• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should those who have been ruled incompetent be allowed to buy guns?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There are many people in this country that have been ruled incompetent for many reasons to handle their own affairs Many due to age and probably as many due to mental problems of all kinds. One law that does outlaw some of those people are covered by the Brady Law. But Obama went farther than the Brady law with his inclusion of those held to be incompetent to handle their own Social Security and made that information available to the law. I guess my question is on what level should people with mental or age problems be kept from purchasing guns. Is it sufficient that one or more doctors determine that the person is incompetent and thus should not be able to buy guns? Does it need to be a court of law? At what point do you see that a person loses his right under the 2nd Amendment? Or do you not see that these people lose their right under any circunstance?
 
independentusa said:
There are many people in this country that have been ruled incompetent for many reasons to handle their own affairs Many due to age and probably as many due to mental problems of all kinds. One law that does outlaw some of those people are covered by the Brady Law. But Obama went farther than the Brady law with his inclusion of those held to be incompetent to handle their own Social Security and made that information available to the law. I guess my question is on what level should people with mental or age problems be kept from purchasing guns. Is it sufficient that one or more doctors determine that the person is incompetent and thus should not be able to buy guns? Does it need to be a court of law? At what point do you see that a person loses his right under the 2nd Amendment? Or do you not see that these people lose their right under any circunstance?
Click to expand...
Gun control advocate have soured me so much that I am now opposed to all laws and I support repealing every law on the books. They all violate the constitution. The 2A is clear that the gov is forbidden from regulating guns

No I don't care how many people are killed by guns

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
independentusa said:
There are many people in this country that have been ruled incompetent for many reasons to handle their own affairs Many due to age and probably as many due to mental problems of all kinds. One law that does outlaw some of those people are covered by the Brady Law. But Obama went farther than the Brady law with his inclusion of those held to be incompetent to handle their own Social Security and made that information available to the law. I guess my question is on what level should people with mental or age problems be kept from purchasing guns. Is it sufficient that one or more doctors determine that the person is incompetent and thus should not be able to buy guns? Does it need to be a court of law? At what point do you see that a person loses his right under the 2nd Amendment? Or do you not see that these people lose their right under any circunstance?
Click to expand...

Slippery slope.

Obama's administration proved that there was a mindset by his cronies that "return to conus veterans" were being psych eval-ed.
 
Is there an epidemic of people declared incompetent of managing their finances going around shooting people on purpose or by accident? If so I might support legislation that does it since at least it involves due process. I certainly don't support doing it by EO. But again, I haven't seen evidence of it being a problem in the first place.
 
independentusa said:
There are many people in this country that have been ruled incompetent for many reasons to handle their own affairs Many due to age and probably as many due to mental problems of all kinds. One law that does outlaw some of those people are covered by the Brady Law. But Obama went farther than the Brady law with his inclusion of those held to be incompetent to handle their own Social Security and made that information available to the law. I guess my question is on what level should people with mental or age problems be kept from purchasing guns. Is it sufficient that one or more doctors determine that the person is incompetent and thus should not be able to buy guns? Does it need to be a court of law? At what point do you see that a person loses his right under the 2nd Amendment? Or do you not see that these people lose their right under any circunstance?
Click to expand...

If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they should be imprisoned.
 
Being declared to be an incapacitated person (cannot sign contracts, buy guns, drive or vote) requires a court hearing and the decision of a probate judge to assign them a legal guardian. Doctors may certainly act as expert witnesses but they possess no power to make the ultimate decision. Once folks start accepting the opinion of an "expert", no matter how well intentioned, to be considered due process of law then the government can simply start hiring bunches of these "experts" to declare anyone that they don't care for to have "serious mental problems" and strip them of rights for life.
 
apdst said:
If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they should be imprisoned.
Click to expand...

So once grandpa starts getting a little forgetful, we put him behind bars. Got it. Thanks. :roll:
 
trouble13 said:
Gun control advocate have soured me so much that I am now opposed to all laws and I support repealing every law on the books. They all violate the constitution. The 2A is clear that the gov is forbidden from regulating guns

No I don't care how many people are killed by guns

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I do care about how many people are killed by guns.

Not to argue by any means, but society is breaking down ever so slowly.
 
apdst said:
If they're too dangerous to own a gun, they should be imprisoned.
Click to expand...

