Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: 2-Delta

Any thoughts on the new proposed "bill"? Personally I am a big supporter of it. This new bill would make a LTC good in EVERY state. Simply put, if you have a LTC in your state then you have one in essence in every state. And yes that means if you are a Vermont resident, then you need not possess a LTC in any other state either assuming you are qualified to possess a firearm in VT. Some states with mandatory concealment laws etc would stay the same and you would still have to obey state law as well as federal jurisdictions. The kicker would be people in D.C. that can't carry but you could coming from another state. Too bad so sad. One LTC for all and all for one!

---

Posted by: mpd61

I agree 100%

If you can legally obtain a licence and drive through 50 states, you should be able to legally possess in 50 states with a valid LTC.

You screw up, you lose it

---

Posted by: Otto

Chapter 140: Section 131G Carrying of firearms by non-residents; conditions

Section 131G. Any person who is not a resident of the commonwealth may carry a pistol or revolver in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of taking part in a pistol or revolver competition or attending any meeting or exhibition of any organized group of firearm collectors or for the purpose of hunting; provided, that such person is a resident of the United States and has a permit or license to carry firearms issued under the laws of any state, district or territory thereof which has licensing requirements which prohibit the issuance of permits or licenses to persons who have been convicted of a felony or who have been convicted of the unlawful use, possession or sale of narcotic or harmful drugs; provided, further, that in the case of a person traveling in or through the commonwealth for the purpose of hunting, he has on his person a hunting or sporting license issued by the commonwealth or by the state of his destination. Police officers and other peace officers of any state, territory or jurisdiction within the United States duly authorized to possess firearms by the laws thereof shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to have a permit or license to carry firearms as described in this section.

Does anyone know how long this provision has been included in this statute? I notice it does not matter if on or off duty. Does anyone know what states have reciprocal agreements?

I find it ironic that the people need a "permit" to exercise a clearly established federal constitutional right (bearing arms). Yet the liberals are now saying that a right (gay marriage) invented by one state must be recognized in all states.

---

Posted by: csauce30

I know its not regarding LTC's, but this section is helpful for transporting firearms across state lines.

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 44, Sec. 926A

Sec. 926A. - Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console

---

Posted by: Brian823

I agree - A MA LTC (which has more stringent cirteria than Brady and Lautenburg require) should be honored in all states. In an abundance of caution, I have out of state (non-resident) licenses in NH, Maine, CT, and RI. (it's a pain in the #&* to go through the procedures to get/renew them).

---

Posted by: phuzz01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Does anyone know what states have reciprocal agreements?

Visit www.packing.org. It will tell you which states are may-issue vs. shall-issue, which states allow non-residents to carry, and which states allow its residents to carry. It has a TON of other information as well on CCW in all 50 states.

Alex

---

Posted by: Otto

Thankyou, phuzz.

---

Posted by: 2-Delta

It's important to note that MA is not reciprocal with ANYONE. Figures.

---

Posted by: ecpd402

I support the Bill. Massachusetts is a tough state to get a LTC and a MA LTC should be honored in other states.

---

Posted by: Brian823

Right to Carry Update H.R. 218/S. 253
RIGHT TO CARRY BILL ON TARGET IN NEW YEAR

Subsequent to the July 2003 letter to Majority Leader Frist, NAPO learned that the Right to Carry legislation would be considered after the Senate completed its work on the Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations bills.
Unfortunately this process is still continuing and the Senate will return January 20, 2004, to resume its work on the budget. The Senate could complete its work as soon as January 22, 2004, but the debate over the omnibus may span several days due to problems with different funding initiatives.


Since the summer the Right to Carry bill in the Senate has seen an increase in its support to 66 current co-sponsors. This will protect its passage from any procedural efforts against it and NAPO thanks its members who worked to gain many of the Senators on board. In the House, the companion bill, H.R. 218, still remains blocked in committee by the Chairman, Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) but NAPO is pushing for more co-sponsors as well.

---

Posted by: Gil

LEGISLATIVE ALERT:
S. 253, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act"

Late last night, the Senate reached an agreement on a debate framework for the consideration of S. 1805, the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." As part of that agreement, Senator Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell (R-CO), on behalf of himself and Senators Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Harry Reid (D-NV), Minority Whip, will offer an amendment to S. 1805 that is identical to S. 253, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act."

The Campbell-Hatch-Leahy-Reid amendment is S. Amdt. 2618!!!

This amendment will be debated on the floor TODAY, with each side controlling thirty (30) minutes of time. All F.O.P. members should call their Senators at their Washington offices (or through the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121) TODAY and urge them to support S. Amdt 2618!!!

The actual up-or-down vote on S. Amdt 2618 (and other amendments to S. 1805) will be held next week, on Tuesday, 2 March 2004.

When making contact with your Senators, use the following talking points to explain why this legislation is so important to law enforcement officers:
What the amendment does: The legislation exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms. What this means is that active and retired police officer will be able to carry their firearms virtually anywhere in the U.S. without having to worry about violating any local or State gun laws.
The bill is noncontroversial and enjoys wide, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate bill, S. 253, passed the Judiciary Committee in March 2003 on an 18-1 vote. The bill has sixty-seven (67) cosponsors, including Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) , Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), and every other members of the Senate leadership from both sides of the aisle. Senator Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell (R-CO), a former law enforcement officer, is offering the amendment along with Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and Minority Whip Harry Reid.
The House bill, H.R. 218 has two hundred and eighty-six (286) cosponsors. In addition to a House majority, the bill has a majority of both the full Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee of jurisdiction. In 1999, the House passed a nearly identical measure as an amendment to another bill by an overwhelming 372-53 majority.
This isn't a "firearms issue"--it is an officer safety issue. And, on 11 September 2001, it became a critical public safety and homeland security issue.
Law enforcement officers need this bill--it is the number one issue among rank-and-file officers today. Police officers are frequently finding that they, and their families, are the targets of vindictive criminals. A police officer may not remember all the faces of all the criminals he or she has put behind bars, but every one of those criminals will. This legislation gives all police officers the means to legally protect themselves and their loved ones--even if off-duty or retired.
Public safety and homeland security would benefit immensely from this bill becoming law. Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained body of men and women sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace. Unlike other professions, a police officer is rarely "off-duty." When there is a threat to the peace or public safety, the police officer is sworn to answer the call of duty. Officers who are traveling from one jurisdiction to another do not leave their instincts or training behind, but without their weapon, that knowledge and training is rendered virtually useless. These bills will provide the means for law enforcement officers to enforce the law and keep the peace--enabling them to put to use that training and answer the call to duty when the need arises. Without a weapon, the law enforcement officer is like a rescue diver without diving gear; all the right training and talent to lend to an emergency situation, but without the equipment needed to make that training of any use. Given the ongoing threat of terrorist activity against U.S. citizens, it just makes sense to give our first line of defense the tools they need in a first responder situation. Perhaps the strongest endorsement we can make is that thousands of violent criminals and terrorists will hate to see it pass.
This is not a States' rights issue and the bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that it conforms to the U.S. Constitution and the precepts of Federalism. Congress has the authority, under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, to extend full faith and credit to qualified active and retired law enforcement officers who have met the criteria to carry firearms set by one State, and make those credentials applicable and recognized in all States and territories in these United States. States and localities issue firearms to their police officers and set their own requirements for their officers in training and qualifying in the use of these weapons. This legislation maintains the States' power to set these requirements and determine whether or not an active or retired officer is qualified in the use of the firearm, and would allow only this narrow universe of persons to carry their firearms when traveling outside their jurisdiction. We believe this is similar to the States' issuance of drivers' licenses--the standards may differ slightly from State to State, but all States recognize that the drivers have been certified to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
All fifty (50) States require their officers to receive many hours--the average is 48--of firearms training before they leave the academy. Before receiving their appointment, law enforcement officers must meet certain score requirements in order to qualify with their weapon, the average being about 76%. No officer with a score below the 70th percentile is considered qualified with his weapon.
Most States require their officers to requalify with their weapons on a regular basis. Individual agencies may require their officers to qualify more frequently, but they must meet the State's minimum, which ranges from annually to every five years.
How Do Retired Officers Qualify: In order to carry under this legislation, a retired law enforcement officer would have to qualify with his firearm at his own expense every twelve (12) months and meet the qualifications as an active duty officer in his State of residence. For example, a New Jersey police officer that retires to North Carolina must qualify annually at his own expense and meet the same standards that an active duty officer in North Carolina must meet.
Many Federal law enforcement officers currently have the authority to carry their firearms. Training and qualification for Federal law enforcement officers is not so dissimilar to that of State and local law enforcement officers. There have been no issues of concern with Federal officers carrying in all jurisdiction, why would there be for State and local law enforcement officers?
There is Congressional precedent on this issue. Congress has previously acted to force States to recognize permits to carry issued by other States on the basis of employment in other instances. In June 1993, the Senate and House passed a law (PL 103-55) mandating reciprocity for weapons licenses issued to armored car company crew members among States. Congress amended the Act in 1998 (PL 105-7, providing that the licenses must be renewed every two years. This precedent allows armored car guards--who do not have nearly the same level of training and qualifications as law enforcement officers--to receive a license to carry a firearm in one State and forces other States to recognize its validity.
Airline pilots can obtain the authority law enforcement officers are seeking. In addition to armored car guards, Congress passed a law that exempts airline pilots who participate in the "Federal flight deck officer" program from Federal and State law with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. Note that this authority is not limited just to the cockpit--but also while the pilots are on the ground and off-duty.
Congress has the authority to preempt State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons and has in the past granted a certain class of persons--based on the nature of their employment and their value in an emergency situation--the authority to carry firearms in all jurisdictions. To do the same for law enforcement just makes good sense.
If any of the Senate staff that you speak with today have additional questions about the legislation, tell them to contact Tim Richardson at in the F.O.P.'s National Legislative Office at 202-547-8189

