Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: 101stAirborneVet

No, you just said that every veteran who is incapable of handling his/her own finances should be investigated for the opportunity to deprive them of their right to own firearms.


65 posted on 02/22/2013 1:01:08 AM PST by BykrBayb (Somewhere, my flower is there. ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]


To: BykrBayb
Any person, veteran or not, who is taken to court by someone alleging they are incompetent to handle their own affairs, and is subsequently adjudicated by that court to be incompetent to handle their own affairs, is not allowed to possess firearms.

I support veterans being subject to the same rules as everyone else. That the assertion came from the VA is immaterial. There is a difference between being "inacapable" and "incompetent". It is an important distinction, as there are plenty of people incapable of being responsible with money. Being incapable due to incompetence is a different animal, and if a court rules that someone literally is mentally incompetent to house, feed and cloth themselves, then I support the temporary restriction of their right to possess arms.

I personally know two veterans who have been disarmed in this way, who after treatment proved they were then competent and got their firearms back. Both veterans agree it was in their best interest to have been disarmed at the time they were found to be incompetent.

If you think I am supporting some baseless "willy nilly" disarming of veterans who don't pay their bills on time, I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from.

69 posted on 02/22/2013 1:11:39 AM PST by 101stAirborneVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson