In yesterday's Gun Rights Examiner column, we looked at retired detective Rick Cowan of the New York City Police Department, disabled in "a line of duty [head] injury" with the result that he has been forbidden by the department to carry a gun in retirement. The reason given is he may be prone to losing consciousness if hit on the head, and thus unable to retain his weapon.
As I pointed out, that same risk applies to every human being on the face of the planet. Hit us on the head and we may conk out. Rocket, meet science.
What isn't clear is how much greater a risk Mr. Cowan poses than, say, an overweight active cop/retiree, or one with high blood pressure or heart disease, or one at risk of stroke.
Who made the decision to deny Cowan a gun, and what peer-reviewed and empirical data did they use to determine he poses a greater risk than others on the force routinely permitted? And how much greater does the risk need to be? Is there a threshold or is it arbitrary? And what are the medical qualifications/certifications of the administrator who made the final call?
Because with the information at hand, it sounds like Det. Cowan may just have a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act, including:
Sec. 12101. Findings and purpose
(a) Findings
The Congress finds that...
(5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including outright intentional exclusion...overprotective rules and policies...exclusionary qualification standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits...or other opportunities;
Yeah, that sounds about right. And then there's this:
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
It can hardly be argued that NYPD is not a public entity. And it can hardly be denied that Det. Cowan has been denied a benefit of a program based on the reason of his disability.
Perhaps he and his attorney should file a complaint with the Justice Department and get the feds to do their heavy lifting for them. And, yeah, I know--ADA is another unconstitutional usurpation by the national government--but this is a case of any chair in a bar fight, and the immediate short term goal is to clobber the other guy.
Besides, setting different coercive entities against each other would be fun to watch, kind of like a dinosaur fight, and it could further confound the designs of a certain pathological control freak who thinks his function is to rule.
And on the ever-present other hand, it would be illustrative of selective federal application, enforcement, hypocrisy and deliberate indifference if they refused to get involved.
So what's new there?
Comments
Since NYPD is dishonest, corrupt, and in general too lazy to be actually what the taxpayers ask for, it follows that what will happen is that this will dissappear down the Union/bureaucracy/payola/socialism rabbit hole, and the disturbed fat cats will wheeze a sigh of relief, and business as usual will go on.
"I know--ADA is another unconstitutional usurpation by the national government--but this is a case of any chair in a bar fight ..."
I personally love to whack authority over the head with their own policies and regulations. Idiots like Bloomberg dreamed up the ADA let them learn to live with it.
[W-III]
Poor fella - he's now been categorized as a mere citizen, and lost his only one privileges.
you raised a lot of valid points and a good course of action but it remains to be seen if anyone will follow through with it. The sad part is this will be a case of a taxpayer having to fight his own tax dollars when he opposes the ruling. The ruking was wrong and based on merits that cannot be defended at any level. but since when has that rule of thumb ever stopped a politician from issuing a ruling/statement/or recommendation that flew in the face of law? i hope this cop cleans up the courthouse floor with them.
He's being discriminated against just like every other law abiding citizen in NYC that isn't a supporter of the Blooming Idiot.
He needs to move to a "shall issue" State and obtain his concealed carry permit. Why anyone would want to live in that crime ridden filthy city is beyond me. Leave it to the politicians and criminals. Honest people should leave.
He's now reaping the actions of the system and city he once enforced. Anyone who chooses to enforce the laws of NYC for a living and then complains when karma bites them is being silly. Also the ADA is mostly an amazing violation of property rights, and in many cases common sense. (If the parking lot is full, why can't I park in the last remaining spot?) (If i'd rather hire an individual whom costs less to employ and takes less of my time because I don't have to modify preexisting facilities that is my prerogative)
Otter, he wants to live in that hellhole because he is (apparently was, having been kicked to the kerb) one of the Chosen Ones who get to make it a living Hell for everybody else.
how many people did this guy help put in jail for the "crime" of "criminal possession of a weapon"? He is getting what he deserves.
I'm with W-III on seconding David's "c u m* ulla sella in pugno taberna" aesthetic. In the words of Edward Abbey, "Always pull up survey stakes."
BTW, W-III, you get my vote for the coolest double-entendre signature I've yet seen. :-)
_________
* Thanks, censors: it appears that using the Latin word for "with" still marks one as a pornographer.
There is another federal law that may offer a more direct solution. On the basis of the information provided in the New York Daily News, it appears to me that Mr. Cowan would qualify to carry a concealed firearm, in any jurisdiction, under a federal law --the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, Title 18 U.S. Code § 926C, which overrides all state and local laws and government policies to the contrary, for qualified retired officers ("Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof . . .," it says). Perhaps Mr. Cowan needs to find the right lawyer to help him pursue his federally guaranteed right under this statute. I would transmit detailed information on the federal law directly to Mr. Cowan if I knew how to reach him.
Here's the weakness in that approach--it requires "a photographic identification issued by the agency from which the individual retired from service as a law enforcement officer that indicates that the individual has, not less recently than one year before the date the individual is carrying the concealed firearm, been tested or otherwise found by the agency to meet the standards established by the agency for training and qualification for active law enforcement officers to carry a firearm of the same type as the concealed firearm..."
The agency is saying he does not qualify and so will not issue the required photo ID. I can't find a provision in the code that overrides that.
While I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, I think that the federal law (18 USC 926c) is pretty clear that the agency cannot have one standard for qualifying active duty officers and another standard for retired officers. More importantly, perhaps, the only standards that are pertinent are the STATE's standards. So if Mr. Cowan can meet whatever qualifications standards the State of New York applies to active duty peace officers in general, he qualifies under the federal law, even if the local agency would like to impose additional standards. I do not have any information on what the New York State standards are, but I would be surprised to learn that state law disqualifies any officer with a shunt in his head. The federal law explicitly provides that a state-issued certification can suffice in lieu of a certification from the agency from which the LEO retired (see clause 2B) -- a clause included, I think, to prevent local agencies from frustrating the intent of the law.
I am ashamed of the NYC Police Commissioner and I am ashamed of the judge who rendered that regrettable descision. Detective Cowan risked his life and the safety of his family to infiltrate the highest levels of Organized Criime (The Mob).His efforts produced the most successful Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) prosecution in history. How was he rewarded? He was stripped of his weapon and the ability to defend himself as well as his family, who also made major sacrifices so he could get the job done. This is a travesty and an absolute disgrace. Good luck Rick and I hope that these short-sighted bufoons have a change of heart.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!