January 27, 2014, 07:05 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 28, 2008
Posts: 10,442
|
It's probably just a matter of timing.
If an elderly person becomes untrustworthy enough to be relieved of their guns, then they have usually reached the state of not being able to live on their own, either. Problem solved - no need for their gun when they're being looked after.
__________________
Walt Kelly, alias Pogo, sez: “Don't take life so serious, son, it ain't nohow permanent.” |
January 27, 2014, 07:08 PM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
A bud of mine, his aged Uncle used to catch a rabbit that no one else could see. Uncle would be sitting in a chair, reach down, start cursing, come up with nothing and throw it across the room. "Damn Rabbit!" Uncle claimed that rabbit running around inside the house caused all sorts of problems.
Now if Uncle had a shotgun, and gone rabbit hunting in the house, things might have been very interesting.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
January 27, 2014, 07:11 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Many years ago, I had surgery and had a bad reaction to some pain meds. I was a bit addled for a few days while we worked it out, and I was smart enough not to drive. I still had my guns at the house. Had someone done this, I'd not have been happy. If it were necessary to remove the guns, that determination lies either with me or with the courts. If Junior's so concerned about the matter, he can go through proper channels.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 27, 2014, 07:13 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 18,487
|
My elderly Uncle realized he was slipping (somewhere above age 90) and gave me his last firearm, a Charter Arms that he had kept for home defense. I hope I last as long and am as thoughtful as him.
|
January 27, 2014, 07:16 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
I find it is important for people to consider what they would like and document it in a manner legal for your area, so if there is a question your views which you documented while having a sound mind can be shared with the court. Who gets the firearms, money, house, and who can or can not be in charge of medical care decisions. Just basic family planning. |
|
January 28, 2014, 01:24 AM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 5, 2011
Posts: 350
|
My Grandad came back from WW2 a little the worse for wear. I think he's probably always had some degree of mental issues from it, which have naturally gotten worse with age. I don't know all the details but at the least he has some form of schizophrenia and has talked about seeing/hearing things that weren't real. He's always insisted on keeping a M1 Carbine under the bed and a .32 revolver under the pillow.
There was a "family conversation" about his guns maybe 5 years ago after gramps informed one of the uncles that he'd seen the Japs going through the woods and would give them hell if they came back. The uncle, who is his neighbor, determined that the "jap" in question had been a guy from the power company. No one was willing to step up and actually take the guns, so I told them to get the firing pins removed. As far as I know, they didn't do it. Gramps turns 94 this year. He finally gave up his drivers license... after causing 4 wrecks in 18 months. Hope the same thing doesn't end up happening with the guns. |
January 28, 2014, 01:56 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,273
|
I have not been placed in this position; however, with my work in the mental health field, including geriatric psych, I can say what I would look for:
1) Do I have a Power of Attourney or State Appointed Guardianship over said person? 2) Am I making legal or medical decisions for said person? 3) Has this person been diagnosed by a Qualified Medical Professional (typically an MD) with some form of dementia? 4) Has this person demonstrated consistantly poor orientation to person, place, time, or situation? (e.g.- unable to recall her name, thinking one is in a different place, belief that one is in a different place, etc.) If I am answering more of these questions in the affirmitive, then I would feel comfortable making the decision to remove firearms from the home if the person appeared to be a threat to themselves or others. If most of these questions are answered in the negative, and I am still concerned about the safety of my loved one, then my next call would be to my loved one's physician or my lawyer. |
January 28, 2014, 10:24 AM | #33 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 28, 2014, 11:29 AM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Its a tricky subject. Essentially, you only have the legal right to take their guns away if you have already been granted that right through a legal procedure.
Gramps/Granny can give you that right, but there are a few papers that need to be filled out. Or you can be awarded that right, and responsibility by a court action. Otherwise, despite your assessment of risk, you don't have the legal right to take their guns away. The same as any other piece of their personal property. For safety, few would argue that taking away the guns, when there is a clearly demonstrated risk, is prudent. However, at that point, YOU become responsible for them, and their safety. If you do need to take their guns so something bad doesn't happen, you should immediately seek legal control of their affairs. Bescause, if its that bad, someone responsible needs legal control, and if you don't do it, the state will, but only after something (usually bad) forces them to do so. The flip side of that coin is that YOU become responsible for their protection. Its a terrible burden to bear, for the rest of your life, having to wonder if Granny might not have been raped and beaten to death by some thugs, if only you hadn't taken away that .38 or that shotgun because you were worried about what might happen.... Not a simple or easy decision in many cases. In some cases, it is both, but not every case, which is why the decision has to be made on a case by case basis.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 28, 2014, 11:31 AM | #35 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
We can go to court AFTER I take the gun away, to make it permanent and fully legal, but if I'm going to continue to be a caretaker for someone who pointed a gun at me, they're NOT going to have a gun. That's the choice. I take care of you and you don't have a gun or I don't and you do. They can choose between the 1:1 chance of starving to death without assistance or the 1:millions chance of needing the gun. I'm not taking the chance of getting shot by someone who has already exhibited diminished and dangerous mental faculties.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
January 28, 2014, 01:03 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Quote:
There is a period of time when family members feel/know another family member has become mentally incompetent and unsafe to themselves/others before the courts have made a decision that this person is mentally incompetent. In that period of time, if things have gotten that bad and while getting the ball rolling on the legal end, IMO, it is not only the right thing to do but the responsibility of the other family members to step in and do something. |
|
January 28, 2014, 05:09 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
I think it was John Mellencamp who said
"There is nothing more sad or glorious than generations changing hands." When your elders begin to lose their faculties and motor skills, it's never a pleasant experience. Morally, however, you need to take responsibility for your elders when they begin failing. Sometimes that means you need to take away some of their freedoms for their own good and for the good of others. From personal experience, I can tell you that it's a decision neither joyful nor lightly made. It's a situation that needs to be reviewed on a case by case basis.
