more from GOA on passage of H.R. 2640

alan

New member
McCarthy Bill Rammed Through The House
-- Deal between NRA leadership and Democrats leaves most Republicans
in the dark

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Thursday, June 14, 2007


Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
bargaining
chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."

The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.

We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.

Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.

Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
senators.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Poster's note:

The House has done it's dastardly deed, it's members hiding behind the skirts of an unrecorded voice vote, combined with a "suspension of the rules", mentioned in above. Next comes The Senate, members of which need to hear from their constituents. The rest lies in the hands of readers, and their friends. The rights timely action could possibly save/protect are yours.
 
I wouldn't worry about it at all. This is meant to strengthen NICS, which I have no problem with.

If they try to attach gun control amendments to it in the Senate, it will be killed. They know that. They either behave and it goes through, or they play games and it gets blown up.
 
Alan, I really wish you would read the bill, before you take a stance with the GOA on this. You need a link?
 
It has been reported in the press that the NRA and the Dems were working on a bill to strengthen the NICS nothing backroom about it. I dont know what GOA is making such a fuss about as it gives some folks a chance to fix their info so they can now purchase a firearm. The bill is two steps forward not a step back.
 
Thankfully, the GOA was there to lobby members of congress to withhold funds from the states for the purpose of preventing totally crazy nutballs from legally buying guns. The GOA's lobbying influence is well-known among the most powerful (and least powerful) congressional members. :rolleyes:

One interesting thing about all of these GOA articles is that they consistently criticize the NRA. They seldom mention the specific results obtained by GOA. Goodness forbid that the NRA should work with Democrats, because everyone knows that all gun owners are Republicans.

Does the article mention what efforts the GOA made concerning the legislation? Oh yeah, that would require effective lobbying of congress, and the GOA has an outstanding history of effective lobbying.

But thank goodness the GOA didn't work with Democrats!
 
"The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere."

The head of the GOA (or whoever wrote this) must have been the only person in the country who thought this.

"but forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control."

Federal law has prohibited firearm ownership or purchase by people adjudicated mentally ill since the gun law of 1968. Where's the expansion? In the enforcement of the existing law?

And yes, I remember the good old days before the '68 law passed. Will we ever get back there? Who knows, but if we do it won't be because of the GOA spinning and distorting the truth.

John
 
more from GOA on H.R. 2640, which some have defended

The following appears to be written in plain English rather than "legalese", the reading of which is sometimes problematic. H.R. 2640 can be read at thomas.loc.gov. Interested parties might also read S.1237, also at thomas.loc.gov, which appears worse. Judge for yourselves, but do not forget to contact your U.S. Senators.

McCarthy Bill Moves To The Senate
-- "Compromise" bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in
years

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

ACTION:

1. Please urge your Senators to OPPOSE the gun control bill (HR 2640)
which was snuck through the House last week by anti-gun Democrats.
Some people are saying this bill is a positive step for gun owners,
but realize this ONE SIMPLE FACT: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen.
Chuck Schumer are the lead sponsors of this legislation! These two
have NEVER once looked out for your Second Amendment rights!!!

2. Please use the contact information below -- and the pre-written
letter -- to help direct your comments to them, and circulate this
alert to as many gun owners as you can. It is imperative that we
remind gun owners nationwide that gun control DOES NOT work to reduce
crime; that, to the contrary, gun control HAS DISARMED millions of
law-abiding citizens; and that the answer to tragedies like Virginia
Tech is to REPEAL the "gun free zones" which leave law-abiding
victims defenseless.


Monday, June 18, 2007

The Associated Press got it right last week when it stated that, "The
House Wednesday passed what could become the first major federal gun
control law in over a decade."

It's true. The McCarthy bill that passed will DRAMATICALLY expand
the dragnet that is currently used to disqualify law-abiding gun
buyers. So much so, that hundreds of thousands of honest citizens
who want to buy a gun will one day walk into a gun store and be
shocked when they're told they're a prohibited purchaser, having been
lumped into the same category as murderers and rapists.

