[Mariner]

If one is not competent to manage their won finances...the check is mailed to somebody else to dole out on their behalf, based, ostensibly, on what is good for the receiver...they should not have a firearm.

It's prima facie proof they are, at least, unstable.

I have absolutely no problem with this.

The person has either claimed, or been adjudicated "incompetent" to manage their own affairs.

Do you want them to have a firearm?

[rktman]

Depends on who the judge was. Is missing a few payments cause? Is there a footnote to the 2nd that says “unless you can’t handle your money?”

[Chickensoup]

I absolutely agree with this, the problem I see is with legal overreach.

Once the precedent is set, the expansion is easy, to those with green eyes or ... or...

Currently guns and mental incompetence are handled on a case by case basis. And I think it should continue.

[Pecos]

The question is now whether a person in that condition should be in possession of a firearm. The question is whether an unelected bureaucrat should get to decide the question, rather than a court (or, heaven forbid - a real Congress).

[backwoods-engineer]

If one is not competent to manage their won finances...the check is mailed to somebody else to dole out on their behalf, based, ostensibly, on what is good for the receiver...they should not have a firearm. It's prima facie proof they are, at least, unstable. I have absolutely no problem with this.

Great. We can add you to the list of traitors when things get sporty.

The Federal government has no such power to do this, and if you know the Constitution, you know that. So, why support tyranny?