This is our chance to pass S. 253!!! The National Legislative Office will be sending out additional LEGISLATIVE ALERTS on S. Amdt 2618 as necessary, but we need all F.O.P. members to CONTACT THEIR SENATORS IN THEIR WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE NOW AND ASK THEM TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF S. AMDT 2618, THE CAMPBELL-HATCH-LEAHY-REID AMENDMENT!!!


Chris L. Granberg
Senior Legislative Liaison

Fraternal Order of Police
National Legislative Office
309 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(O) (202) 547 - 8189
(F) (202) 547 - 8190

grandlodgefop.org

---

Posted by: Gil

UPDATED LEGISLATIVE ALERT:
NEW INFORMATION:
* Senate Amendment has a new number: S. Amdt 2623
* New Senate Amendment named in honor of Steve Young

First of all, thank you to all those F.O.P. members who took the time to make contact with their Senators on this issue. We have been getting great feedback from our members and from Senate offices who have heard from officers in their district. Please continue to provide the National Legislative Office with information and feedback on your contact with your Senators!!!

Keep calling your Senators--it is important that we keep up our effort!!! The debate on the amendment concluded this afternoon and will be up for a vote on Tuesday, 2 March. Make sure your Senators continue to hear from you on this issue!!!

Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, the sponsor of S. 253 and of S. Amdt 2618, was hospitalized this morning with severe chest pain and was unable to be present on the floor today to offer his amendment. His staff reports that he is doing just fine now and that he will be on the floor next week to work on behalf of his amendment.

