I call bs. It was put into place because it could be, because it was possible to give 1 class of citizens preferential treatment (that class that wields power and protects those who wield power).
The odds of a cop running into a person he once arrested, while the cop is in his home town, is great.
The odds of a cop running into a person he once arrested, while on vacation in another state, is virtually nil (statistically insignificant).
I've never heard of ANY data to support the need for HR 218 (where a police officer was accosted by a criminal he or she once arrested while the officer was visiting another state). And really it would have to be in one of the few rabid anti CCW states (NY, DC and CA) for it to count, because in most other states one can get a non-res permit.
If a cop wants to visit NY while not on official duty, he can do the same thing that any other citizen does.... go unarmed and be careful. And actually hooray for NY. The feds should not be selectively enforcing the second amendment... when they force all states to adhere to it, for all citizens to enjoy, then I'll join you in complaining about NY.
Furthermore, they knew it was a dangerous job when they signed up for it, that's called 'assumed risk.' So they shouldn't have been crying now about how they can't carry a gun 24/7 no matter where they go (on or off duty, retired or not). Same goes for a judge, you send people to jail for life, of course you're going to make enemies. If that scares you go find another job.
And by the way, living is dangerous. Each and every citizen deserves the EXACT SAME right of self protection no matter where they are. A cop (active or retired) does not deserve any special rights, or treatment. Nor does a judge, or elected official -- They don't deserve special protection or access to an ability to exercise the RKBA that 'normal' citizens do not enjoy.
The average street cop may not care too much about CCW (don't mind it). But the FOP is adamently anti-CCW, and a majority of chiefs, or police who hold elected positions, are against it. When they stop working against my freedom I'll start giving a hoot about theirs (and their safety).
Sorry if it sounds harsh, but acts like HR 218 only strengthen the 'us vs them' reality.