I think I was very clear that there is a distinction between "incapable" and "incompetent". "Incompetent" means you do not possess the basic mental faculties to care for yourself. Do you support the right of a person, who does not possess the basic mental faculties to care for themselves, to possess firearms?
There is no justification for opening investigations against a class of people without probable cause. Do you advocate investigating all black people for an opportunity to confiscate their firearms? They’re probably more likely to misuse them than a veteran who can’t balance his checkbook.
You are disregarding every single distinction I've made. I actually just said in a previous post that if you think I advocate disarming veterans because they don't pay their bills on time, then you misunderstand my position.
If one of my fellow veterans is literally incapable of feeding himself, I support a court making a determination whether, for his own safety, he should be allowed to possess a firearm. Maybe you missed the part where I said that I myself am a disabled veteran with PTSD.
Well then you have turned in your weapons already, right?
Maybe I failed to mention that my husband is a disabled veteran. He is incapable of handling his own finances. He is incompetent. I am his caregiver.
Based on that limited information, you have advocated putting him under investigation for the purpose of depriving him of his 2nd Amendment rights. Not because there is any probable cause, or likelihood that he cannot or should not handle a firearm, but because he’s a military veteran who cannot manage a household.
He cannot balance a checkbook. He cannot cook meals or do much housework. But he can handle his firearms, and do his own reloading. He knows better than to go on a shooting spree. He knows better than to violate others’ rights, even when he can. But there is no reason he should have to prove any of that, in court or a bureaucrat’s office, because he has done nothing to raise any reasonable suspicion. There is no reason to suspect that just because a veteran is disabled they are any more likely than anyone else to abuse their 2nd Amendment rights. In this country, we do not open fishing expedition type investigations against people for the purpose of taking punitive action against them if there is not a reason.
We do not investigate every civilian who checks NO to the question “Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective...?” Even if they can’t sign their name on the form for whatever reason, we don’t open an investigation. They could be blind, illiterate, or just deliberately difficult, and we do not open an investigation into their mental/emotional/medical state with the goal of revoking their right to purchase the firearm. And there’s no reason we should, unless they display some evidence worthy of an investigation. The 4th Amendment prohibits such abuse.
If no court has judged them to be a danger to themselves or others, then yes, I support their right to possess firearms.
If there is no reasonable suspicion that an investigation would result in such a ruling, there should be no such investigation.