Retired cop sues New York State for confiscating guns after insomnia treatment

[The Legion]

A decorated retired New York cop who served in the U.S. Navy is challenging New York’s tough new SAFE Act gun control law, claiming in a lawsuit that his guns were confiscated after he was mistakenly diagnosed as mentally unstable after he sought treatment for a sleeping problem.

Donald Montgomery’s lawsuit contends that Gov. Andrew Cuomo and other state officials violated his Second Amendment rights when his guns were seized after a brief hospital stay for insomnia. Montgomery, a cop for 30 years and a U.S. Navy veteran, brought the lawsuit in Rochester Federal Court on Dec. 17, according to the Daily Caller.

 

The SAFE Act became law with little public debate after Cuomo convinced lawmakers that New York needed to do something after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Montgomery was the owner of four guns -- a Colt .38 handgun, a Derringer .38, a Glock 26 9-mm. and a Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 380.

His troubles started when he visited a Long Island hospital in May complaining of insomnia. He was discharged with a diagnosis of “depression, insomnia” and then returned a short time later for a 48-hour stay. The lawsuit says that during that visit, staff erroneously listed him as an “involuntary admission,” triggering the SAFE Act reporting provision. Those deemed at-risk for owning guns by mental health professionals have to be reported and their names entered into a database.

The lawsuit claims Montgomery should not have been reported because he was not a threat to himself or others. The suit says a hospital psychiatrist told him “You don’t belong here” and “I don’t know why you were referred here.”

The Daily Caller reports that on May 30, a week after his hospital stay, Suffolk County sheriff’s deputies confiscated Montgomery’s guns. His pistol license was then suspended in June and revoked three months later.

Montgomery is demanding in his lawsuit that the state issue written notification to all individuals whose names have been collected in the SAFE Act database.

Last month, the Syracuse Post-Standard found nearly 39,000 names in the database and that 278 of those were gun owners who were in danger of losing their firearms. The list of 278 included 16 in Suffolk, where Montgomery lived.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/04/retired-cop-sues-new-york-for-confiscating-guns-after-hospital-visit-for/

[Ugly]

I read that, libs are insane! I think these last 6 years have cemented their mental defects in the record books.
Of course there are two sides to every story but we know the libs are defective.

[Grand Torino]

 There are many reasons for not being able to sleep. Side effects from some medications, stress, but depression is not usually one of them. The fact that the Nurse's notes made NO mention of any mental disorder is telling. A regular hospital is NOT a mental hospital. I predict he will get money in the law suit and get his weapons back. If he is smart, he will leave that crappy state and move to the central part of the country or south.

[Dolomite_supafly]

You reap what you sow. I bet before it affected him he did not have a problem with the law.

[Ugly]

Just moving to that state will make you lose sleep

[Monkeyman2500]

You reap what you sow. I bet before it affected him he did not have a problem with the law.

Makes you wonder. It seems that way for cases where officials and ex officials get in trouble and lose their weapons. What ever happened to that guy that carried his gun in a school and got caught with it saying he forgot he had it?

[Omega]

Makes you wonder. It seems that way for cases where officials and ex officials get in trouble and lose their weapons. What ever happened to that guy that carried his gun in a school and got caught with it saying he forgot he had it?

I read he got off with a slap on the wrist, and he was one of the ones that helped pass the law he broke.

[Monkeyman2500]

I read he got off with a slap on the wrist, and he was one of the ones that helped pass the law he broke.

Go figure.

[K191145]

You reap what you sow. I bet before it affected him he did not have a problem with the law.

 

Could very well be, he could have been a big supporter of the law, if that's the case then I guess that Karma thingy caught up with him. It could be that common attitude, I don't care because it doesn't affect me. Well it seems that it's affected him. Just wait till Obama Care starts affecting more and more people, people who thought it was a good law.

[jh225]

I predict he will get money in the law suit and get his weapons back. If he is smart, he will leave that crappy state and move to the central part of the country or south.

