March 23, 2000

The Honorable Randy "Duke" Cunningham
2238 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-0551

Dear Congressman Cunningham:

As Executive Director of the Police Executive Research Forum, our members face the devastation of gun violence on a daily basis. I am writing to urge you to oppose H.R. 218 as reported to your committee by the House Subcommittee on Crime. This measure, improperly characterized as the "Community Protection Act of 1998," would endanger the lives of active police officers, retired officers and citizens. More guns, even in the hands of off-duty officers, retired officers and law-abiding citizens, does not translate into less crime and violence. As a member of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), I share my organization's concerns, and I respectfully request that you consider those listed below:

• States Rights: Who carries a concealed weapon has traditionally been a state matter and should remain so. Each state should have the power to determine whether they want police officers who are trained and supervised by agencies outside their state to carry weapons in their jurisdiction. 1997 figures from the Southern States Police Benevolent Association confirm that more than 20 states forbid officers from other states to carry concealed weapons when not on official duty. H.R. 218 would disregard the judgement of these state authorities on this important officer and public safety matter.
  
• Variation Among the States: Another reason that concealed carrying laws should remain solely within the states' authority is the variation among states for firearm training, policies and procedures, particularly as they relate to police officers. Authority for police to carry firearms when off-duty and use-of-force policies and firearms training standards vary significantly. Why should a police chief who has employed the most rigorous training program, a strict standard of accountability and stringent policies be forced to permit officers who may not meet those standards to carry a concealed weapon in his or her jurisdiction? Out-of-state officers could act in ways prohibited of a local chief's own officers. The controls that progressive police leaders employ to ensure fair and humane service to all citizens would be compromised by H.R. 218.
  
• Public Safety: Since 1996, PERF has consistently opposed expanding concealed carrying laws for citizens. Studies like those conducted by researchers McDowall, Loftin and Wiersema indicate an increase in firearm-related homicides after CCW laws were relaxed. While there are have been some studies to the contrary, flaws in methodology were significant enough that their application is questionable. Practical experience as a police chief indicates that conflicts among citizens, and those between citizens and police, will increasingly be resolved with a gun as their availability increases. State legislatures have successfully fought CCW efforts. H.R. 218 would take this matter from state legislatures and dictate that the Governor has the authority to make such decisions. H.R. 218 would allow out-of-state citizens to carry weapons in states that have already determined they do not want that public safety threat.
  
• Officer Safety: Police executives are deeply concerned for the safety of our officers. Proponents of H.R. 218 contend that police officers need to protect themselves and their families while traveling, and that undercover officers may be targets if recognized on vacation or travel. These are considerations, but must be balanced against the potential dangers. Many police agencies discourage off-duty actions unless a life-threatening situation arises. Problems with identifying a plainclothes officer from another jurisdiction could put that officer in danger. An officer from another state will be unaware of a particular agency's means for identifying an individual in plainclothes as an officer. H.R. 218 increases the potential for officers to be endangered when an individual in civilian attire claims to be an officer. An off-duty officer is also not regularly equipped with handcuffs or a radio and may not have an alternate less-than-lethal weapon, such as spray, to employ before using deadly force.
  
• Liability: The bill would put police agencies at risk of being held responsible for an off-duty officer who misuses his or her weapon in another state. Although the off-duty officer may not technically be exercising his or her legal authority as a "police officer" in another state, the agency could become a target for a civil lawsuit given municipal governments' financial resources and police agencies' authority to give an individual the status of "police officer," which qualifies the officer to benefit from the legislation. H.R. 218 even requires the officer to carry an identification card from the employing agency. The issue goes beyond potential liability to the process of defending a case. If a Maryland officer on vacation in California shoots a citizen there, the citizen could sue in California court, requiring the Maryland agency to spend considerable funds to defend the case—even if the agency is not ultimately deemed to be liable. Those resources are better spent serving our communities.
  
• Retired Officer Oversight: While there are some requirements in H.R. 218 to ensure retirees qualify to have a concealed weapon, they are insufficient and would be difficult to implement. H.R. 218 fails to take into account those officers who have retired under threat of disciplinary action or dismissal for emotional problems that did not rise to the level of "mental instability." Officers who retire or quit just prior to a disciplinary or competency hearing may still be eligible for benefits and appear to have left the agency in good standing. The bill does not hold retired officers accountable for firearm care and use as is currently required of active officers by their agencies. Who will ensure that proper repeat training and oversight will be provided? Who will bear the expenses of recertifying more retirees? Even a police officer who retires with exceptional skills today may be stricken with an illness or other problem that makes him or her unfit to carry a concealed weapon, but they will not be overseen by a police structure that identifies such problems in current officers.

I urge you to consider the views of police executives and oppose H.R. 218.

Sincerely,



Chuck Wexler
Executive Director