Isaac Richey is a victim of New York’s SAFE Act and his rights were taken away. Richey filed for a summary judgment in his years-long battle, hoping to gain relief.
In 2019 Richey was stationed in New York while in the military. As previously reported, Richey voluntarily sought mental health help while he was having a rough time in his life. That admission led to Richey being treated as if he were involuntarily committed. Portions of New York’s SAFE Act include provisions where medical professionals have the power to permanently disqualify people from firearm ownership. Richey fell into that category and has been fighting to get his rights back for years. On August 31, Richey filed for a summary judgment hoping to put an end to this conflict.
“Isaac Richey (‘Plaintiff’) is a United States Army infantry veteran and resident of Montana. In January 2019, while on active duty at Fort Drum, New York — grieving a dying grandmother, upset by a break-up, and worn down by relentless unit hazing — he agreed to go to Samaritan Medical Center for what he understood would be a few days to ‘reset,’” the filing explains. “He was admitted under § 9.39 for emergency observation, held for a matter of days, and released without ever being converted to involuntary-commitment status under MHL § 9.27 or § 9.37. He then returned to his infantry unit, was re-armed with rifles, machine guns, and explosives, worked in the armory, lived among the very men who had hazed him — and never misused or threatened anyone with a weapon, including himself. He was honorably discharged in 2020. He has never been arrested, charged, or convicted of anything, and has never been hospitalized for a mental-health reason before or since.”
When Richey attempted to purchase a firearm several years later is when he found out about his disqualified status. “New York State treats a § 9.39 emergency admission as an ‘involuntary commitment’ under Article 9 of the MHL, and — as it concedes — the New York State Office of Mental Health (‘OMH’) transmits records of § 9.39 admissions to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (“NICS”),” the brief says.
In the opening, it’s stated that Richey’s challenge to New York’s law is narrow and as-applied to him. The brief argues that a summary judgment would be appropriate as there’s no disputing the material facts of the case.
The brief draws from NYSRPA v. Bruen and specifically observes that the State of New York is unable to draw an analogue from the nation’s historical tradition. There’s no historical context to someone being cared for in the capacity that Richey was that fits within the nation’s tradition.
Moreover, the disqualifier of being involuntarily held on a psychiatric hold and/or admitted is not akin to someone voluntarily seeking help.
Richey’s case highlights a very real and troubling problem in society. People who are in emotional peril are urged to seek help and told that it’s “okay.” Meanwhile, those who are lucid and self-aware enough to actually say, “I need help,” may get punished by having their rights taken away. This chilling effect will lead to more issues as folks who are in desperate need of help won’t seek it.
With this filing, hopefully the court will take heed and expeditiously dispatch this matter. Richey has been disarmed and disenfranchised from his rights for the better part of a decade and it’s time he be made whole again. At the end of the day, this is a story about a man getting punished for doing what we’re all told is the “right thing.”
Editor’s Note: The radical Left will stop at nothing to enact their extreme gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.
Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun-grabbing schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member