This underscores the problems that have existed all along with the
Brady Law. At the time it was passed, some people foolishly thought,
"No big deal. I'm not a bad guy. This law won't affect me."

But what happens when good guys' names get thrown into the bad guys'
list? That is exactly what has happened, and no one should think
that the attempts to expand the gun control noose are going to end
with the McCarthy bill (HR 2640).

Speaking to the CNN audience on June 13, head of the Brady Campaign,
Paul Helmke, stated that, "We're hopeful that now that the NRA has
come around to our point of view in terms of strengthening the Brady
background checks, that now we can take the next step after this bill
passes [to impose additional gun control]."

Get it? The McCarthy bill is just a first step.

The remainder of this alert will explain, in layman's terms, the
problems with what passed on Wednesday. Please understand that GOA's
legal department has spent hours analyzing the McCarthy bill, in
addition to looking at existing federal regulations and BATFE
interpretations. (If you want the lawyerly perspective, then please
go to http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm for an extensive analysis.)

So what does HR 2640 do? Well, as stated already, this is one of the
most far-reaching gun bans in years. For the first time in history,
this bill takes a giant step towards banning one-fourth of returning
military veterans from ever owning a gun again.

In 2000, President Clinton added between 80,000 - 90,000 names of
military veterans -- who were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress
(PTS) -- into the NICS background check system. These were vets who
were having nightmares; they had the shakes. So Clinton disqualified
them from buying or owning guns.

For seven years, GOA has been arguing that what Clinton did was
illegitimate. But if this McCarthy bill gets enacted into law, a
future Hillary Clinton administration would actually have the law on
her side to ban a quarter of all military veterans (that's the number
of veterans who have Post Traumatic Stress) from owning guns.

Now, the supporters of the McCarthy bill claim that military veterans
-- who have been denied their Second Amendment rights -- could get
their rights restored. But this is a very nebulous promise.

The reason is that Section 101(c)(1)(C) of the bill provides
explicitly that a psychiatrist or psychologist diagnosis is enough to
ban a person for ever owning a gun as long as it's predicated on a
microscopic risk that a person could be a danger to himself or
others. (Please be sure to read the NOTE below for more details on
this.)

How many psychiatrists are going to deny that a veteran suffering
from PTS doesn't possess a MICROSCOPIC RISK that he could be a danger
to himself or others?

And even if they can clear the psychiatrist hurdle, we're still
looking at thousands of dollars for lawyers, court fees, etc. And
then, when veterans have done everything they can possibly do to
clear their name, there is still the Schumer amendment in federal law
which prevents the BATFE from restoring the rights of individuals who
are barred from purchasing firearms. If that amendment is not
repealed, then it doesn't matter if your state stops sending your
name for inclusion in the FBI's NICS system... you are still going to
be a disqualified purchaser when you try to buy a gun.

So get the irony. Senator Schumer is the one who is leading the
charge in the Senate to pass the McCarthy bill, and he is
"generously" offering military veterans the opportunity to clear
their names, even though it's been HIS AMENDMENT that has prevented
honest gun owners from getting their rights back under a similar
procedure created in 1986!

But there's still another irony. Before this bill, it was very
debatable (in legal terms) whether the military vets with PTS should
have been added into the NICS system... and yet many of them were --
even though there was NO statutory authority to do so. Before this
bill, there were provisions in the law to get one's name cleared, and
yet Schumer made it impossible for these military vets to do so.

Now, the McCarthy bill (combined with federal regulations) makes it
unmistakably clear that military vets with Post Traumatic Stress
SHOULD BE ADDED as prohibited persons on the basis of a
"diagnosis."
Are these vets now going to find it any easier to get their names
cleared (when the law says they should be on the list) if they were
finding it difficult to do so before (when the law said they
shouldn't)?