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
January 29, 2014, 01:18 AM | #38 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,273
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
January 29, 2014, 08:01 AM | #39 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
Tom Servo wrote;
Quote:
Quote:
Having gone through similar events with a family member I can say that sometimes you have to make responsible decisions for someone who cannot. I will take your firearms / keys, and you can be pi$$ed. I would rather have you alive and mad as hell than you, or someone else dead, or injured as a result of my inaction.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
||
January 29, 2014, 09:48 AM | #40 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
Many of the others have talked about it like taking away the guns would be the end of it. Which runs into Tom's point- paraphrased to "Who made you King of the World"? Those old folks have the same rights as you or I. Saying "Its for their own good" without getting a judicial review wouldn't fly if your local police chief tried to use the argument on us, so why should it fly because we're the one doing it? Quote:
|
||
January 29, 2014, 12:11 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 3,006
|
I wonder how many families would crucify the family member who took Gramps to court? Right or wrong, legal or no, I know how my family considers issues of money or medical condition. If I were to make a legal issue out of a condition that one of my family members has, I may as well change my name, sell my house, pack my bags, and leave the state. It is an issue of privacy.
Quote:
So say Junior and Junior Jr. and Missy and Sissy all sit down and agree that they are sick and tired of Gramps waving his shotgun at them. There comes the issue that they must tell Gramps that he has to go talk to the Judge and possibly sign some papers relinquishing his precious firearm. Or perhaps they don't want to hurt Gramps' pride taking him to court and telling strangers that he is a danger his loved ones, they'd rather just take his shotgun and call it a day. The first way is legally correct. The second way is not but I am guessing more likely to happen.
__________________
"9mm has a very long history of being a pointy little bullet moving quickly" --Sevens |
|
January 29, 2014, 12:44 PM | #42 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
However, let's say I've got a busybody son-in-law who doesn't like guns, or a child who's nearly never involved in my day-to-day life. He decides something about my behavior is just odd. Does that give him the right? Who is he to make that determination? The little cretin can go get a court order, but until then, he doesn't have the authority to steal or tamper with my property.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 29, 2014, 01:23 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,556
|
Quote:
By all means, people should go to Gramps first, and try and get him to voluntarily surrender his arms. Failing that, they should have a judge approve of their actions to protect Gramps' rights, and their freedom. Besides which, as I've already pointed out if Gramps is in that bad of shape, you've got far more issues than just his firearms. His estate, his health, his life when he goes wandering off. If Gramps is in such bad shape he doesn't have the right to own firearms, he doesn't have a lot of other rights, and needs a legally appointed guardian to look after him. |
|
January 29, 2014, 02:18 PM | #44 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2007
Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO
Posts: 5,970
|
Originally posted by Tom Servo:
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2014, 05:03 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2013
Location: Douglasville, Ga
Posts: 4,615
|
instead of filing down trigger mechs and other trickery, could he/she be convinced to switch to a shotgun with less lethal ammunition? again, case by case
__________________
My head is bloody, but unbowed |
January 29, 2014, 06:41 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
JimDandy Wrote:
Quote:
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - |
|
January 29, 2014, 07:03 PM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
Quote:
Just because there may be a need to safely store an item, there may be a prior claim which can come up later. Just because gramps has lost his mental faculties, and says "here son, you can have this "x" item" another person can claim and go through the legal process with an alternative argument about how gramps promised to give it to them instead when gramps was in a better frame of mental ability. Even if you prevail in court, that is still time and money which may have cost more then the worth of the firearm in question. Why open oneself up to the possible legal issues by doing it alone without court assistance direction and documentation? |
|
January 30, 2014, 12:46 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 4, 2012
Posts: 1,273
|
Quote:
For example, if I am 65, and want to be forward thinking, I might have a POA drawn up that allows my family to make medical and financial decisions for me if I become incapacitated- physically, mentally, or otherwise. Part of that often includes buying or selling property. However, if I am 65 and have developed an early onset of Alzheimer's, and think I am 25 years old, the little green men are after me, and that my wife is the Queen of Russia, then my family might be forced to go before the courts and petition that I be appointed a guardian, because I am completely incapacitated, and will likely not regain lucidity. |
|
January 30, 2014, 08:01 AM | #49 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Eastern, TN
Posts: 1,236
|
JimmyR Wrote;
Quote:
This is also why I said that you may be forced, by circumstances to separate Gramps from his Firearms/keys for his, and everyone else' s safety and then go to court and make it "legal" OR You can do the "right" thing and go through the legal process first and if Gramps happens to have a crash and kill someone or shoots someone, just consider it "collateral damage" for protecting his rights. You will be hard pressed to find someone more pro-rights than me but, sometimes delicate decisions must be made on a case by case basis, as tough as that may be. The other side of the coin is; Can I look myself in the face if that happens knowing I could have prevented it ? I also would have a hard time going to Gramps' funeral after an "incident" and look into the casket and think "Bless his heart, but at least he got to keep his rights and dignity right up till the coroner showed up"
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska - Last edited by OuTcAsT; January 30, 2014 at 08:50 AM. Reason: additional thoughts |
|
January 30, 2014, 11:27 AM | #50 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not an easy path, but one we must walk when/if the situation demands it. I don't see much more that can be discussed about this, but I've been wrong before....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|