For this reason, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, offered the new amendment on behalf of Senator Campbell, himself, and Senators Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Harry Reid (D-NV), Minority Whip, Mike DeWine (R-OH), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), and Larry Craig (R-ID), the sponsor of the underlying bill.

The new amendment number is S. Amdt 2623!!!

That is the amendment which was debated on the Senate floor today, and that is the amendment which will be voted on next week--Tuesday, 2 March.

The new amendment is identical to S. 253 with one exception: the title of the legislation was renamed the "Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," in honor of the F.O.P.'s late National President.

The F.O.P.'s top legislative priority now bears the name of one of our own.

This amendment will be voted on the floor on Tuesday, 2 March!!! All F.O.P. members should call their Senators at their Washington offices (or through the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121) and urge them to support S. Amdt 2623, the "Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act"!!!

When making contact with your Senators, use the following talking points to explain why this legislation is so important to law enforcement officers:
What the amendment does: The legislation exempts qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms. What this means is that active and retired police officer will be able to carry their firearms virtually anywhere in the U.S. without having to worry about violating any local or State gun laws.
The bill is noncontroversial and enjoys wide, bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate bill, S. 253, passed the Judiciary Committee in March 2003 on an 18-1 vote. The bill has sixty-seven (67) cosponsors, including Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) , Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD), and every other members of the Senate leadership from both sides of the aisle. Senator Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell (R-CO), a former law enforcement officer, is offering the amendment along with Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and Minority Whip Harry Reid.
The House bill, H.R. 218 has two hundred and eighty-six (286) cosponsors. In addition to a House majority, the bill has a majority of both the full Judiciary Committee and the Subcommittee of jurisdiction. In 1999, the House passed a nearly identical measure as an amendment to another bill by an overwhelming 372-53 majority.
This isn't a "firearms issue"--it is an officer safety issue. And, on 11 September 2001, it became a critical public safety and homeland security issue.
Law enforcement officers need this bill--it is the number one issue among rank-and-file officers today. Police officers are frequently finding that they, and their families, are the targets of vindictive criminals. A police officer may not remember all the faces of all the criminals he or she has put behind bars, but every one of those criminals will. This legislation gives all police officers the means to legally protect themselves and their loved ones--even if off-duty or retired.
Public safety and homeland security would benefit immensely from this bill becoming law. Law enforcement officers are a dedicated and trained body of men and women sworn to uphold the law and keep the peace. Unlike other professions, a police officer is rarely "off-duty." When there is a threat to the peace or public safety, the police officer is sworn to answer the call of duty. Officers who are traveling from one jurisdiction to another do not leave their instincts or training behind, but without their weapon, that knowledge and training is rendered virtually useless. These bills will provide the means for law enforcement officers to enforce the law and keep the peace--enabling them to put to use that training and answer the call to duty when the need arises. Without a weapon, the law enforcement officer is like a rescue diver without diving gear; all the right training and talent to lend to an emergency situation, but without the equipment needed to make that training of any use. Given the ongoing threat of terrorist activity against U.S. citizens, it just makes sense to give our first line of defense the tools they need in a first responder situation. Perhaps the strongest endorsement we can make is that thousands of violent criminals and terrorists will hate to see it pass.
This is not a States' rights issue and the bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that it conforms to the U.S. Constitution and the precepts of Federalism. Congress has the authority, under the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, to extend full faith and credit to qualified active and retired law enforcement officers who have met the criteria to carry firearms set by one State, and make those credentials applicable and recognized in all States and territories in these United States. States and localities issue firearms to their police officers and set their own requirements for their officers in training and qualifying in the use of these weapons. This legislation maintains the States' power to set these requirements and determine whether or not an active or retired officer is qualified in the use of the firearm, and would allow only this narrow universe of persons to carry their firearms when traveling outside their jurisdiction. We believe this is similar to the States' issuance of drivers' licenses--the standards may differ slightly from State to State, but all States recognize that the drivers have been certified to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways.
All fifty (50) States require their officers to receive many hours--the average is 48--of firearms training before they leave the academy. Before receiving their appointment, law enforcement officers must meet certain score requirements in order to qualify with their weapon, the average being about 76%. No officer with a score below the 70th percentile is considered qualified with his weapon.
Most States require their officers to requalify with their weapons on a regular basis. Individual agencies may require their officers to qualify more frequently, but they must meet the State's minimum, which ranges from annually to every five years.
How Do Retired Officers Qualify: In order to carry under this legislation, a retired law enforcement officer would have to qualify with his firearm at his own expense every twelve (12) months and meet the qualifications as an active duty officer in his State of residence. For example, a New Jersey police officer that retires to North Carolina must qualify annually at his own expense and meet the same standards that an active duty officer in North Carolina must meet.
Many Federal law enforcement officers currently have the authority to carry their firearms. Training and qualification for Federal law enforcement officers is not so dissimilar to that of State and local law enforcement officers. There have been no issues of concern with Federal officers carrying in all jurisdiction, why would there be for State and local law enforcement officers?
There is Congressional precedent on this issue. Congress has previously acted to force States to recognize permits to carry issued by other States on the basis of employment in other instances. In June 1993, the Senate and House passed a law (PL 103-55) mandating reciprocity for weapons licenses issued to armored car company crew members among States. Congress amended the Act in 1998 (PL 105-7, providing that the licenses must be renewed every two years. This precedent allows armored car guards--who do not have nearly the same level of training and qualifications as law enforcement officers--to receive a license to carry a firearm in one State and forces other States to recognize its validity.
Airline pilots can obtain the authority law enforcement officers are seeking. In addition to armored car guards, Congress passed a law that exempts airline pilots who participate in the "Federal flight deck officer" program from Federal and State law with respect to the carrying of concealed firearms. Note that this authority is not limited just to the cockpit--but also while the pilots are on the ground and off-duty.
Congress has the authority to preempt State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons and has in the past granted a certain class of persons--based on the nature of their employment and their value in an emergency situation--the authority to carry firearms in all jurisdictions. To do the same for law enforcement just makes good sense.
If any of the Senate staff that you speak with today have additional questions about the legislation, tell them to contact Tim Richardson at in the F.O.P.'s National Legislative Office at 202-547-8189

