Veteran’s Guns Confiscated After He Sought Treatment for Insomnia

January 5 2015
by GSL Staff
Share This Post

Guns Save Lives is not supported by ads and is ran as an independent project. If you support this project please consider supporting us on Patreon. Registration takes just a moment and even $1 is a massive help in continuing our work. Thank you so much.


Donald Montgomery is a Navy veteran and accomplished NYPD detective. No stranger to dealing with stress and firearms. Despite the fact that Montgomery’s jobs not only allowed, but required, him to handle firearms in high stress situations, the state of New York decided he was unfit to own firearms after he sought treatment for extreme insomnia.

Montgomery claims in a recently filed lawsuit that after several visits to the hospital and his primary car physician for symptoms of insomnia and stress following a move his firearms were confiscated under New York’s SAFE Act.

The SAFE Act is a set of laws that was passed literally under the cover of darkness in New York following the Sandy Hook shooting. One of those new laws changed the state’s mental health laws and encouraged healthcare workers to report people they deemed to be possibly dangerous to themselves or others to the state. It does not have to be a mental health professional who makes these claims.

Montgomery was never involuntarily treated, which is usually a requirement for limiting a person’s firearms rights.

In fact, several notes in Montgomery’s medical files specifically say that he is not experiencing suicidal or violent thoughts. Montgomery was ultimately diagnosed with insomnia and mild depression (possibly caused by the insomnia), but otherwise no mental health issues were ever mentioned.

It’s unknown at what point Montgomery’s files were handed over to the state or who transmitted them, but under the new laws that doesn’t matter.

One of the gun’s confiscated was a pistol given to him as a prize for being the top recruit in his police academy class.

Montgomery claims in the lawsuit that the new laws violate his other citizen’s Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Disqus Comments

comments powered by Disqus