Being legally declared to be an incapacitated person is not akin to being declared a danger to themselves or others. I agree that those legally declared to be dangerous should be institutionalized, given appropriate treatment and not allowed to roam freely among us but not simply imprisoned. My father, now 95 and diagnosed with severe dementia (Alzheimer's disease), is not the least bit dangerous but has been legally declared to be an incapacitated person. He now resides in a state veteran's home, receives appropriate care and makes occasional supervised visits outside of that facility.
 
ataraxia said:
So once grandpa starts getting a little forgetful, we put him behind bars. Got it. Thanks. :roll:
Click to expand...
And when he is at his most vulnerable stage of life you want to confiscate his ability to defend himself.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
RetiredUSN said:
I do care about how many people are killed by guns.

Not to argue by any means, but society is breaking down ever so slowly.
Click to expand...
Not sure what your saying, are you saying that my attitude is an indication of a breakdown in society?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Actually you are wrong. In most states it requires the signature of two doctors and then the POA for health care or the POA of Finances takes over, if they have been designated. If those haven't been designated the incompetent, then you go to court and get someone designated. It does take a court order to be involuntarily placed in a mental facility. That requires that someone be mentally ill and an overt act endangering themselves or others to be so placed. So, in the case of someone who is mentally ill, they would have to shoot someone before they could be placed in a mental institute against their will.
 
independentusa said:
Is it sufficient that one or more doctors determine that the person is incompetent and thus should not be able to buy guns?
Click to expand...

First there are two issues as I see it. Buying a Gun verse loosing right to keep your guns.
I think that two doctors and a family member should be able to petition a court for temporary restrictions on purchases (But not on owning yet) in extreme circumstances. But in my mind It's a moot point on purchase because if it's extreme enough to look at a ban the person should be hospitalised, not to many hospitals with gun shops in their basement.
Does it need to be a court of law?
Click to expand...

Only a court of law should be able to determine someone incompetent. If that is the ruling then yes a person should loose their right to own a gun. But that also opens up can of worms of does caregiver also loose right If they live under same roof? No answers on that yet still pondering that question.

At what point do you see that a person loses his right under the 2nd Amendment? Or do you not see that these people lose their right under any circunstance?
Click to expand...

Only after a court of law finds them mentally incompetent. This also would restrict them from voting. In the rare cases someone is found competent their rights are restored
 
trouble13 said:
And when he is at his most vulnerable stage of life you want to confiscate his ability to defend himself.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

We confiscate his driver's license for his and everyone else's safety. It seems to me a firearm would be even more prudent.

So you want to give demented patients access to military style assault weapons now? The nurse walks in a little unexpectedly and she gets blown away? You know those nurses get punched, scratched, and bitten all the time right now as they try to feed and administer medicines to these folks, right?
 
trouble13 said:
Not sure what your saying, are you saying that my attitude is an indication of a breakdown in society?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Hell no.....

I am saying that guns should be bought for whatever reason other than evil.

The US society sucks in so many localities to the point where old folks can't take a stroll at night.
 
Chillfolks said:
First there are two issues as I see it. Buying a Gun verse loosing right to keep your guns.
I think that two doctors and a family member should be able to petition a court for temporary restrictions on purchases (But not on owning yet) in extreme circumstances. But in my mind It's a moot point on purchase because if it's extreme enough to look at a ban the person should be hospitalised, not to many hospitals with gun shops in their basement.


Only a court of law should be able to determine someone incompetent. If that is the ruling then yes a person should loose their right to own a gun. But that also opens up can of worms of does caregiver also loose right If they live under same roof? No answers on that yet still pondering that question.



Only after a court of law finds them mentally incompetent. This also would restrict them from voting. In the rare cases someone is found competent their rights are restored
Click to expand...

The mental competency testing is done by doctors, not the courts. The courts just use that information for making determinations on what happens next.
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
First there are two issues as I see it. Buying a Gun verse loosing right to keep your guns.
I think that two doctors and a family member should be able to petition a court for temporary restrictions on purchases (But not on owning yet) in extreme circumstances. But in my mind It's a moot point on purchase because if it's extreme enough to look at a ban the person should be hospitalised, not to many hospitals with gun shops in their basement.


Only a court of law should be able to determine someone incompetent. If that is the ruling then yes a person should loose their right to own a gun. But that also opens up can of worms of does caregiver also loose right If they live under same roof? No answers on that yet still pondering that question.



