example of this comes from the Hempstead, New York Police
Department. Officers assigned to the Gang Task Force, comprised
of DEA, FBI, ATF and state and local law enforcement, are constantly
subjected to stalkings by gangs seeking retribution. Personal car
license plate information and the movements of officers and their
families are unabashedly observed and recorded by gang members.
Threats against officer’s lives are constant and do not end
when the shift concludes.
Second, it can not be understated that in an age of heightened
homeland security, there can be no better means to preserve the
public’s safety then a highly trained officer
bringing his or her experience and expertise to situations in which
they might have previously been unable to act.
An example of this came in January of 2001 when Lt. Luther Lutz
of the Los Angeles Police Department left a shopping mall while
off duty. Lt. Lutz noticed two men fighting over an object, which
turned out to be a gun. Immediately, Lt. Lutz announced himself
as a police officer and directly intervened. One man wrestled the
gun away from the other; a shot was fired. Lt. Lutz, who was armed,
drew his weapon and fired upon the shooter, stopping him from killing
the victim. As it turned out, the men fighting were both violent
gang members, but the work of police, even when off duty, is blind
to such allegiances.
Some will no doubt say that H.R. 218 will encourage vigilantism.
It is imperative to understand that officers who are off duty have
families and take vacations just like you and I. They desire nothing
more then to enjoy their time off. Officers do not seek out confrontations,
but it would be tragic if officers were denied the ability to respond
when threats to the public’s safety do arise.
Honed by years of experience, it is rare for an officer to even
discharge his or her firearm. Officers utilize the knowledge gained
from numerous on-duty situations to achieve the non-lethal conclusion
to many dangerous situations.
We appreciate the attention opponents of H.R. 218 have devoted
to the issue. We understand that in the past, areas of concern such
as liability and officer proficiency have been fairly raised.
H.R. 218 has been refined over time and the current bill addresses
these concerns. Officers will have to be in good standing to carry
their firearm. Retired officers will still be required to pass the
same rigorous and thorough firearm standards as their active peers.
H.R. 218 does not infringe upon state laws restricting possession
of firearms on state property. Nor does it infringe on the right
of private property owners to control who may possess a firearm
on private property.
We would respectfully remind the Subcommittee that H.R. 218 only
focuses on police officers already proficient and permitted to carry
firearms. State and federal law regarding self defense and the use
of force remain unaffected by this bill.
Some will say that states should be afforded the option to “opt
out” if they do not agree. This language would substantially
weaken the bill. The needs of officers to protect themselves would
be hindered by the same patchwork of coverage that exists today.
Others will call for states to “opt in” rendering the
bill nothing more then a framework which the individual states could
ratify if they so wish. This would produce the same result as the
status quo. It would not address the overarching need of a unifying
federal bill to protect all officers across all jurisdictions. Again,
criminals and terrorist threats ignore, by definition, legal and
jurisdictional limits.
Right to Carry legislation was first introduced in the 102nd Congress
by Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) and
since then, NAPO and other law enforcement groups have fought hard
to ensure its passage.
H.R. 218 currently enjoys the bi-partisan support of 295 co-sponsors.
Its Senate companion, S. 253, was accepted by the Senate Judiciary
Committee 18 – 1. The full Senate considered it as an amendment
to other gun legislation in March 2004. The same language as the
House bill we are considering today received the overwhelmingly
favorable vote of 91 – 8.
Now is the time and this is the opportunity to grant this basic
protection to police officers and an important asset to our communities.
The last act an officer wants to do is to be forced to use their
firearm, yet threats to their safety and the public’s safety
do exist 24 hours a day. I thank you for the opportunity to speak
on behalf of this legislation and the hopes of America’s law
enforcement community.
I am happy to answer any questions you, or the committee members
may have.
|