Add to this the Schumer amendment (mentioned above). The McCarthy
bill does nothing to repeal the Schumer amendment, which means that
military veterans with PTS are going to find it impossible to get
their rights restored!

See Part 2
 
Part 2

Do you see how Congress is slowly (and quietly) sweeping more and
more innocent people into the same category as murderers and rapists?
First, anti-gun politicians get a toe hold by getting innocuous
sounding language into the federal code. Then they come back years
later to twist those words into the most contorted way possible.

Consider the facts. In 1968, Congress laid out several criteria for
banning Americans from owning guns -- a person can't be a felon, a
drug user, an illegal alien, etc. Well, one of the criteria which
will disqualify you from owning or buying a gun is if you are
"adjudicated as a mental defective." Now, in 1968, that term
referred to a person who was judged not guilty of a crime by reason
of insanity.

Well, that was 1968. By 2000, President Bill Clinton had stretched
that definition to mean a military veteran who has had a lawful
authority (like a shrink) decree that a person has PTS. Can you see
how politicians love to stretch the meaning of words in the law...
especially when it comes to banning guns?

After all, who would have thought when the original Brady law was
passed in 1993, that it would be used to keep people with outstanding
traffic tickets from buying guns; or couples with marriage problems
from buying guns; or military vets with nightmares from buying guns?
(See footnotes below.)

So if you thought the Brady Law would never affect you because you're
a "good guy," then think again. Military vets are in trouble,
and so
are your kids who are battling Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD).
Everything that has been mentioned above regarding military veterans,
could also apply to these kids.

Do you have a child in the IDEA program -- a.k.a., Individuals with
Disability Education Act -- who has been diagnosed with ADD and
thought to be susceptible to playground fights? Guess what? That
child can be banned for life from ever owning a gun as an adult. The
key to understanding this new gun ban expansion centers on a shrink's
determination that a person is a risk to himself or others.

You see, legislators claim they want to specifically prevent a future
Seung-Hui Cho from ever buying a gun and shooting up a school. And
since Cho had been deemed as a potential danger to himself or others,
that has become the new standard for banning guns.

But realize what this does. In the name of stopping an infinitesimal
fraction of potential bad apples from owning firearms, legislators
are expanding the dragnet to sweep ALL KINDS of good guys into a
permanent ban. It also ignores the fact that bad guys get illegal
guns ALL THE TIME, despite the gun laws!

So back to your kid who might have ADD. The BATFE, in an open letter
(dated May 9, 2007), said the diagnosis that a person is a potential
risk doesn't have to be based on the fact that the person poses a
"substantial" risk. It just has to be "ANY" risk.

Just any risk, no matter how slight to the other kids on the
playground, is all that is needed to qualify the kid on Ritalin -- or
a vet suffering PTS, or a husband (going through a divorce) who's
been ordered to go through an anger management program, etc. -- for a
LIFETIME gun ban.

This is the slippery slope that gun control poses. And this is the
reason HR 2640 must be defeated. Even as we debate this bill, the
Frank Lautenbergs in Congress are trying to expand the NICS system
with the names of people who are on a so-called "government watch
list" (S. 1237).

While this "government watch list" supposedly applies to suspected
terrorists, the fact is that government bureaucrats can add ANY gun
owner's name to this list without due process, without any hearing,
or trial by jury, etc. That's where the background check system is
headed... if we don't rise up together and cut off the monster's head
right now.

NOTE: Please realize that a cursory reading of this bill is not
sufficient to grasp the full threat that it poses. To read this bill
properly, you have to not only read it thoroughly, but look at
federal regulations and BATF interpretations as well. For example,
where we cite Section 101(c)(1)(C) above as making it explicitly
clear that the diagnosis from a psychologist or psychiatrist is
enough to ban a person from owning a gun, realize that you have to
look at Section 101, while also going to federal regulations via
Section 3 of the bill.

