Every day, violence and drug-related crimes take their toll on neighborhoods across the nation. And every year, legislation is proposed in Congress to help law enforcement protect communities from drug dealers and criminals.
In 1991 alone, $473 million was appropriated under Title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act for state and local law enforcement agencies to combat drug-related crimes. These funds are now in jeopardy - held hostage in the name of public safety.Reps. Duke Cunningham and Ralph Hall have introduced a bill that would deny these essential funds to any state that does not permit retired and off-duty law enforcement officers from any jurisdiction in the nation to carry concealed firearms in that state. Like many quick-fix solutions to complex problems, this idea does more harm than good.
The Rodney King incident exemplifies two principles: There must be strict standards governing police use of force. And, police must be held accountable when force is used.
Authority for police to carry firearms when off duty, policies on police use of force, and police training standards vary from state to state.
The proposed law would coerce states that fear the loss of essential federal funds into allowing retired and off-duty, out-of-state officers to carry concealed weapons. These officers may lack the firearms training required of in-state officers. Retired officers may not have received recent training at all. The controls that progressive police leaders need to ensure fair and humane service to all citizens would be compromised by this bill.
According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, "The bill does not ensure that only well-trained officers would be eligible to carry firearms outside their own jurisdictions. The bill is also flawed in that firearms training is not a condition to the issuance of a certification card to a retired law enforcement officer."
More guns - even in the hands of police - do not equal less crime. More than 20 states now forbid officers from other states from carrying concealed weapons when not on official duty. Several others require permits or impose other restrictions. These states know that when controls are lost, safety is jeopardized.
Supporters of the Cunningham measure argue that if more off-duty officers carried guns, there would be a greater police presence and, consequently, more aborted crime at no additional cost to taxpayers. Yet, many law enforcement agencies across America have considered the costs - in lives and liability - of allowing off-duty officers to carry guns outside and within their jurisdiction and have rejected the concept.
In fact, some police departments have changed policies that require their own officers to carry firearms off duty because of risk to both officers and the public. The concern is not new. Surveys from the early 1980s indicated that a significant proportion of off-duty shootings involved inappropriate use of force (40 percent in New York City, 18 percent in Los Angeles and 13 percent in Chicago).
Reps. Cunningham and Hall could better express their concern about public safety by joining with the 11 national law enforcement associations, in supporting a national waiting period and background check for handgun purchases.
And, if their aim is to reduce violent crime, they should focus their efforts on passing a meaningful crime bill this session that would truly help police do their job.
(Martha Plotkin is an associate director at the Police Executive Research Forum, a Washington, D.C., organization of law enforcement leaders.)