 

He will get no money in the law suit. About all he will get is a judge who orders a re-instatement of his permit.

 

As for the leaving that crappy state, I did just that after I retired.

 

 

 

You reap what you sow. I bet before it affected him he did not have a problem with the law.

 

 

Makes you wonder. It seems that way for cases where officials and ex officials get in trouble and lose their weapons

 

Could very well be, he could have been a big supporter of the law, if that's the case then I guess that Karma thingy caught up with him. It could be that common attitude, I don't care because it doesn't affect me. Well it seems that it's affected him. J

 

I am actually extremely puzzled and very disappointed to see these comments. None of you know anything about the man, yet you are all quite willing to see him as the devil. Why?

 

Let's go over a few laws in NYS, shall we?

 

When an LEO retires in NYS, his right to carry is IMMEDIATELY terminated and he becomes a "regular" citizen. Unless said LEO has a NYS pistol permit, he must surrender his handguns to whatever jurisdiction he resides in. (Or if his spouse has a permit, he can transfer them to her permit).

 

There are quite a few very large counties that will NOT issue carry permits in NYS. They issue "Premises" or "Target & Hunting" permits (which BTW are not in the law books) and have done so for ions because no one has the funds to fight it in court. It has been attempted, but is still an ongoing battle. It appears that the former officer did in fact live in a county who issues full carry permits.

 

Many LEO departments will not allow their officers to even obtain a personal permit while employed by them. There have been challenges to that rule and some have been changed (ask me how I know :pleased: )

 

So a retired officer who does not hold a personal permit must fight for his permit just as any other NYS citizen does, with "favors" rarely given in the process.

 

The fact that some of you think every single LEO whether working or retired is out to take your rights away is absolutely asinine and it shows total disrespect. In many instances, the LEO is every bit of a 2A supporter as many here are, but with your blinders on, you do not see that.

 

That POS Coumo made up the "SAFE" act and passed it in the middle of the night without going through the proper channels just as Obama uses his pen to sign "executive power" laws. It is then up to the people to overturn such a law which is no easy task. Hell, when Cuomo made up his new law, he put in place a 7 round capacity limit on magazines. Too bad very few 7 rd mags exist other than 1911's, etc. The law also immediately made all officers that carry more than 7 rd's criminals. Once that was brought to Coumo's attention, he said "that wasn't my intention and not what I meant". He then altered the law with another swipe of his "executive power" pen

 

Not all LEO's past or present are evil and if some people would open their eyes and ears, maybe that could change. One should not judge if one does not know.

 

Carry on.........
 

[DaveTN]

So a retired officer who does not hold a personal permit must fight for his permit just as any other NYS citizen does, with "favors" rarely given in the process.

Why would a retired NY Officer not be covered by the LEOSA?

[Monkeyman2500]

Take it easy jh225, I as well as others are large supporters of the LEO community. I only said it makes you wonder if he ever had an issue with the law beforehand. I'm not judging the guy good or bad. The politicians are the gun rights opponents, and the problem for law enforcement as well. It may be that it's not a local issue, but I don't see a lot of rallying to change their laws in that state.

[jh225]

Why would a retired NY Officer not be covered by the LEOSA?

 

HR 218 does not automatically cover a retired LEO.

 

In fact, the law is VERY hard to actually use by the vast majority of retirees. A person must either qualify each year thru his former dept or find an instructor who is authorized to give the requal. The big problem is that because the Feds did not specify exactly who or how the requal is to be done, MANY dept's refuse to issue their former employees the course and even NYS Troopers have told their retirees to F-off. So yes, an officer would be covered if he can get re-qualified every year. Here in TN, it is very hard to do and I finally found out who is giving the course in SW TN, and he is the only one doing it.

[Monkeyman2500]

HR 218 does not automatically cover a retired LEO.

