-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
NYPD - No Guns For "Nuts": Former Officer's Permits Yanked
- Thread starter Kevlar
- Start date
W
wolf223
interesting....
if these dirt bags faked PTSD to milk the system, they get every thing else that comes along with it.
who the hell retires in NYC?![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
if these dirt bags faked PTSD to milk the system, they get every thing else that comes along with it.
who the hell retires in NYC?
caboose84
NES Member
As much as I hate the arcane licensing laws in New York and the unfairness of them, I have to take some small joy in karma...
Most especially if these guys claimed "mental issues" to get their city pensions boosted... Normal retirement for the NYPD after 20 years is 50% (and it's taxable), if it's a "disability" pension it's 75% and tax free... The other scam is if on the exit physical you have heart (or lung) disease that is "assumed" to be work related, and thus a disability...
And lots of them stay in the NYC area for a while after retirement as they are relatively young (early 40's to early 50's) and have kids in school, plus they can get a "security" job with the license, so they can work until the kids graduate then leave...
Most especially if these guys claimed "mental issues" to get their city pensions boosted... Normal retirement for the NYPD after 20 years is 50% (and it's taxable), if it's a "disability" pension it's 75% and tax free... The other scam is if on the exit physical you have heart (or lung) disease that is "assumed" to be work related, and thus a disability...
And lots of them stay in the NYC area for a while after retirement as they are relatively young (early 40's to early 50's) and have kids in school, plus they can get a "security" job with the license, so they can work until the kids graduate then leave...
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
My dad was bitching about the underlying problem (the retirement rules) in NY when he was up here last weekend. He was fuming at the FD and the Railroad for being even worse.
But, the more relevant thing to this thread is unless and until these people are charged and convicted or their retirements are challenged, they are covered under LEOSA and can carry whatever they want whenever they want. They would need to move in order to buy anything, but lets face it they are better off getting the 'f out of dodge. The vast majority of people caught up in this stayed in the area. I am betting there are more who split for greener, cheaper pastures.
But, the more relevant thing to this thread is unless and until these people are charged and convicted or their retirements are challenged, they are covered under LEOSA and can carry whatever they want whenever they want. They would need to move in order to buy anything, but lets face it they are better off getting the 'f out of dodge. The vast majority of people caught up in this stayed in the area. I am betting there are more who split for greener, cheaper pastures.
SteelShooter
NES Member
who the hell retires in NYC?
My cousin worked for NYPD, retired after 20 year (he was around 40) and then got on the NYFD for 20 and retired, double dips on the pension.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
The whole point of 20 year pensions is that they are supposedly too old to work after 20 years... My god.
bfm
NES Member
Well, too old to work those jobs. Though I do not really see this as a double dip exactly. He worked both jobs and earned the pensions they come with. Most companies to not have pensions any more, but my first one out of college did and I was there long enough to be vested, so when I go to claim it, I get something like 5% of my final pay there. That should about buy me a cup of coffe a month by the time I retire. Second compnay I worked for also had pensions, but it went under before I was vested. Now it is all just 401ks.
Now, the guys who end up out on retirement or disability who get a higher pension for being temporarily assigned to a position above their pay scale bothers me. Especially when it looks like this is how 80% of the Boston FD were going out for a while.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
I don't begrudge him taking a pension from the PD and even the FD as he did work the 20 years for both. The point I was making was the second job and age. Hypothetically why couldn't he stay in the police force for 20 more years? More importantly why do we allow people to leave after 20 with full pensions?
This article has nothing to do with Pensions.
It is about SSI and SSDI. If you have a mental illness, you get more money in your Social Security checks not your pension. It is also retroactive to the date you started collecting. The main reason for this is that the people that need to live in a Long Term Care Facility can afford the care they need.
