26
February 2004
The
Honorable Larry Craig
United
States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear
Senator Craig,
I am
writing to advise you of our strong
opposition to an amendment that
Senator Kennedy intends to offer
later today to S. 1805, the "Lawful
Protection of Commerce in Arms Act."
Senator
Kennedy will certainly present his
amendment as an "officer safety
issue" to get dangerous,
"cop-killer" bullets off the
shelves. Regardless of its
presentation, the amendment's actual
aim and effect would be to expand
the definition of "armor-piercing"
to include ammunition based, not on
any threat to law enforcement
officers, but on a manufacturer's
marketing strategy.
The
truth of the matter is that only one
law enforcement officer has been
killed by a round fired from a
handgun which penetrated his soft
body armor--and in that single
instance, it was the body armor that
failed to provide the expected
ballistic protection, not because
the round was "armor piercing."
It is
our view that no expansion or
revision of the current law is
needed to protect law enforcement
officers. To put it simply, this is
not a genuine officer safety issue.
If it were, Senator Kennedy would
not be offering this amendment to a
bill he strongly opposes and is
working to defeat. The REAL officer
safety issue here is the adoption of
S. Amdt. 2618, the "Law Enforcement
Officers' Safety Act," which would
exempt active and retired law
enforcement officers from State and
local prohibitions on the carrying
of concealed firearms.
The
Kennedy amendment was considered and
defeated by the Senate Judiciary
Committee in March 2003 on a 10-6
vote. We believe that it should be
rejected again.
On
behalf of the more than 311,000
members of the Fraternal Order of
Police, I thank you for taking our
views on this issue into
consideration. If I can be of any
further assistance on this issue,
please contact me or Executive
Director Jim Pasco at my Washington
office.
Sincerely
Chuck Canterbury
National President
Fraternal Order of Police
