Bill Overview
Title: Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Security Act of 2022
Description: This bill generally requires federal agencies to offer to sell to individuals who are current or former law enforcement officers functional firearms that would otherwise be destroyed.
Sponsors: Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-4]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals who are active or former law enforcement officers
Estimated Size: 2800000
- The bill specifically addresses the sale of functional firearms to individuals who are current or former law enforcement officers.
- Active law enforcement officers in various roles across federal, state, and local levels may be impacted by this legislation if they choose to purchase firearms through this provision.
- Former law enforcement officers, including those who have retired or moved on to other careers, will also find themselves affected as they are now eligible to buy firearms which would otherwise be dismantled.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts a specific group: active and former law enforcement officers.
- There are approximately 2.8 million potential eligible buyers in the U.S.
- The budget limits mean the policy can only affect a small percentage of this target population, especially considering the cost of purchasing and distributing functional firearms.
- It is essential to simulate a diverse group including officers who may or may not be interested in purchasing firearms slightly after service or retirement.
- Include a mix of opinions capturing the continuum from support to indifference or opposition to the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Police Detective (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy as it allows us to retain useful tools that enhance our safety both on and off duty.
- The financial aspect is appealing, as these firearms would otherwise be destroyed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Federal Agent (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a practical policy for those of us who still feel connected to our roles.
- I am happy about the opportunity to purchase what was once standard issued.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Sheriff's Deputy (San Antonio, TX)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While some colleagues may appreciate this, I see little personal benefit as my priority is community policing, not firearms ownership.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Active FBI Agent (Seattle, WA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a good backup option for enhanced personal safety; however, procurement should consider ethical implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired Police Officer (Miami, FL)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an opportunity to keep a piece of my past as a memento, although I doubt I'll have any practical use for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Border Patrol Agent (Denver, CO)
Age: 45 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Given the growing threats, having the option to retain a firearm is reassuring.
- I'd prefer if the process ensure firearms aren't misused.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired State Trooper (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have mixed feelings; the policy seems unnecessary for someone who's moved on.
- The availability might pose issues, but I understand others might value it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
NYPD Officer (New York, NY)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 17/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I find the policy beneficial; it encourages efficient use of resources.
- However, I'd need to see how this affects operational procedures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Border Patrol Supervisor (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I can see practical benefits but would not procure unless necessary.
- Financial and security considerations might sway others.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Debt Enforcement Specialist (Austin, TX)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I might buy a firearm for nostalgia, but it's not something I'm excited about.
- Seems more targeted at those currently on duty.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $4000000)
Year 2: $2900000 (Low: $1900000, High: $3900000)
Year 3: $2800000 (Low: $1800000, High: $3800000)
Year 5: $2600000 (Low: $1600000, High: $3600000)
Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3500000)
Year 100: $2000000 (Low: $0, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy's primary costs are administrative, involving the setup and execution of the firearm sale program.
- Potential legal and regulatory considerations related to the resale of firearms.
- The volume of firearms for sale depends heavily on federal agency inventories and policies regarding their disposition.