It is about SSI and SSDI. If you have a mental illness, you get more money in your Social Security checks not your pension. It is also retroactive to the date you started collecting. The main reason for this is that the people that need to live in a Long Term Care Facility can afford the care they need.
bfm
NES Member
Sorry, was not really implying you were, just picking up the thread from there. As for the extra 20 in the PD, unless he wanted to or was an an officer and didn't stop at sergeant, the short answer is probably that it made hime more money to do it this way. It does make one wonder about the system though.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Yes, this part of the story that is the case. But this story is part of a MUCH larger pension scandal that is not so slowly unfolding out in NY and pensions are definitely a part of it. Look to caboose's post (#3) for more and you will see the details on why.
Bill Nance
Banned
This is an extremely dangerous precedent.
"Mentally ill" describes a giant swathe of illnesses and problems ranging from mild depression to paranoid schizophrenia. I keep seeing this one pop up WRT gun rights and it scares me. Why? Because you can count on everyone who's ever been depressed and needed medication, including people who have recently lost a spouse or child, being permanently disarmed. It's not that it might happen, it's that it absolutely WILL happen.
If you're safe enough to be walking the street, you're safe enough to own a firearm. They're talking about people who are claiming disability from mental illness, which could include things as relatively harmless as mild bi-polar mania (symptoms of which are usually irresponsible spending and sexual behavior and nothing more) that's been managed well by meds for decades with no criminal history or violent history and permanently removing fundamental rights from them with no due process, no crime ever committed, etc.
Disability comes in lots of flavors. I've known people on mental SSDI who simply can't hold a job because they can't reliably show up. They'll work their asses off when they're there, but they aren't there reliably enough to keep a job. One lady I knew had worked every day of her life and finally got to the point she just couldn't do it any more. She was no more threat to anyone than anyone on this board.
Being that it's NYC, I default to the position of it's probably a swindle to game the system. I don't particularly care about the specific cases as much as I care about another segment of law-abiding citizenry being disarmed with no due process, no crimes, and no reason other than irrational fear based on ignorance.
"Mentally ill" describes a giant swathe of illnesses and problems ranging from mild depression to paranoid schizophrenia. I keep seeing this one pop up WRT gun rights and it scares me. Why? Because you can count on everyone who's ever been depressed and needed medication, including people who have recently lost a spouse or child, being permanently disarmed. It's not that it might happen, it's that it absolutely WILL happen.
If you're safe enough to be walking the street, you're safe enough to own a firearm. They're talking about people who are claiming disability from mental illness, which could include things as relatively harmless as mild bi-polar mania (symptoms of which are usually irresponsible spending and sexual behavior and nothing more) that's been managed well by meds for decades with no criminal history or violent history and permanently removing fundamental rights from them with no due process, no crime ever committed, etc.
Disability comes in lots of flavors. I've known people on mental SSDI who simply can't hold a job because they can't reliably show up. They'll work their asses off when they're there, but they aren't there reliably enough to keep a job. One lady I knew had worked every day of her life and finally got to the point she just couldn't do it any more. She was no more threat to anyone than anyone on this board.
Being that it's NYC, I default to the position of it's probably a swindle to game the system. I don't particularly care about the specific cases as much as I care about another segment of law-abiding citizenry being disarmed with no due process, no crimes, and no reason other than irrational fear based on ignorance.
caboose84
NES Member
This was my primary point, that the pension system there is set up to encourage abuse... if they are claiming PTSD to get Social Security, which may make the case for a disability pension from the city and then keeping their weapons to get a side job, well I'm sorry, it's really abuse, and if they tolerated the rotten firearms regime there, they deserve to live with the regime...
And if some one is too stressed to work or to unreliable to show up why the hell should they get disability?
Not exactly
"But, the more relevant thing to this thread is unless and until these people are charged and convicted or their retirements are challenged, they are covered under LEOSA and can carry whatever they want whenever they want. They would need to move in order to buy anything, but lets face it they are better off getting the 'f out of dodge. The vast majority of people caught up in this stayed in the area. I am betting there are more who split for greener, cheaper pasture."