This is our chance to pass S. 253!!! The National Legislative Office will be sending out additional LEGISLATIVE ALERTS on S. Amdt 2623 as necessary, but we need all F.O.P. members to CONTACT THEIR SENATORS IN THEIR WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE NOW AND ASK THEM TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF S. AMDT 2623, THE "STEVE YOUNG LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS' SAFETY ACT"!!!

Chris L. Granberg
Senior Legislative Liaison

Fraternal Order of Police
National Legislative Office
309 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
(O) (202) 547 - 8189
(F) (202) 547 - 8190

grandlodgefop.org

---

Posted by: 2-Delta

Good stuff!

---

Posted by: ryan933

I'll be calling my rep. on Monday!

Ryan

---

Posted by: Pinkos307

Everyone should go Federal. LTC works everywhere!!!

---

Posted by: k9sheriff

Gil, any word on amdt. 2623. I can't seem to find any info on it.

---

Posted by: Gil

http://www.napo.org/legislative-update/right2carry.htm

RIGHT TO CARRY PASSES SENATE 91-8
March 2, 2004
Click here to see the results of the Senate Roll Call vote on the Right to Carry amendment.

The following is a memo to the NAPO membership concerning Senate passage of the Right to Carry legislation:

This afternoon the Senate overwhelmingly passed the Law Enforcement Right to Carry legislation as an amendment to the pending Gun Liability bill by a vote of 91-8.

NAPO would like to thank Senators Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Harry Reid (D-NV), Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Larry Craig (R-ID) who brought S.Amdt. 2623 to the floor and whose leadership facilitated its acceptance. NAPO would also like to thank its member groups for calling upon their Senators to support both the amendment and the safety of our nation’s police officers.

