The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a federal statute which sets forth requirements for qualified retired law enforcement officers to concealed-carry firearms throughout the United States. LEOSA specifically provides that “notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by this statute may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to certain exceptions.” New Jersey maintains the retired police officer permitting law, which governs retired police officers and their concealed-carry rights.
The retired police officer law imposes stricter requirements than LEOSA. For example, under the retired police officer law, (1) officers are required to obtain a state-issued concealed-carry permit; (2) officers can only concealed-carry up to age 75; and (3) hollow-point ammunition is prohibited. Furthermore, LEOSA requires qualified retired law enforcement officers to obtain annual firearm qualification training, while the retired police officer law requires training twice per year. In October 2018, the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office issued a “frequently asked questions” document explaining the interplay between LEOSA and the retired police officer law. Among other things, that document indicated that retired law enforcement officers living in New Jersey were required to meet the stricter requirements of the retired police officer law or face criminal sanctions.
In May 2020, several police associations and retired law enforcement officers sued New Jersey seeking to prevent the state from (1) requiring qualified retired law enforcement officers to obtain an retired police officer law permit; (2) arresting and prosecuting LEOSA-compliant qualified retired law enforcement officers under the retired police officer permitting law; and (3) imposing any other conditions to carry a firearm that are not required by LEOSA. The federal government filed a statement of interest in the case supporting the officers’ and associations’ position, indicating that the United States understands LEOSA to pre-empt any more restrictive state law, like the retired police officer permitting law. Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs prevailed.
New Jersey appealed and the circuit court affirmed. The Court contemplated whether LEOSA clearly grants the right to carry concealed firearms to qualified retired law enforcement officers.
To reach a conclusion, the Court applied the following analysis: “First, Congress must have intended that the provision in question benefit the plaintiff. Second, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the right assertedly protected by the statute is not so ‘vague and amorphous’ that its enforcement would strain judicial competence. Third, the statute must unambiguously impose a binding obligation on the States.”
It determined that the plain text of LEOSA unambiguously conferred upon compliant qualified retired law enforcement officers the right to carry concealed firearms, and for the individual states to respect and recognize that right. Indeed, LEOSA confers this right on qualified retired law enforcement officers “notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any state.”
The Court then considered whether individual, retired officers have the right to sue to enforce their rights under LEOSA under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: “LEOSA ‘lacks any indicia of congressional intent to preclude § 1983 enforcement. Congress did not include any language expressly foreclosing a Section 1983 remedy. Nor did it create a remedial scheme within LEOSA itself that is incompatible with Section 1983 enforcement.”
The Court evaluated whether the retired police officer law was preempted by LEOSA, meaning that Congress intended for states not to pass their own laws governing the concealed-carry rights of retired law enforcement officers. It easily concluded that “LEOSA preempted the retired police officer law. In LEOSA, Congress’s intent to preempt contrary state law is express and unmistakable. The statute opens by stating, ‘notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof’ a qualified retired law enforcement officer carrying the requisite identification may concealed-carry a firearm that has traveled in interstate commerce. It is difficult to imagine a clearer statement of preemption.” The Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, and where LEOSA and the retired police officer law come into conflict, LEOSA controls.
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association v. New Jersey, No. 22-2209, 2024 WL 607340 (3d Cir., 2024).