Section 3(2) of the bill states that every interpretation that the
BATFE has made in respect to mental capacity would become statutory
law. And so what does the federal code say? Well, at 27 CFR 478.11,
it explicitly states that a person can be deemed to be "adjudicated
as a mental defective" by a court or by any "OTHER LAWFUL
AUTHORITY"
(like a shrink), as long as the individual poses a risk to self or
others (or can't manage his own affairs). And in its open letter of
May 9, 2007, BATFE makes it clear that this "danger" doesn't
have to
be "imminent" or "substantial," but can include
"any danger" at all.
How many shrinks are going to say that a veteran suffering from PTS
doesn't pose at least an infinitesimal risk of hurting someone else?

FOOTNOTES:

(1) The Brady law has been used to illegitimately deny firearms to
people who have outstanding traffic tickets (see
http://www.gunowners.org/ne0706.pdf).

(2) Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, couples with marriage problems
or parents who have used corporal punishment to discipline their
children have been prohibited from owning guns for life (see
http://www.gunowners.org/news/nws9806.htm).

(3) Several articles have pointed to the fact that military vets with
PTS have been added to the NICS system (see http://tinyurl.com/ytalxl
or http://tinyurl.com/23cgqn).

CONTACT INFORMATION: You can visit the Gun Owners Legislative Action
Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators
the pre-written e-mail message below.

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

As a supporter of Second Amendment rights, I do NOT support the
so-called NICS Improvement Amendments Act (HR 2640), which was snuck
through the House last week.

This bill represents the most far-reaching gun ban in years. For the
first time in American history, this bill would impose a lifetime gun
ban on battle-scarred veterans and troubled teens -- based solely on
the diagnosis of a psychologist (as opposed to a finding by a court).

You can read more about the problems with this bill by going to the
website of Gun Owners of America at
http://www.gunowners.org/netb.htm.

Gun owners OPPOSE this legislation, and I hope you will join the
handful of Senators that have placed "holds" on this bill and
object
to any Unanimous Consent agreement.

Supporters of this bill say we need it to stop future Seung-Hui Chos
from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another
shooting like the one at Virginia Tech. But honestly, what gun law
has stopped bad guys from getting a gun? Not in Canada, where they
recently had a school shooting. Certainly not in Washington, DC or
in England!

If you want to know some language that gun owners would support, then
consider this:

"The Brady Law shall be null and void unless, prior to six months
following the date of enactment of this Act, every name of a veteran
forwarded to the national instant criminal background check system by
the Veterans Administration or the Department of Veterans Affairs be
permanently removed from that system."

Sincerely,
 
I think this has been discussed in several other threads already...:)

I have read the bill and cant figure out what GOA is going on about :confused:
 
GOA has always taken a hard-line stance against gun control, but recent communications have been tilting the credibility meter.
 
GOA's recent communiques have, to me, shifted from "guy in suit speaking reasonably" to "wild-eyed guy in tinfoil hat babbling about THEM."

I honestly don't see what's wrong with tuning up NICS so the thing actually works. That Cho guy SHOULD have been on the no list as soon as he was judged a danger to himself and others. Who disagrees with that?

NICS is confirmation that I'm a law-abiding citizen, so I can purchase instantly and go on my way, no waiting periods. I don't have a problem with it.
 
I've been arguing with others about this on some other forums I frequent. NO new gun legislation is good, especially at the federal level. The feds have proven that they do not stop with a little bit, and this bill gives them more power to disqualify people now. It also gives them a better foot-hold for banning more people in the future.

CHO could have gotten a gun from a variety of sources. Just because someone like him may not be able to buy one in a gun store does not mean that they cannot find one elsewhere....... or a molitov coctail, or a machete, or some fertilizer........
 
