Disarming the elderly

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.

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?
Click to expand...
That is a very valid point!


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.
 
If you wait too long to "make the decision" for someone, the courts may get involved ... due to a shooting incident.
Click to expand...
That could happen. Do what you feel you need to.

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.
 
The first way is legally correct. The second way is not but I am guessing more likely to happen.
Click to expand...

It certainly is. In a way it's a lot like jaywalking. Chances are nothing happens. But some people get tickets. Someday Gramps is going to take Jr, Missy, and Sissy to court. Possibly have them arrested and charged.

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.
 
Originally posted by Tom Servo:

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.
Click to expand...

I guess that's where coming from a family in which other family members that are closer to me would gladly take this 'little cretin' on a fence row chat . And hopefully, if a family member is portraying signs of incompetence this issue has been noticed and discussed by various members of the family.
 
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
 
JimDandy Wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

I could not agree more. Thing is, it takes TIME to go through the proceedings to be granted a conservatorship, you may have to act first, then go to court and make it "tidy".
 
Tom Servo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The issue I have with this topic is, "who actually has a right to that firearm (an item of value) when gramps is declared unfit to care for himself and how do they know there is not another claim on such?"

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?
 
JimDandy said:
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.
Click to expand...

A power of attourney and legal guardianship, at least in my home state of Indiana and the neighboring state of Kentucky (to the best of my knowledge) are two different paths toward the same goal. They typically grant the same or similar powers, depending on how the issuing authority decides. The biggest difference is that a POA is issued by the individual, while legal guardianship is typically awarded by the State.

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.
 
JimmyR Wrote;
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.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the way it works in TN as well, I may have medical and/or financial POA to handle day to day affairs however, it takes a Judge to grant a conservatorship/guardianship that basically allows you to make all decisions. It requires a physician statement of the persons diminished mental capacity, among other requirements. It is a lengthy and rather emotionally taxing process on all involved.

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"
 
Last edited:
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....
Click to expand...

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"
Click to expand...

No, not an easy choice at all. I think we are all in agreement that if there is a "clear and present danger" posed by Gramps/Granny with a gun, that we must do something. And we pretty much seem to be in agreement that the "something" must be more than physically taking the guns away, to protect both you and the elderly's legal rights and responsibilities.

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....
 
If you think taking a gun away from a loved one is bad, what until you take them to court with all that will involve. Doctors will have to be called,lawyers will have to be called, family members called etc.etc. Not to mention the dignity to be lost by your loved one. That is why if I have to cross this bridge and it does look as if it is coming, I will remove the firing pin, and let him keep the gun. He will never know it is gone unless he pulls the trigger, in which case I will thank God it was removed. I did not need the courts to raise my children, and I do not need the courts to take care of my parents!
 
..I will remove the firing pin, and let him keep the gun. He will never know it is gone unless he pulls the trigger, in which case I will thank God it was removed.
Click to expand...

If I did that, and it saved an innocent life, I too would thank God it was removed. But if it didn't, and cost Grandpa his life, I wouldn't blame God, the responsible party would be...me.

If you do it, be certain you can live with ALL of the possible outcomes, because, worst case, someone else may not live.
 
If you do it, be certain you can live with ALL of the possible outcomes, because, worst case, someone else may not live.
__________________
Click to expand...
And if the courts decide to take away the gun, the result will be different? Wouldn't I still have the guilt of involving the court in the first place. You hit it on the nail, this is not an easy decision. One question not asked is how much do we want the government involved in our lives.
 
And if the courts decide to take away the gun, the result will be different?
Click to expand...

Of course they would. If you :

I will remove the firing pin, and let him keep the gun. He will never know it is gone unless he pulls the trigger,
Click to expand...

You are going to have some splainin to do if, lets say, someone breaks in on Gramps and beats him badly, or kills him because his HD weapon did not work as expected. LE Is going to be very suspicious about why the firing pin was missing.

If you don't have to answer for it to LE, you most certainly have to answer for it to a "higher authority" and your own mind as well.

On the other hand, if you go through the legal process, you, or someone else will be named as guardian of Gramps. That makes you responsible for his well being, much the same as the parent of a child.
 
And if the courts decide to take away the gun, the result will be different?
Click to expand...

The result? Maybe not. Your feelings about it? Probably. At that point you've got a dispassionate opinion from an unbiased outsider, and some expert testimony on what's going on. You're not "going it alone".
 
I would ask our legal experts if it is legal to disable someone's gadgetry without their permission.

If they are not under your control and still seen as an adult, it would seem to me that you committed some kind of violation.
 
And if the courts decide to take away the gun, the result will be different? Wouldn't I still have the guilt of involving the court in the first place.
Click to expand...

If the court takes away Grampa's gun(s), he is going to know his gun is gone. (if he's not able to be aware of that, then it happening won't matter)

IF he has a gun that he thinks is in working order, but isn't, because you took out the firing pin, that is a much different situation.

your guilt over getting a court involved is going to be your guilt no matter what. But, by involving the court, you are giving them the responsibility for the decision.

No matter what you do, if things turn out badly, you are going to have guilt. Your degree of responsibility for what happened decides if the guilt is deserved, or not.
 
I can tell you from personal experience that the "guilt" factor of having a family member deemed mentally incapacitated is short lived. If you have someone that you care about, that has reached a point in their lives where they are truly not capable of making everyday decisions about their own wellbeing, I would posit that the guilt would be far greater if you stood Idly by, lived in complete denial and did nothing to help them, than the aftermath of the court proceeding.

In my case I assumed responsibility for a Parent. Was it difficult ? Yes. Were there "hurt feelings" ? Yes. Was it necessary ? Yes. However, my parents did not hesitate to care for me when I was a child and could not yet care for my self, It was my responsibility, and the least I could do to try and partially repay that enormous debt. To change things a bit, if it were one of your own adult children that was incapacitated would you hesitate ? In the world of dementia, there is little difference between an 85 year old, and a 5 year old, in my experience. (except for the ability to use colorful expletives) ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top