LEOSA Reform Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 2243
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Crime and Law Enforcement
- Status
- Passed House
- Latest Action
- 2025-05-15: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-07-11T03:38:24Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The LEOSA Reform Act aims to update and expand the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004, which allows qualified active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms across state lines. It seeks to clarify exceptions to federal firearm restrictions, improve qualification standards for retired officers, and permit carrying in additional federal locations, while aligning LEOSA with other gun laws like the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
Key Provisions
- Alignment with Gun-Free School Zones Act: Amends 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) to explicitly exempt qualified law enforcement officers (under LEOSA sections 926B or 926C) from the prohibition on firearms in school zones.
- Expansion of Carry Rights under LEOSA:
- Permits carrying concealed firearms in units of the National Park System, overriding certain federal restrictions or Interior Department regulations.
- Clarifies that state or local laws prohibiting carry do not apply on properties used by common or contract carriers (e.g., buses, trains, ships) for transporting people or goods, or on public-access properties (with or without entry fees).
- Expands the definition of a "concealed firearm" to include magazines.
- Updated Qualification Standards for Retired Officers (under 18 U.S.C. § 926C):
- Requires firearms training qualification within the past 12 months (or up to 36 months at the state's option).
- Allows qualification using standards from the officer's former agency, the resident state, any local law enforcement agency in that state, or a certified firearms instructor in that state.
- Simplifies certification: Can be issued by the former agency, state, local agency, or certified instructor, confirming compliance with the standards.
- Carry in Federal Facilities: Amends 18 U.S.C. § 930 to allow qualified active and retired officers to possess firearms or ammunition in Facility Security Level I or II civilian public access facilities (low- to moderate-risk federal buildings open to the public, as defined by Interagency Security Committee standards).
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Broadens LEOSA Exceptions: Previously, LEOSA had limited overrides for federal lands like national parks; this adds explicit permission and carves out exceptions for public and carrier properties, reducing conflicts with state/local laws.
- Flexible Training Requirements: Shifts from rigid annual testing tied to the former agency to more adaptable standards (up to 36 months) using various state-approved methods, making it easier for retired officers to maintain eligibility.
- School Zones and Federal Facilities: Introduces new exemptions in school zones (previously restricted under the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act) and low-security federal buildings, where carry was generally prohibited except for on-duty officers.
- Certification Simplification: Replaces agency-specific testing with broader state or instructor certifications, streamlining compliance for retirees.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Federal agencies managing parks, schools, or facilities (e.g., National Park Service, Department of the Interior, General Services Administration) may need to update security protocols to accommodate armed off-duty or retired officers, potentially increasing coordination with law enforcement but also administrative burdens for verification.
- On Citizens: Enhances personal security for qualified active and retired officers by allowing concealed carry in more everyday locations like schools, parks, and federal buildings; however, it could raise public safety concerns in sensitive areas due to increased presence of firearms.
- On International Relations: No direct impacts, as the bill focuses on domestic U.S. law enforcement and firearm rights.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Qualified Law Enforcement Officers and Retirees: Primary beneficiaries, gaining expanded nationwide carry rights and easier qualification processes.
- Federal and State Agencies: Including the FBI, ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), National Park Service, and state law enforcement, who must enforce or verify LEOSA compliance.
- Educational Institutions and Public Facilities: Schools and low-security federal buildings may see more armed individuals, affecting safety policies.
- General Public: Indirectly impacted through potential changes in firearm presence in public spaces.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens LEOSA's preemption over conflicting state/local laws, potentially leading to more litigation if jurisdictions challenge the expanded exceptions (e.g., in court over "public access" definitions). It maintains federal consistency in firearm regulations while clarifying ambiguities in existing statutes.
- Constitutional Implications: Aligns with Second Amendment interpretations favoring armed self-defense for law enforcement, but could spark debates on balancing public safety in gun-free zones against officers' rights; no direct conflict with other constitutional provisions noted.
- Political Implications: Supports pro-gun rights positions by empowering law enforcement nationwide, likely appealing to law enforcement advocacy groups, but may face opposition from those concerned about firearms in schools or parks, influencing future gun policy debates in Congress.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (18)
Rep. Cuellar, Henry [D-TX-28], Rep. Flood, Mike [R-NE-1], Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2], Rep. Williams, Roger [R-TX-25], Rep. Stauber, Pete [R-MN-8], Rep. Finstad, Brad [R-MN-1], Rep. Fleischmann, Charles J. "Chuck" [R-TN-3], Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3], Rep. Carter, Earl L. "Buddy" [R-GA-1], Rep. Fallon, Pat [R-TX-4], Rep. Green, Mark E. [R-TN-7], Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24], Rep. Rutherford, John H. [R-FL-5], Rep. Smith, Adrian [R-NE-3], Rep. Yakym, Rudy [R-IN-2], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Fischbach, Michelle [R-MN-7], Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]
Recent Actions
- 2025-05-15: Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-05-14: Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- 2025-05-14: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 229 - 193 (Roll no. 128). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2024) (Roll call 128)
- 2025-05-14: Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: 229 - 193 (Roll no. 128). (text of amendment in the nature of a substitute: CR H2024) (Roll call 128)
- 2025-05-14: Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H2031-2032)
- 2025-05-14: POSTPONED PROCEEDINGS - At the conclusion of debate on H.R. 2243, the Chair put the question passage of the bill and by voice vote announced that the ayes had prevailed. Mr. Raskin demanded the yeas and nays and the Chair postponed further proceedings until a time to be announced.
- 2025-05-14: The previous question was ordered pursuant to the rule.
- 2025-05-14: DEBATE - The House proceeded with one hour of debate on H.R. 2243.
- 2025-05-14: Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243 and H.R. 2255. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255. All bills are being considered under a closed rule with each bill having one motion to recommit.
- 2025-05-14: Considered under the provisions of rule H. Res. 405. (consideration: CR H2024-2027)
- 2025-05-13: Rules Committee Resolution H. Res. 405 Reported to House. Rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243 and H.R. 2255. The resolution provides for consideration of H.R. 2240, H.R. 2243, and H.R. 2255. All bills are being considered under a closed rule with each bill having one motion to recommit.
- 2025-04-28: Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 58.
- 2025-04-28: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-81.
- 2025-04-28: Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-81.
- 2025-03-25: Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 13 - 11.
Bill Versions
- LEOSA Reform Act — issued 2025-05-14 — PDF (8 pages)
- LEOSA Reform Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-21 — PDF (6 pages)
- LEOSA Reform Act — issued 2025-05-15 — PDF (6 pages)
- LEOSA Reform Act — issued 2025-04-28 — PDF (8 pages)