In fact, the law is VERY hard to actually use by the vast majority of retirees. A person must either qualify each year thru his former dept or find an instructor who is authorized to give the requal. The big problem is that because the Feds did not specify exactly who or how the requal is to be done, MANY dept's refuse to issue their former employees the course and even NYS Troopers have told their retirees to F-off. So yes, an officer would be covered if he can get re-qualified every year. Here in TN, it is very hard to do and I finally found out who is giving the course in SW TN, and he is the only one doing it.

I think this is a perfect example of how messed up the laws are. Why would any LEO of more than a few years, much less retired, need to qualify for an HCP. They are trusted with one while on duty but not after. I'm not certain but I bet it's the same for military personnel.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I am former LE. Because of that I have a unique perspective because I have been on both sides. I have had long conversations with fellow officers about gun ownership by civilians

There are a lot of LE that see an armed populace as a good thing while there are others who think only the .gov, and their representatives, should be armed. Just because an officer does what is right according to the law does not mean they agree with it. Look at the MJ laws, a lot of officers do not see MJ as something that should be criminal but they follow the law when they have to.

I have spoke to a lot of officers around the country over the last 3-5 years because of all the free time I have and the gun boards I am a member of. And I often end up talking about guns and ownership. On more occasions than I can count they have said they prefer that guns were not as available to make their jobs safer. I ask then if we give up our guns would they give up the guns they own and immediately they become defensive stating they should be able to have anything they want as LE or former LE. Now it also depends on the region of the country where they fall. Every single officer I have spoke to from California have said guns should be 100% illegal and officers should allowed to have anything they want, even after they retire.

Again, just because an officer follows the law or the Constitution does not mean they agree with it. And I am not saying all officers are in this group but they are not a rarity either.

[K191145]

He will get no money in the law suit. About all he will get is a judge who orders a re-instatement of his permit.

 

As for the leaving that crappy state, I did just that after I retired.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am actually extremely puzzled and very disappointed to see these comments. None of you know anything about the man, yet you are all quite willing to see him as the devil. Why?

 

Let's go over a few laws in NYS, shall we?

 

When an LEO retires in NYS, his right to carry is IMMEDIATELY terminated and he becomes a "regular" citizen. Unless said LEO has a NYS pistol permit, he must surrender his handguns to whatever jurisdiction he resides in. (Or if his spouse has a permit, he can transfer them to her permit).

 

There are quite a few very large counties that will NOT issue carry permits in NYS. They issue "Premises" or "Target & Hunting" permits (which BTW are not in the law books) and have done so for ions because no one has the funds to fight it in court. It has been attempted, but is still an ongoing battle. It appears that the former officer did in fact live in a county who issues full carry permits.

 

Many LEO departments will not allow their officers to even obtain a personal permit while employed by them. There have been challenges to that rule and some have been changed (ask me how I know :pleased: )

 

So a retired officer who does not hold a personal permit must fight for his permit just as any other NYS citizen does, with "favors" rarely given in the process.

 

The fact that some of you think every single LEO whether working or retired is out to take your rights away is absolutely asinine and it shows total disrespect. In many instances, the LEO is every bit of a 2A supporter as many here are, but with your blinders on, you do not see that.

 

That POS Coumo made up the "SAFE" act and passed it in the middle of the night without going through the proper channels just as Obama uses his pen to sign "executive power" laws. It is then up to the people to overturn such a law which is no easy task. Hell, when Cuomo made up his new law, he put in place a 7 round capacity limit on magazines. Too bad very few 7 rd mags exist other than 1911's, etc. The law also immediately made all officers that carry more than 7 rd's criminals. Once that was brought to Coumo's attention, he said "that wasn't my intention and not what I meant". He then altered the law with another swipe of his "executive power" pen

 

Not all LEO's past or present are evil and if some people would open their eyes and ears, maybe that could change. One should not judge if one does not know.

 

Carry on.........
 

 

As I said, "could be" and "could have" and used the word "if". In other words I made no judgement about the man. But "IF" he was a supporter of that bill, "THEN" he got what he asked for, enforcement of an un-constitutional law. "IF" he wasn't a supporter of the law then he was a victim of an un-costitutional law.