From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), an analysis of LEOSA 2010 amendments has been produced which shows that the cost of making these needed improvements would be neglible. The language of the report, first issued on March 19, 2010, is listed below:
From the CBO:
Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act Improvements Act of 2010
As reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 11, 2010
Current federal law exempts certain active and retired law enforcement officers from
most state and local laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms. S. 1132 would
clarify that officers of the Amtrak Police Department, the Federal Reserve, and the executive branch of the federal government would qualify as individuals who may carry
concealed firearms. The bill also would change the requirements that retired officers must meet to carry concealed firearms. CBO estimates that implementing the bill would result in no significant costs to the federal government. Enacting S. 1132 would not affect direct spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
S. 1132 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act (UMRA) because it would expand an existing mandate that preempts state or local laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons. CBO estimates that the costs, if any, for state, local, or tribal governments to comply would be insignificant and well below the annual threshold established in UMRA ($70 million in 2010, adjusted annually for inflation).
S. 1132 contains no private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for federal costs) and Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact). The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
In other words, there is no reason not to move forward and pass these new changes into law, which still appears to be the likely outcome when the House votes on the already approved Senate Bill.