Only after a court of law finds them mentally incompetent. This also would restrict them from voting. In the rare cases someone is found competent their rights are restored
Click to expand...

As the legal guardian of an incapacitated person I can assure you that it does not affect my gun rights. Obviously, having an in capacitated person in the home requires extra caution but no more so than having young children in the home does.
 
independentusa said:
There are many people in this country that have been ruled incompetent for many reasons to handle their own affairs Many due to age and probably as many due to mental problems of all kinds. One law that does outlaw some of those people are covered by the Brady Law. But Obama went farther than the Brady law with his inclusion of those held to be incompetent to handle their own Social Security and made that information available to the law. I guess my question is on what level should people with mental or age problems be kept from purchasing guns. Is it sufficient that one or more doctors determine that the person is incompetent and thus should not be able to buy guns? Does it need to be a court of law? At what point do you see that a person loses his right under the 2nd Amendment? Or do you not see that these people lose their right under any circunstance?
Click to expand...

Why? Incompompetent comes in many colors.
 
ataraxia said:
The mental competency testing is done by doctors, now the courts. The courts just use that information for making determinations on what happens next.
Click to expand...

The reason that the courts must make the call is that being declared a legally incapacitated adult essentially makes one have the legal rights of a minor dependent (cannot vote, buy/own guns, drive or sign contracts) and the court appoints a guardian for that person. Sometimes that guardian is the state, in which case the person is generally institutionalized, but more often a family member is sought to assume that responsibility.
 
ataraxia said:
The mental competency testing is done by doctors, not the courts. The courts just use that information for making determinations on what happens next.
Click to expand...

Exactly the doctor or family couldn't just decide to negate the right to purchase or own a gun. That's not to say a family member ouldn't take them, but that's family issues and not concerning rights
 
ttwtt78640 said:
As the legal guardian of an incapacitated person I can assure you that it does not affect my gun rights. Obviously, having an in capacitated person in the home requires extra caution but no more so than having young children in the home does.
Click to expand...


May be to personal a question but did your family member own firearms and how did you handle it?


When my grandmother moved in with my parents We switched her .45 for a BB gun look a like. It gave her peace of mind knowing there was a "gun" in her dresser and us peace knowing she wouldn't kill someone by accident.
 
Chillfolks said:
May be to personal a question but did your family member own firearms and how did you handle it?


When my grandmother moved in with my parents We switched her .45 for a BB gun look a like. It gave her peace of mind knowing there was a "gun" in her dresser and us peace knowing she wouldn't kill someone by accident.
Click to expand...

Yes he owned two guns and they were taken by one of my brothers. My father is now in a state veteran's home and, of course, cannot have guns in that facility. Having a "fake" gun may not be a good idea if she brandishes in front of someone, even a police officer, that has a real gun.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes he owned two guns and they were taken by one of my brothers. My father is now in a state veteran's home and, of course, cannot have guns in that facility. Having a "fake" gun may not be a good idea if she brandishes in front of someone, even a police officer, that has a real gun.
Click to expand...


She passed many years ago. We had long conversations it was best compromise at the time. At that point in time she was bedridden most days. Wasn't perfect but luckily we never had any troubles.
 
ataraxia said:
We confiscate his driver's license for his and everyone else's safety. It seems to me a firearm would be even more prudent.

So you want to give demented patients access to military style assault weapons now? The nurse walks in a little unexpectedly and she gets blown away? You know those nurses get punched, scratched, and bitten all the time right now as they try to feed and administer medicines to these folks, right?
Click to expand...
You go from wanting to put grandpa in jail for being a little forgetful to giving demented patients acess to military assault rifles blowing away nurses. It makes it kinda hard for me to believe your arguments are sincere. You seem to like to try to shutdown other people's views by using emotional vitrol.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Being declared to be an incapacitated person (cannot sign contracts, buy guns, drive or vote) requires a court hearing and the decision of a probate judge to assign them a legal guardian. Doctors may certainly act as expert witnesses but they possess no power to make the ultimate decision. Once folks start accepting the opinion of an "expert", no matter how well intentioned, to be considered due process of law then the government can simply start hiring bunches of these "experts" to declare anyone that they don't care for to have "serious mental problems" and strip them of rights for life.
Click to expand...

...and it should be decision of that legal guardian as to whether the person should be allowed to use a firearm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom