Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5013, the so-called Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006. There is really only one word to describe this bill: Insane. The proper title of this bill should be The Right to Sue Cops and National Guardsmen Act of 2006.

The premise of the bill is that following Hurricane Katrina, and possibility other disasters, law enforcement personnel illegally seized guns from people who had legal permits to own a gun.

    
In some cases, they may have been seized because law enforcement did not want guns inside a public shelter. In other cases, people evacuated and left guns behind, and the police collected these guns so they would not fall into the hands of looters.

The NRA claimed this was illegal and sued the New Orleans Police Department. The New Orleans Police Department stated it had to determine who were the rightful owners of the guns before they could return them. I believe the lawsuit has since been settled, and the guns are being returned to their rightful owners.

Yet, today, we are considering a bill that would ostensibly solve this so-called problem of guns being illegally seized following a disaster. Since the lawsuit arises from this issue that has been resolved, I do not see why the legislation is necessary.

But how does this bill solve the supposed problem? It actually creates a private right of action for gun owners to sue personally cops, National Guardsmen, FBI officers, and other law enforcement personnel who are simply carrying out their jobs following a disaster or emergency situation.

The bill says that no Federal employer officer, including the military, National Guardsmen, or any person connected to the Federal Government, such as members of police departments, local police departments, that receive Federal funding, or anyone acting in support of relief to a major disaster or emergency, may seize any firearm which is allowed under Federal or local law. If they do seize such a gun, it would allow a gun owner to sue a cop or National Guardsman personally, not the government, sue the cop personally, even if the officer was carrying out his official duties. And the gun owner can even recover attorneys fees.

Aside from the fact that the entire premise of the bill is ridiculous, there are a number of serious problems with the legislation.

First, the presumption is all in favor of the gun owner and not the cop. There is no requirement that the gun owner prove the gun is legal at the time it is seized. So, if a cop sees someone with a gun, he has no evidence of his right to have a gun, maybe the cop suspects he was a looter, if the cop takes the gun, he is personally liable if it turns out he had a legal right to it later. Also, if a cop finds a gun on the floor or in a store or in a home and takes it to prevent it from getting into the hands of looters, that cop can now be sued. So let us leave the guns lying around for the looters to pick up and shoot people with.

Second, if this bill passes, Federal response officials and aid workers, such as the Red Cross, would have no say where guns are carried. They could not prohibit guns in public shelters where kids are present, nor could they prevent armed gangs and vigilantes from showing up and wandering the streets with guns. Private volunteers with guns can show up in any disaster situation, and law enforcement would have no say.

Third, the bill applies to a ``major disaster or emergency,'' which includes a terrorist attack. So if the New York Police Department responds at the World Trade Center, or the military responds to an attack at the Pentagon, and there is a group of guys with guns, law enforcement cannot disarm them without risking being sued. Why would we want to tie the hands of the military responding to a terrorist attack?

This bill has a chilling effect on law enforcement responding to a major disaster or to a terrorist attack. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, or seizes firearms that turn out to be legally owned, even though they have no reason to believe they are at the time, aggrieved parties already have the right to sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the NOPD. I should restate that. If law enforcement illegally seizes firearms, aggrieved parties today can sue, as was the case when the NRA sued the New Orleans Police Department. The only reason for this bill, to give an additional right, seems to be vindictive, to force some poor police officer or National Guardsman doing his job into bankruptcy.

If there really is a problem, this legislation is not the way to fix it. It is too broad, it is poorly drafted, and it will create more dangers in times of major disasters.

That is why the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Violence Policy Center have expressed opposition to this bill. I also have a letter in opposition from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represent 57 major law enforcement organizations. I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill.

MAJOR CITIES CHIEFS,

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

June 19, 2006.
Re H.R. 5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006.''

UNITED STATES CONGRESS,
Washington, DC.

Dear Legislator: The Major Cities Chiefs (MCC) Association represents fifty-seven (57) major law enforcement organizations in the United States and Canada who are located in a metropolitan area of more than 1.5 million population and employ more than 1,000 law enforcement officers. All our officers are actively engaged in providing law enforcement, public safety and homeland security to the citizens of our communities every day. We are writing in opposition to H.R. 5013 and S. 2599, the ``Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006.''

As law enforcement professionals, we understand and acknowledge the Constitutional limitations on police power to confiscate personal property. These limitations, however, must be balanced with the need to maintain public safety and security during emergency situations. We are concerned that the bill would void local laws that guide police actions regarding firearms in emergency situations. We also feel that police should be allowed to take into safekeeping any dangerous weapons and/or explosives they find abandoned in a building or home.

Additionally, as law enforcement executives, we feel if the President, a governor and/or mayor declares a state of emergency for a devastated area after a disaster, these officials should also be allowed to temporarily include provisions for a weapon-free zone during the area's recovery. For example, law enforcement may need to ensure that evacuation sites are free of weapons. Sister law enforcement agencies responding to a disaster must also be free to carry their firearms into another jurisdiction and help maintain law and order until the devastated area recovers.

Finally, we are concerned that the bill creates a new right to file lawsuits against police who take abandoned guns for safekeeping in an emergency or create emergency secure areas free from weapons. The bill should not create a new right to file lawsuits against law enforcement seeking to safeguard the public in emergency situations.

Should you need additional information, please feel free to contact MCC's General Counsel Craig Ferrell for further clarification of our position.

Sincerely,

Harold L. Hurtt,
MCC President.

--


National Association of Government Employees, SEIU, International Brotherhood of Police Officers, 

Alexandria, Va.

The IBPO stands by our brothers and sisters in law enforcement and disapproves of any legislation that may interfere with a police officer's discretion to react as he or she sees fit under extreme emergency circumstances. Furthermore, the IBPO believes that responsible gun owners who continue to act in accordance with federal, state and local law are unlikely to have their guns confiscated unless they use or possess the guns in a manner or place that would be prohibited or threatening. The IBPO does not endorse the Vitter amendment #4615.

Signed,

STEVE LENKART,

Special Asst. to the President,
Director of Legislative Affairs.