Leosa Reform Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. NADLER.

Before I speak on the LEOSA Reform Act, let me express my deep disappointment in the behavior of the Judiciary Committee majority.

The Judiciary Committee is now considering a resolution to hold in contempt the Attorney General of the United States for refusing to submit certain audio recordings to the committee.

I think it is a deeply wrong request. I have expressed my opinion in committee. I am not going to go through it again here.

The point is, we have a series of Judiciary Committee bills now, and the Judiciary Committee is meeting on that resolution now. Members of the Judiciary Committee who may want to speak on this series of bills we are going to be considering now cannot because they are trapped in the Judiciary Committee considering the contempt resolution. I cannot vote against the contempt resolution because I am stuck here.

It is normally the practice that when you have committee business on the floor, you suspend the committee meeting so that people can do their work.

I very much protest that the committee is still meeting while we have committee bills on the floor so that I must choose between dealing with these bills or voting on the contempt citation, and other members of the committee cannot be here to debate these bills.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the LEOSA Reform Act. This bill threatens the safety of all Americans by advancing the Republican agenda of more guns for more people in more public places.

In 2004, Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, or LEOSA, which forced States to allow off-duty and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons even when doing so conflicted with that State's concealed carry laws.

It garnered bipartisan opposition, including from the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time, Mr. Sensenbrenner, because it supplanted the judgment of the States about the appropriate use of firearms.

It was also opposed by organizations such as the International Chiefs of Police, which was concerned that it could endanger law enforcement by causing confusion among local police who might not be able to distinguish between a criminal and the retired officer using a firearm.

Other organizations opposed it because it could put police agencies at risk for liability for an officer who misuses a weapon in another State and because the requirements for retired officers were insufficient.

Despite these objections, LEOSA became law, but importantly, it included exceptions for places like government buildings, gun-free school zones, and private property where States have a special interest in retaining control of their gun safety laws.

These exceptions have been in place for 20 years and have served as important protections, but this legislation tosses those exceptions out the window.

It forces States to allow off-duty and retired officers to carry firearms on playgrounds, in government buildings, and on buses, trains, subways, and boats.

It undermines State laws limiting magazine capacity. It reduces the rights of private property owners who may not want concealed weapons on their property or in their businesses.

It relaxes training standards so that some people will be able to carry a concealed firearm, even though it has been 3 years since their last firearms training certification.

In addition, this legislation unravels Federal laws that have kept firearms out of Federal facilities. It does this for Federal facilities that are ``open to the public'' that are classified as ``Facility Security Level I or II,'' definitions that will create significant confusion for those trying to abide by it and for those tasked with enforcing it.

For example, if a Federal facility is only partially open to the public or only open to the public during certain hours, does it fall within the bill's definition? We don't know.

What about a facility that is open to the public so long as they are not carrying firearms? The bill does not say.

As the bill itself states, the Facility Security Level is determined on a facility-by-facility basis and may not be publicly posted, so it is virtually impossible to know what Federal facilities are included in this definition.

We looked for a listing of Federal facilities that are classified at these security levels, and we could not find one.

Members may even have offices in Federal facilities that will suddenly be forced to allow concealed firearms in their doors as a result of this legislation.

Not only would this bill inject confusion into Federal law, but it also intrudes on private property rights and undermines States' careful determinations on how best to protect their citizens from gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation intrudes on the States' ability to make their own judgments about public safety, concealed firearms, and the regulation of their own law enforcement and would make us all less safe.

We hear from the other side of the aisle all the time about States' rights. Then, we get legislation like this that overrules the States and says we know best about issues of public safety.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source