Instead of just closing this duplicate thread down, I'm simply gonna merge it with the original. The only real differenece here, is that this current "alert" is better written FUD than the first one. :barf:

Since I have already quoted § 105 of the bill, I guess it's time to quote § 101(c)(1)(c):

(c) STANDARD ADJUDICATIONS, COMMITMENTS, FOR DETERMINATIONS RELATED MENTAL AND TO HEALTH.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—No department or agency of the Federal Government may provide to the Attorney General any record of an adjudication or determination related to the mental health of a person, or any commitment of a person to a mental institution if—

(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.

The above requires a bit more than a "microscopic risk."
 
That Cho guy SHOULD have been on the no list as soon as he was judged a danger to himself and others. Who disagrees with that?

I might.

On the day of his hearing the judge could either allow him to go on his way OR compel him to a treatment plan that wasn't even recommended by the evaluators. The only way to accomplish the latter was to deem him a danger against what the evaluation stated.

So convince me. You all can be the prosecution. The eval and police issues are pubic, I'll dig them up if you haven't seen em.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending this murdering scum, I'm defending those that WILL be railroaded that aren't and won't become murderers.

So come on, convince me why he should have been declared a mental defective/incompetant and commited and declared a danger to himself and/or others and remember this is at a hearing in 2005. He has been formally evaluated and has cooperated fully with all requests. Nobody yet has future mind reading gizmos and he has commited no crimes.
 
Joliet Jake, oh, I don't know, there was that whole stalking of a girl incident, the setting fire to a dorm room incident, the students quitting a class because they were scared of him or girls being freaked out by him taking cellphone pictures of them under desks. Lots of incidents.

Warning signs, y'know? Of the "THIS DUDE IS FREAKING NUTS" sort?
 
there was that whole stalking of a girl incident, the setting fire to a dorm room incident, the students quitting a class because they were scared of him or girls being freaked out by him taking cellphone pictures of them under desks. Lots of incidents.

Stalking? or testostorone? She said herself it wasn't bad and she didn't want to press charges. That's weak.

Arson? I've never heard that. Can you provide a source? I don't think they mess around with arson, especially in a dorm. Why wasn't he charged and expelled right then?

Students quitting class because they're "scared"? Where's the crime? Couldn't they say why they were scared? Did he brandish a firearm in a threatening manner? No? Why didn't they expel him for "scaring other students"?

Taking pics? c'mon. Taking pictures covertly of girls gets you commited?

Is there more? I just don't think any of this or a combination you mentioned are all that unusual in the college setting except the arson and that SHOULD have expelled him and locked him up in itself. Maybe not common and but surely not enough to ban YOUR 2nd A right for life. Is being strange good enough? That's not what the law says, you know?
 
trust me,the federal government will use this new tool,if it passes the senate,for nothing but bad.can some one show me something the federal government's done right.if you ever received a presciption for prozac,you'll be deemed mental,if you ever seen a shrink because you've gone through some emotion times,you'll be deemed mental,if you have high blood pressure from stress,you'll be deemed mental,if you say something somebody does'nt like in public,you'll be deemed mental.hell jeff foxworthy will have a whole new gig.
 
sigfreak said:
if you ever received a presciption for prozac,you'll be deemed mental, if you ever seen a shrink because you've gone through some emotion times, you'll be deemed mental, if you have high blood pressure from stress,you'll be deemed mental, if you say something somebody does'nt like in public, you'll be deemed mental.
Really? Did you even bother to read what the actual law says? Here, let me help you. No agency may transit any data if:
(C) the adjudication, determination, or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without a finding that the person is a danger to himself or to others or that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs.
Under current law, it could be stretched to include what you are saying. But under the law, as revised above, it can not meet the criteria of a disability.

A diagnosis of clinical depression, without an express finding that you are a danger to yourself or others. can not meet the definition. Such diagnosis are made every day by general MD'S, not by psychiatrists. Such a diagnosis can not and does not reach to the level of medical disability.

The other part of the proposed criteria, "that the person lacks the mental capacity to manage his own affairs," requires a legal hearing in which you are adjudicated "non compos mentis." No Doctor or Psychiatrist can make that determination. Only the Court.
 
Back
Top