Statement of Emma Simson
Senior Policy Counsel
Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia
Before the Committee on the Judiciary and Public Safety
Honorable Charles Allen, Chairperson
Public Hearing on B24-0760, the “Omnibus Firearm and Ghost Gun Clarification Amendment Act of 2022”
Good afternoon, Chairman Allen and Councilmembers. My name is Emma Simson, and I serve as Senior Policy Counsel at the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (OAG). With me today is Caroline Van Zile, the Solicitor General for the District of Columbia.
On behalf of OAG, we would like to thank you for holding a hearing on B24-0760, the “Omnibus Firearm and Ghost Gun Clarification Amendment Act of 2022.” This bill seeks to clarify, preserve, and strengthen the District’s gun laws. In particular, the bill includes small but important modifications to the District’s prohibitions on ghost guns and firearms manufacturing to help ensure those prohibitions remain effective. The bill also addresses several gaps in the District’s gun laws, including gaps in application of the District’s gun laws to off-duty law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions. OAG believes that this bill will help promote public safety, and OAG urges the Council to pass it.
Clarifications of the District’s Prohibitions on Ghost Guns and Firearms Manufacturing
I would like to first discuss the provisions aimed at clarifying the District’s prohibitions on ghost guns and firearms manufacturing. In recent years, District law enforcement has noted an uptick in “ghost guns”—guns that lack serial numbers or that may be undetectable by metal detectors or other devices commonly used to detect firearms. Ghost guns pose serious risks to public safety. Most critically, the absence of serial numbers makes it difficult for law enforcement to trace guns used to commit crimes and, thus, to identify and prosecute wrongdoers. Recognizing the dangers posed by ghost guns, last year, this Council enacted a prohibition on the registration and possession of ghost guns in the District. Shortly after, a federal lawsuit challenged aspects of that prohibition as well as the reach of a longstanding prohibition on commercial firearms manufacturing. The lawsuit alleged that these prohibitions reach conduct protected by the Second Amendment.
This bill will permanently clarify the reach of the prohibitions and ensure their consistency with the Second Amendment. Specifically, the bill will amend the definition of ghost guns so that it continues to capture true ghost guns—meaning guns that are undetectable or untraceable—but does not inadvertently capture common polymer-frame or self-made guns that are detectable and traceable. The bill will also clarify that the District’s commercial manufacturing prohibition does not prevent a hobbyist from making a gun for personal use as long as the individual embeds the gun with a unique serial number and properly registers the gun with the Metropolitan Police
Department.
Modifications to Close Gaps in Application of the District’s Gun Laws to Off-Duty Law Enforcement Officers from Other Jurisdictions
I would like to turn next to the bill’s provisions aimed at addressing gaps in application of the District’s gun laws to off-duty law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions. Currently, many of the District’s gun laws broadly exempt law enforcement officers from their scope. As an example, District law prohibits carrying a firearm in public without a license. But it exempts from this prohibition “[m]arshals, sheriffs, prison or jail wardens, or their deputies, policemen or other duly appointed law enforcement officers, … [s]pecial police officers and campus police officers who [are authorized to] carry a firearm,” and “[o]fficers or employees of the United States duly authorized to carry a concealed pistol.” D.C. Code § 22-4505.
The current exemptions for law enforcement officers—including off-duty law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions—are broader than necessary and may undermine public safety. Although the federal Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) authorizes some law enforcement officers and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms in all 50 states and the District, and limits state and local jurisdictions’ ability to regulate such officers’ carrying of concealed firearms, LEOSA’s authorization includes a number of important and common-sense caveats. For instance, LEOSA only authorizes “qualified” law enforcement officers to carry firearms nationwide. An officer is only considered “qualified” if the officer satisfies several criteria, including that the officer’s employing agency authorizes the officer to carry a firearm, the officer is not subject to disciplinary actions that could result in suspension or loss of the officer’s police powers, and the officer is not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Further, under LEOSA, an officer is only exempt from local laws regulating the carrying of fifirearms when the officer carries photo identification indicating that the officer is active or retired law enforcement. Importantly, LEOSA does not displace state and local laws that restrict the possession of firearms on state and local government property or state and local laws that authorize private individuals and entities to restrict the possession of firearms on private
property.
The omnibus bill adds common-sense restrictions that are permitted by LEOSA. For instance, if the bill is enacted, a non-District law enforcement officer would only be exempt from the District’s registration and licensing requirements when the officer is a “qualified law enforcement officer” under LEOSA and carries the requisite photo identification. The bill will also prohibit off-duty law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions from carrying firearms in District buildings or on District property, given the sensitive nature of those locations. And it will prohibit off-duty law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions from possessing firearms in private residences or private establishments when the owners post signs prohibiting firearms or otherwise inform the officers that firearms are prohibited. The law would, however, permit law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions to carry firearms in these locations when they are engaged in official duties, such as participating in authorized honor guards or providing security at presidential inaugurations.
In sum, under our current statutory scheme, off-duty law enforcement officers from other jurisdictions are largely exempt from the District’s laws governing the places and circumstances in which individuals can carry concealed handguns. Those broad exemptions are unnecessary and have the potential to compromise public safety. OAG therefore encourages the Council to include the common-sense restrictions that Congress authorized when it passed LEOSA.
Modifications to Close Additional Gaps in the District’s Gun Laws
Finally, the omnibus bill closes several miscellaneous gaps in the District’s gun laws. Section 2(k), for instance, addresses a gap in the District’s prohibition on carrying a pistol while impaired. As that prohibition reads now, it extends only to individuals who are licensed to carry pistols in the District. But it is obviously just as dangerous—if not more dangerous—for an unlicensed individual to carry a firearm while impaired. The bill will therefore amend the provision to provide that “[n]o person shall carry a pistol while impaired.”
Section 3(a) of the bill addresses a gap in D.C. Code § 22-4503, which makes it a crime for certain categories of people to own or possess firearms. One such category includes people subject to court orders prohibiting them from harassing, assaulting, threatening, or stalking others—known as “no HATS” orders—if the orders require them to relinquish any firearms. That category does not, however, encompass people who are subject to even stricter “stay away” and “no contact” orders. There is no reason to treat people subject to “stay away” and “no contact” orders more leniently than people subject to “no HATS” orders. The bill will therefore amend the code section so that its restrictions and penalties apply to people subject to “stay away” and “no contact” orders that require them to relinquish any firearms.
Finally, the bill clarifies that improper transportation of a firearm is a criminal offense. Currently, a criminal code provision titled “Lawful transportation of firearms” imposes restrictions on how firearms are transported. It specifies, for instance, that when a person transports a firearm by vehicle, the firearm cannot be loaded and cannot be accessible from the passenger compartment. Recently, criminal defendants have challenged whether a violation of the transportation provision is a freestanding criminal offense, resulting in litigation. To resolve any doubts, the omnibus bill will amend the transportation provision to make it abundantly clear that transporting a firearm in contravention of the provision is a standalone criminal offense.
* * *
The omnibus bill makes important changes to the District’s gun laws to clarify, preserve, and strengthen those laws. On behalf of OAG, thank you for your consideration of this bill. The Solicitor General and I are available to answer any questions.