The underlying bill, S. 1805, is expected to pass the Senate later today and will most likely enter into a conference with the House passed version. NAPO will work vigorously to ensure that the conferees maintain the Right to Carry amendment when the bills are considered.

BUT WAIT!!!!

Right to Carry Update
H.R. 218/S. 253
S. 1805 DEFEAT INCLUDES RIGHT TO CARRY AMENDMENT
March 3, 2004
The following is a memo to the NAPO membership concerning the passage of the Right to Carry amendment but the defeat of the underlying bill:

S. 1805, which included the Right to Carry amendment, was fully expected to pass the Senate early yesterday afternoon. However, in an unfortunate turn of events, the underlying bill was defeated in response to added gun control amendments. Just prior to the vote, the National Rifle Association called upon the Senate to reverse its course and defeat S. 1805 because of these additional amendments.

The Administration and Republican Senate leadership preferred an amendment-free bill and, after amendments reauthorizing the Assault Weapons Ban and closing the “Gun Show Loophole” were successfully added, the Republican leadership scuttled the legislation.

This event should not be seen as a defeat though because the Right to Carry bill received an overwhelming vindication on the Senate floor with 90 votes in its favor. NAPO has contacted Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and highlighted this strong support as a pivotal reason to bring S. 253 to the floor for quick passage. NAPO is working with the bill’s sponsors and will continue the fight to ensure its passage.

NAPO would again like to thank its member groups for calling upon their Senators to support the Right to Carry amendment as these efforts produced a positive vote.


How they voted:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...amp;vote=00026

---

Posted by: mpd61

THANK GOD for the NRA!!!!!!

They're not perfect, but they saved our asses from that stupid Clinton "Crime Bill" Crap from 1994 being extended! See how those sneaky LIBERAL DEMOCRAT shitbirds tried to piggy-back some anti-gun crap onto a well-intentioned bill, and F#CKED us LEO's again?


Remember this factoid come November!!!!!

---

Posted by: Gil

UPDATE ON F.O.P. TOP LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES:

For the complete list of cosponsors for all of our top legislative priorities, or to find out if your Representative and Senators are cosponsors of specific bills, check out http://thomas.loc.gov .

A. H.R. 218/S. 253, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," legislation to exempt qualified active and retired law enforcement officers from State and local prohibitions on the carrying of concealed firearms.

Last week's Senate floor vote on the "Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act" showed that the F.O.P.'s top priority can command overwhelming support. We want to assure all of our members that this issue is not dead, we have not given up and, in fact, intend to be even more aggressive in pushing this legislation. It is our goal to get a bill to the President that he can sign into law, and we will make the most of every available opportunity to make that happen.

In the meantime, we encourage our members to contact their Senators and THANK THEM for their vote in support of the "Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act." And, for those who are not currently cosponsors of the measure, ask them if they are now willing to add their names to the bill.

The following Senators voted AGAINST S. Amdt. 2623, the "Steve Young Law Enforcement Officers Act," and we would encourage our membership to find out why and see if we can change their minds when this issue comes to the floor again.

Akaka (D-HI) Inoyue (D-HI)
Dodd (D-CT) Kennedy (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL) Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Fitzgerald (R-IL) Sarbanes (D-MD)

[It should be noted that Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) did not vote, but he is a cosponsor of S. 253 and certainly would have voted for the amendment.]

The Senate stand-alone bill, S. 253, still has sixty-seven (67) cosponsors, a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate.

---

Posted by: Gil

LEGISLATIVE ALERT ON H.R. 218/S. 253!!!

The Grassroots Action Network is urging all F.O.P. members to take advantage of the time during the recess and make contact with those Members of Congress who are not yet cosponsors of H.R. 218/S. 253, the "Law Enforcement Officers' Safety Act," and ask them to sign on! During the recess, Members of Congress are in their home States and districts and this is an excellent opportunity to ask for their help on the F.O.P.'s top legislative priority.

