Louisiana House Bill HB495

Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/2/18
• Refer: 3/2/18
• Refer: 3/12/18
• Report Pass: 4/4/18
• Engrossed: 4/12/18
• Refer: 4/16/18
• Report Pass: 5/8/18
• Enrolled: 5/14/18
• Chaptered: 5/25/18
• Passed: 5/25/18

Caption

Provides relative to concealed carry of firearms for qualified retired law enforcement officers

Impact

The legislation modifies the requirements for retired law enforcement personnel to carry concealed firearms. It specifies that only those who separated from service in good standing, and who have not been medically found unqualified due to health reasons, can obtain the necessary identification. This change is expected to create a more uniform process for retired officers seeking to carry concealed weapons and could potentially increase the number of retired law enforcement officials who are authorized to carry firearms.

Summary

House Bill 495 aims to amend existing laws regarding the carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers in Louisiana. The bill establishes clearer criteria for what constitutes a 'qualified retired law enforcement officer' and requires law enforcement agencies to issue photographic identification to eligible individuals for the purpose of carrying concealed weapons. This is intended to enhance the clarity and accessibility of such regulations for retired officers.

Sentiment

Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 495 appears to be supportive, particularly among law enforcement groups and advocates for retired officers. Proponents argue that the bill acknowledges the ongoing service of retired law enforcement personnel and enhances their safety and rights after retirement. There is much less reported opposition, suggesting a broader acceptance of bolstering the rights of retired officers to carry concealed firearms.

Contention

As the bill requires medical and performance evaluations as part of the qualification process, concerns may arise regarding privacy and the potential stigma attached to mental health evaluations. Critics may question how these requirements are enforced and whether they adequately balance the rights of retired officers with public safety considerations, but specific notable points of contention have not been heavily documented in the available discussions or voting records.