HR 218 is pretty clear and one of the provisions is that it does not allow disabled retired officers to carry on the law if the disability is mental in nature. See section c1 below.
Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers
`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;
"But, the more relevant thing to this thread is unless and until these people are charged and convicted or their retirements are challenged, they are covered under LEOSA and can carry whatever they want whenever they want. They would need to move in order to buy anything, but lets face it they are better off getting the 'f out of dodge. The vast majority of people caught up in this stayed in the area. I am betting there are more who split for greener, cheaper pasture."
HR 218 is pretty clear and one of the provisions is that it does not allow disabled retired officers to carry on the law if the disability is mental in nature. See section c1 below.
Sec. 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers
`(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).
`(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
`(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
`(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
`(c) As used in this section, the term `qualified retired law enforcement officer' means an individual who--
`(1) retired in good standing from service with a public agency as a law enforcement officer, other than for reasons of mental instability;
interesting....
if these dirt bags faked PTSD to milk the system, they get every thing else that comes along with it.
who the hell retires in NYC?
My thoughts exactly.
On top of that, good luck finding an LE instructor to certify you for LEOSA purposes while it's in the news that you have mental health issues. A lot of PD's get around LEOSA by making the process difficult or impossible for retired LE.
- Joined
- May 17, 2008
- Messages
- 16,975
- Likes
- 2,820
Interesting... I did not know that little tidbit.
KBCraig
NES Member
Emotional disability and mental instability sound pretty close to me. I would imagine that if a pension was derived from any injury that is not physical they would not be covered.
I presume that the former LEO can lose his LEOSA carry rights but not his CCW issued by the states.
As far as I know, no states prohibit people on SSDI from owning guns- unless they were involuntarily committed.
That would be discrimination if they lost their gun rights without being involuntarily committed.
In Mass they may be unsuitable in the eyes of the chief but could take it to court.
As far as I know, no states prohibit people on SSDI from owning guns- unless they were involuntarily committed.
That would be discrimination if they lost their gun rights without being involuntarily committed.
In Mass they may be unsuitable in the eyes of the chief but could take it to court.
Be aware that NOTHING in LEOSA's law REQUIRES the following:
- A PD to issue a ID card compliant with LEOSA,
- A PD to provide a qualification course for retired LEOs.
Some states (like MA) have INTENTIONALLY disenfranchised a large percentage of their retired LEO population from ever having LEOSA status by the following actions:
- PROHIBITING anyone other than a retired Municipal PO or State Trooper from obtaining the required ID card compliant with the CMR,
- PROHIBITING anyone from "qualifying" any retiree that does not have the CMR-required MA PD/SP issued ID card,
- PROHIBITING a retiree from a non-MA Agency (this includes retired Fed LEOs as well) from being "qualified" in MA (unless a Fed Agency qualifies the retired Fed LEO),
- etc.
So, NYPD may well refuse these retirees the proper ID for LEOSA and/or the ability to "qualify" under LEOSA annually . . . thus stripping them of their rights under LEOSA.
- A PD to issue a ID card compliant with LEOSA,
- A PD to provide a qualification course for retired LEOs.
Some states (like MA) have INTENTIONALLY disenfranchised a large percentage of their retired LEO population from ever having LEOSA status by the following actions:
- PROHIBITING anyone other than a retired Municipal PO or State Trooper from obtaining the required ID card compliant with the CMR,
- PROHIBITING anyone from "qualifying" any retiree that does not have the CMR-required MA PD/SP issued ID card,
- PROHIBITING a retiree from a non-MA Agency (this includes retired Fed LEOs as well) from being "qualified" in MA (unless a Fed Agency qualifies the retired Fed LEO),
- etc.
So, NYPD may well refuse these retirees the proper ID for LEOSA and/or the ability to "qualify" under LEOSA annually . . . thus stripping them of their rights under LEOSA.
Similar threads
