In July 2004, President Bush signed H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act of 2004, which was intended to permit active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms nationwide without having first obtained permits from the states to which the officers were traveling.

Though well intentioned, it has created much confusion in the law enforcement community. First, the law itself, like many others, is not a model of clarity and requires interpretation to construe the meaning of certain terms used in the legislation.

More confusion is inevitable because the U.S. Justice Dept. has taken the position that each individual jurisdiction should interpret H.R. 218 for itself, raising the possibility of inconsistent interpretations across the country.

Also, at least with respect to retirees, it is not immediately operative and requires further action by the state or agency with whom the retiree was employed. Furthermore, questions have arisen about how the law should be interpreted in light of existing federal laws.

However, a few points are clear from simply reading the statute.

First, while active and retired officers may carry nationwide if certain requirements are met, the law doesn’t provide that an officer’s police powers are similarly portable. When out of his or her home jurisdiction, an officer should assume that he or she possesses only the powers of an ordinary citizen. Second, it’s clear that H.R. 218 does not supersede or trump federal law with respect to carrying concealed firearms in airplanes or federal facilities.

For example, we recently had an officer visit our offices after being charged by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) for an alleged violation of federal regulations. He carried his firearm on an interstate flight with permission from his commanding officer and low-level TSA officials he consulted at the airport. The TSA officials walked him around the screening devices and allowed him to board the airplane.

Through no fault of his own, the plane, after taxiing, was summoned back to the terminal because TSA supervisors disagreed over allowing him to carry on the plane. TSA personnel then removed the officer’s weapon and returned it to him on his return to New York. Sometime later, the officer received TSA charges in the mail, seeking to fine him up to $10,000 for his actions in carrying his weapon onto the plane and causing the aircraft to have to return to the terminal.

While we were able to have the fine vacated in a proceeding before the TSA because the officer was acting in good faith on the instructions of a TSA employee, this incident graphically illustrates that H.R. 218 has no effect on federal law and that police officers must observe all federal laws when transporting a firearm out of their home jurisdictions, particularly when traveling by air.

Because of the continuing confusion engendered by the Act, we urge active police officers to proceed cautiously when carrying a firearm outside of the state. We advise retirees not to carry a firearm outside of the state until the states and/or law enforcement agencies formally implement regulations to effect the qualification requirements.

In the second part of this two-part series in the next issue of The PBA Magazine, we will outline some of the important provisions of the H.R. 218 legislation and answer some of the most frequently asked questions about carrying out-of-state. As states and agencies begin their implementations, we will keep you informed in this magazine or through the PBA website.