Disarming the elderly

This is a “Been there – done that”

Mom is now 88 years old and in a home.

More times than I care to mention I was greeted at the door by mom with a gun pointed at me. As she got older and feebler this occurred more often.

When she was 80 I moved her into my home as she was no longer able to live unassisted.

What finally convinced me things had gone further than I thought was when she greeted me one evening and did not recognize me at first glance.
I came in the house and going down the hall when she came from her room, gun in hand and did not recognize me.

This is when I took the gun away and started asking friends of hers lots of questions.

When an elderly person lives with you, you may not fully recognize how far along their alzheimer’s and dementia has progressed.

This was the case with mom.

She was sharp as a tack up till about 80 years old and slowly un-noticed by those close to her how far she had slipped into the world of the alzheimer’s and dementia
 
I've had arguments with people who've made that request. It is incredibly self-righteous, irresponsible, and dangerous.
Click to expand...
Tom, she is pointing the guns at her grandson for opening the door. In my book this is a recipe for disaster. I guess a person can always ask "how dare you take away the keys" but sometimes it is the RIGHT thing to do.
 
In my opinion

What makes Junior qualified to determine that I'm not fit to own a gun?
Click to expand...

That qualification is granted by Gramps. When Gramps produces a loaded firearm and threatens a known family member and caretaker, Junior has been qualified to determine if Gramps is fit to own a gun.

Know your target. It's one of the basic safety rules for firearm ownership. The words take on a different meaning in this case but they are just as important. If a elderly person looses the ability to tell their own children or grandchildren from the badguys on the TV, that person should not have a deadly weapon.

What gives him the right to take my property without my permission and sabotage it? No gunsmith should consent to such a procedure.
Click to expand...
I agree with this 100% There is a world of difference between saying "sorry you can't have this anymore" and tricking someone into thinking they have a working gun when they don't.


There is no standard rule for these situations. People have mentioned driving. Driving does not equal proper gun handling. I would trust my own grandmother with a loaded rifle but would not give her the keys to my car. I would trust my friend's grandmother (from my OP) to drive a large truck pulling a trailer but I will not give her ammunition for her pistol.
 
That qualification is granted by Gramps. When Gramps produces a loaded firearm and threatens a known family member and caretaker, Junior has been qualified to determine if Gramps is fit to own a gun.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't, and no he isn't. You or I have no more right to take away the property of Gramps, than we do our adult children. "That qualification" rests solely with whatever judicial system the State government has provided. Junior gets to tell the Judge Gramps can't be trusted with a firearm anymore, but he is never qualified to make that decision for Gramps. The Honorable Somebody R. Other has that qualification.
 
ATF said:
27 C.F.R. § 478.11, define these terms as follows:
Adjudicated as a mental defective.

(1) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease:

Is a danger to himself or to others; or
Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
Click to expand...

JimDandy, you are right that only the Honorable Judge Whatshisname has that authority. That being said, I don't think many people would go to court over what would be seen as a private family matter.

That's why I started this conversation in Law and Civil Rights!
 
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.
 
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.
 
When Gramps produces a loaded firearm and threatens a known family member and caretaker, Junior has been qualified to determine if Gramps is fit to own a gun.
Click to expand...
What if Junior calls it wrong? I've had a couple of these requests, and they usually boiled down to Junior wanting it because Gramps had a few senior moments unrelated to the gun.

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.
 
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.
 
Willie Lowman said:
That being said, I don't think many people would go to court over what would be seen as a private family matter.
Click to expand...

They may not be as concerned with the issue of self defense, but once an elder person is declared mentally unfit to take care of his/herself, then the family can change a lot when you do not expect it, all due to the issue of money. Its fairly common in my area for a family to be divided over the financial issue, which in turn goes hand in hand with the self defense issue, when speaking of being incompetent to take care of oneself.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
That being said, I don't think many people would go to court over what would be seen as a private family matter.
Click to expand...

And if Gramps is mad enough to do just that? Now you're doubly screwed. You have to give them back, and Gramps isn't going to be very friendly to the idea of giving them up voluntarily. Possibly triply screwed, if you end up facing criminal charges over the issue. As Tom has said, if it's really to that point, there's a proper channel for doing it, and it covers and solves multiple issues. If you're not willing to go through that avenue, it probably hasn't gotten that bad.

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.
Click to expand...

Only one of those questions gives you the right to make that decision. The first one. The last two can lead to the first one being affirmative, but you shouldn't feel comfortable taking their property without their permission until the first one is affirmative. For your protection and theirs.
 
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.
 
No, it hasn't, and no he isn't. You or I have no more right to take away the property of Gramps, than we do our adult children. "That qualification" rests solely with whatever judicial system the State government has provided. Junior gets to tell the Judge Gramps can't be trusted with a firearm anymore, but he is never qualified to make that decision for Gramps. The Honorable Somebody R. Other has that qualification.
Click to expand...

I have the right to take a firearm away from ANY person who threatens me with it and only a fool would return it to them and continue to be in their presence or allow anyone else to be in their presence when they're armed without a full and complete knowledge of the danger.

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.
 
Originally posted by Brian Pfleuger:

[B]We can go to court AFTER I take the gun away, to make it permanent and fully legal[/B], 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
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.

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.
 
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.
 
JimDandy said:
Only one of those questions gives you the right to make that decision. The first one. The last two can lead to the first one being affirmative, but you shouldn't feel comfortable taking their property without their permission until the first one is affirmative. For your protection and theirs.
Click to expand...

From a legally enforceable point of view, then yes, you are right; however, I also ascribe to Brian's point:

Brian Pfleuger said:
I have the right to take a firearm away from ANY person who threatens me with it and only a fool would return it to them and continue to be in their presence or allow anyone else to be in their presence when they're armed without a full and complete knowledge of the danger.

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.
Click to expand...

Further, just because I have a POA doesn't always mean I can act under it- many of them stipulate that the attourney in fact may act when the person becomes incapacitated, which is where the rest of my questions come to play. In addition, just because I have the right to do something doesn't mean I should exercise that right- Mom may be getting senile, but I see no need to remove a firearm because her short term memory is going out.
 
Tom Servo wrote;
If it were necessary to remove the guns, that determination lies either with me or with the courts.
Click to expand...

Well, if you are "addled" or, otherwise mentally incapacitated (Alzheimers, dementia ) you likely won't have the clarity of thought to make the decision yourself. As for the courts, as Brian Pfleuger wrote;

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.
Click to expand...

If you wait too long to "make the decision" for someone, the courts may get involved ... due to a shooting incident.

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.
 
If you wait too long to "make the decision" for someone, the courts may get involved ... due to a shooting incident.
Click to expand...

IF you "make the decision" for someone, you'd better get the courts involved. Brian has the right idea. His decision doesn't stop at just taking them away. His "plan" is take them away, then make it "legal" in the courts. He's been the only one to include that follow-through after saying he'd take Gramps' guns.

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?

Further, just because I have a POA doesn't always mean I can act under it-
Click to expand...
I would suspect that the level of impairment required to justify taking away the firearms rights would require more than a durable Power of Attorney, wouldn't it? The threshold is adjudicated mentally defective. Wouldn't that lead to a legal guardianship instead of a POA? And I'm assuming here they aren't one and the same. From what I've read, to be able to get the judgement they can't have firearms they have to be extremely impaired, and unable to care for themselves. That sounds like someone has to care for them, in a parenting role far more than a mere financial observer/overseer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top