<P> LEOSA is often incorrectly referred to as "H.R. 218". The act was introduced during the 108th Congress as H.R. 218 and enacted as Public Law 108 - 277 . The law was later amended by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010 (S. 1132, Public Law 111 - 272), and Section 1099C of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (H.R. 4310, Public Law 112 - 239). It is codified within the provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 as 18 USC § 926B and USC § 926C . </P> <P> Whether or not a person is privileged by the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) of 2004 and its amendments in 2010 and 2013 to carry a concealed firearm depends on whether or not he or she meets the federal definitions for either a "qualified law enforcement officer" or a "qualified retired law enforcement officer ." If a person meets the criteria, then "notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof", he or she may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any state or political subdivision thereof . As a result, an individual who qualifies under LEOSA does not require a state - issued permit for carrying a concealed firearm in any state, including that person's home state . This is because LEOSA, by its terms, provides in its introductory paragraphs (Sections 926B (a) and Section 926C (a)) that notwithstanding the law of "any State" a person who qualifies under LEOSA is not subject to the concealed carry laws of any state . Some officials, such as in New Jersey, believe that a retired officer residing in NJ must still obtain a state issued permit in order to be eligible to carry a firearm under LEOSA, in effect nullifying LEOSA . However, that view assumes New Jersey law is not preempted by LEOSA and has no support in the LEOSA statute itself, by its terms, or in any published court case to date . Furthermore, LEOSA's legislative history indicates that its framers intended LEOSA to supersede all states' laws, including the home state of the individual claiming its exemption . For example, Congress declared LEOSA's purpose was to implement "national measures of uniformity and consistency" and allow officers to carry a concealed firearm "anywhere within the United States ." In addition, Congress rejected efforts to allow states to opt out of LEOSA . The House of Representatives also defeated, and the Senate refused to consider, proposed amendments aimed at preserving local law enforcement agencies' discretion to regulate "the conditions under which their officers may carry firearms ." Thus, both the words of LEOSA and its legislative intent clearly establish that LEOSA applies nationwide, including the home state of the individual . The privilege specifically does not extend to machine guns, destructive devices, or suppressors . This law includes state and public university and / or college campus law enforcement officers, however this law does not cover private campus police or company police . </P> <P> Although LEOSA preempts state and local laws, there are two notable exceptions: "the laws of any State that (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property" (such as a bars, private clubs, amusement parks, etc .), or "(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park" Additionally, LEOSA does not override the federal Gun - Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) which prohibits carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of elementary or secondary schools . Although the GFSZA authorizes on - duty law enforcement officers to carry firearms in such circumstances, off - duty and retired law enforcement officers are still restricted from doing so unless they have a firearms license issued from the state in which they reside and then it is only good for the state in which they reside . Individuals must also obey any federal laws and federal agency policies that restrict the carrying of concealed firearms in certain federal buildings and lands, as well as federal regulations prohibiting the carriage of firearms on airplanes . </P> <P> Debate has continued over the effect and scope of policies issued by individual law enforcement agencies in relation to their own employees, where such policies would appear to restrict the ability of a law enforcement officer to carry a firearm . Some argue that the law does not override the internal policies of a department or agency . However, when LEOSA was under consideration in the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, considerable representations were made to the effect that it would override agency - specific policies, leading to opposition to the Act from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Police Executive Research Forum, and the United States Conference of Mayors, which was expressed as a dissenting view in the report of the Committee . Congressman Bobby Scott (D - VA) proposed an amendment to the Bill to provide that it "shall not be construed to supersede or limit the rules, regulations, policies, or practices of any State or local law enforcement agency," but this amendment was opposed by the sponsors of the bill, and was rejected by the Committee 21 - 11, so the enacted law contains no such exception . In his dissent to the passage of LEOSA, Senator Edward M. Kennedy acknowledged that LEOSA overrides agency policy in accordance with United States Supreme Court precedent: "The bill removes the ability of police departments to enforce rules and policies on when and how their own officers can carry firearms . Police chiefs will lose the authority to prohibit their own officers from carrying certain weapons on - duty or off - duty . Section 2 of the bill provides that regardless of' ' any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof,' ' any individual who qualifies as a law enforcement officer and who carries photo identification will be authorized to carry any firearm . In a variety of contexts, including the federal preemption of state law, courts have interpreted the term' ' law' ' to include agency rules and regulations . The Supreme Court has ruled that this term specifically includes contractual obligations between employers and employees, such as work rules, policies, and practices promulgated by state and local police departments . </P>

Can off duty police carry guns in schools in california