The following is the most recent, most up-to-date target list for your State Lodge:


Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D)
Staff contact: Robin Toone
Phone number: 202-224-4543
District Office: (617) 565-3170

NOTE 1: Senator Kennedy is the bill's chief opponent in the Senate. He offered voted against the four (4) amendments during the Judiciary Committee's mark-up of the legislation, all designed to weaken the legislation. None of the amendments passed. The Senator was the sole vote against the bill in Committee. The breakdown of all the Committee votes can be found on the Grand Lodge website: http://www.grandlodgefop.org/legisla...253action.html

NOTE 2: Senator Kennedy was one of only eight 8 Senators to vote AGAINST this bill on the Senate floor, as an amendment to another bill on 2 March (Record Vote #26).


Representative John W. Olver (D-1st)
Staff Contact: Bob Letteney
Phone number: 202-225-5335
District office: 413) 442-0946
NOTE: Rep. Olver voted FOR this bill, in amendment form, on 18 June 1999 (Roll Call Vote #237).

Representative Richard E. Neal (D-2nd)
Staff Contact: William Tranghese
Phone number: 202-225-5601
District office: (413) 785-0325
NOTE: Rep. Neal voted FOR this bill, in amendment form, on 18 June 1999 (Roll Call Vote #237).

Representative John F. Tierney (D-6th))
Staff Contact: Christine Pelosi
Phone number: 202-225-8020
District office: (97 531-1669
NOTE: Rep. Tierney voted AGAINST this bill, in amendment form, on 18 June 1999 (Roll Call Vote #237).

Representative Edward J. Markey (D-7th)
Staff Contact: Israel Klein
Phone number: 202-225-2836
District office: (781) 396-2900
NOTE: Rep. Markey voted FOR this bill, in amendment form, on 18 June 1999 (Roll Call Vote #237).

Representative Michael E. Capuano (D-8th)
Staff Contact: Christine Locke
Phone number: 202-225-5111
District office: (617) 621-6208
NOTE: Rep. Capuano voted AGAINST this bill, in amendment form, on 18 June 1999 (Roll Call Vote #237).

Representative Stephen F. Lynch (D-9th)
Staff Contact: Caroline Powers
Phone number: 202-225-8273
District office: (617) 428-2000

Representative William D. Delahunt (D-10th)
Member of the Judiciary Committee
Staff Contact: Mark Agrast
Phone number: 202-225-3111
District office: (617) 770-3700
NOTE: Rep. Delahunt voted FOR this bill, in amendment form, on 18 June 1999 (Roll Call Vote #237).

Make your voice heard on the Hill--contact your Member of Congress today!!!

If you have any questions about this bill, please contact Tim Richardson at the National Legislative Office.

Thank you!

---

Posted by: ecpd402

Its ironic that kennedy is always against gun laws, but his body guards are armed to the teeth. Never voted for him never would.

---

Posted by: MtBiker

mpd61 has nailed this, I agree whole heartedly.

If you can legally obtain a licence and drive through 50 states, you should be able to legally possess in 50 states with a valid LTC.

You screw up, you lose it

---

Posted by: frapmpd24

The actual licensing of individuals for firearms is done at the state level, this being a federal bill I wonder if the states would have to adopt it under the 14th Ammendment and preserving their statesn rights. I would think the states would still hold their right to set standards of who could and could not carry, regardless of where they hold their LTC. Believe me I am all for it, but I wonder if it would be mandatory for the states to follow.

To expand futher on that, I am sure each state has "disqualifiers" preventing people from obtaining permits. If something is a disqualifier in MA, but is not in TX and the person is issued the permit to carry under their law, would there be reciprocity with the individual having a disqualifying offense in another state.

---

Posted by: kwflatbed

It could be set up the same way the commericial drivers license

is set up.

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser