Sensenbrenner Immobilizes H.R. 218
Legislator specifically denies fair hearing of cop safety issue
LEAA Advisor, Winter 2002

LEAA’s flagship legislative effort, H.R. 218, is a tangible way for the nation to demonstrate its thanks to dedicated law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day for the welfare of every American community. The bill has never had more support by the public and in Congress. Some 233 co-sponsors are signed up. Eighty federal, state, and local law enforcement groups endorse it. Unfortunately, between it and almost sure passage on the House floor, stands an immovable and quite powerful figure, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

Chairman Sensenbrenner is steadfastly keeping HR 218 in committee limbo. There are some who object to H.R. 218 because they don’t want to “federalize” an area of law usually left to the states. Or they are reluctant to solve every problem with federal solutions that smack of abrogating state’s rights. If anyone, including Chairman Sensenbrenner, concurs with this line contention they should consider the following.

Federal law governs—and has since 1934 and 1968—almost every aspect of firearms. The Firearms Protection Act—which Rep. Sensenbrenner supported—is a federal law that provided protections to all persons in every state regarding possessing and traveling with guns so that they would not be prosecuted for safe, responsible transport of guns through the crazy patchwork of local laws. The Brady Act—also supported by Chairman Sensenbrenner—affects literally every gun owner in the nation.

Simply stated, the federal government has owned the gun issue for several decades and HR 218, a proposal allowing law enforcement officers to carry their firearms across jurisdictions, is precisely the kind of federal initiative needed to penetrate the web of local laws preventing cops from protecting themselves and the communities they visit from violent criminals.

Unfortunately, Chairman Sensenbrenner is not even letting the bill come forward for an honest floor vote. That position has forced the measure’s shepherd, Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-CA) to challenge the Chairman’s leadership via a legislative end-run known as a “discharge petition” to jettison the bill from its present state of inertia to the vitality of a House floor vote.

For a discharge petition to succeed, HR 218 needs 218 Members to sign the procedural document. Perhaps that number is an omen. Perhaps it’s nothing more than coincidence. The Members who step up for law enforcement and endorse the discharge petition are risking more than a line of ink.

Committee chairman sometimes go so far as to make it known that any who sign the discharge petition shall not be forgotten when next they come seeking support on legislation near and dear to that Member’s heart. From Sensenbrenner’s voting record on firearms, he supported the Brady Bill and the McClure-Volkmer reform of the Gun Control Act of 1968, one might be persuaded that the affront to his position weighs more heavily in his attitude toward HR 218 than concern over one or more state’s taking offense because active duty or qualified retired law men would be allowed to carry weapons across their state lines.

Duke Cunningham threw down the discharge petition gauntlet on November 13th. Already 25 colleagues have signed aboard. That leaves 193 to go. Now more than ever LEAA Members need to call their legislators to encourage them to sign the discharge petition. We are also asking all LEAA Members to follow-up your calls with a written letter and an email to your elected officials as well—and send a copy to the LEAA by fax or mail. Finally, during congressional breaks it would be a good idea to schedule an appointment with your congressman in his or her district office and let them know how strongly you feel about the need for HR 218.