Jump to content
panteramatt

How can this be good?

Recommended Posts

Please humor me then. Give me an example of someone so barred who is not high risk. Or cite a post to that effect. I haven't seen one yet. Tell me the exact condition that caused someone to go into conservatorship.

You've already been presented with that example, and you labeled it "barely believable".

 

Why are you against adjudication for stripping of rights?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is again why we have the awful laws we suffer from here in NJ. This guy thinks we need to prove we should get to exercise our rights, instead of the burden being on the government to show why we shouldn't.

 

 

 

Yes, you are living proof of that.

You are correct. The government must prove otherwise. When you designate yourself as being too incapacitated to do your finances is that proof. We can argue whether it's 100% justification -- I think it's probably not -- but I'm still waiting for an example of where it would not be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've already been presented with that example, and you labeled it "barely believable".

 

Why are you against adjudication for stripping of rights?

Yeah, I didn't want to pick on him or his wife but he goaded me so I responded. Read what he wrote about her maladies. To me she's definitely high risk of hurting herself or others. Her conservatorship status to me concedes quite a bit. And as I mentioned if she's too debilitated to work... But there are all sorts of cases and I don't want to judge hers or any individual's, which is why I say go for it if you like.

 

We don't have all those silly rules for individual cases but for generalities. When someone is convicted of aggravated assault and spends 3 years in prison we don't have a special hearing to deprive him of his right to own a gun or open a barber shop or for that matter to vote. We consider certain events to be predispository or whatever the word is.

 

I realize I was "for" the law initially but I backed down on it as a legal matter. That doesn't change my view on conservatorship and guns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newt....you got an example.....you refused to accept it.  Problem's now with you; not anyone else here.

 

DarrenF is correct; you will stick by your decision, damn the facts.

 

May you never find yourself in a similar situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda sad that I missed out on the beginning off this discussion.  As someone who formerly worked at a bank, though, I think I might be able to contribute to this discussion.  Many people have been encouraged to add a "Representative Payee" with SSA not because they were unable to handle their finances but simply for convenience.  The person might want to appoint someone to cash the check mailed to them, or have their deposit made to a bank account held with a family member.  Nominating the representative gave that person some authority to deal with things without the person having to go get a power of attorney or some other more complicated process.  People made this nomination without any indication that it might be used as a proxy for mental impairment and to have it held as such against them is really quite cruel. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My grandfather who was in ww2 still has some relics from his time. He is very proud he liberated several of the camps. During the holidays he takes them out and we enjoy a day at the range with the stories. My mom and I handle all of his finances to maximize his investments so they will last. So now the relics need to be taken away from him because he is a relic who is not a financial wiz?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newt....you got an example.....you refused to accept it.  Problem's now with you; not anyone else here.

 

DarrenF is correct; you will stick by your decision, damn the facts.

 

May you never find yourself in a similar situation. 

Hey I came around on the law. It's a bad law but therein is something to think about. 

 

At the range we go through all kinds of ritualistic safety stuff, which is good, then your hero advocates giving guns to the blind.

 

Again I point out -- and I'm trying to be gentle here -- if your wife has problems with something as basic as writing and cashing checks, if she's disabled enough to collect, then either you or the agency that awarded her benefits have something to think about. You can't have it both ways. That's why I suggested your example was a bit strange. I don't like arguing this because it's personal and very painful to you (and frankly none of my business) but you keep goading me.

 

As for the guy with the grandfather who is around the same age as my 91 year old sharp as a tack father: people don't give up personal stuff like writing their own checks (or wiping their own asses -- not being facetious) because they're lazy or bored. They do it because something not-so-pleasant is going on. Unless it's absolutely necessary it's a very bad idea to take tasks like that away from old people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda sad that I missed out on the beginning off this discussion.  As someone who formerly worked at a bank, though, I think I might be able to contribute to this discussion.  Many people have been encouraged to add a "Representative Payee" with SSA not because they were unable to handle their finances but simply for convenience.  The person might want to appoint someone to cash the check mailed to them, or have their deposit made to a bank account held with a family member.  Nominating the representative gave that person some authority to deal with things without the person having to go get a power of attorney or some other more complicated process.  People made this nomination without any indication that it might be used as a proxy for mental impairment and to have it held as such against them is really quite cruel. 

 

 

Yup, my mom has already stuck me on a bunch of things like this. It's not because she can't handle things, it's because she wants it sorted out BEFORE she can't handle things. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread kinda reminds me of this story from a few years back:

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/05/blind_rockaway_township_gun_co.html

They should make this guy the NJGF poster boy. Shoots himself, gives some creep the combo to his gun safe, goes out and trashes a bar, then takes an official NRA Home Economics class. But goddammit he has his rights. Well, almost:

 

Hopler ... was allowed to keep his permit on the condition he fire weapons only in the presence of an adult trained in the use of firearms. This condition still stands.

 

What a shame. Hey Darren, why don't you send this guy your optician's phone number so he can have 20-20 vision like you.

 

Funny how people read things differently. He shot himself while "cleaning" a gun because he couldn't see that round in the chamber because he was...not blind? How many of you have shot yourselves while cleaning a gun?

 

I can picture it now, "Mildred stop bugging me I'm cleaning my damn guns! Mildred if you nag me one more [BANG]...Mildred. MIL-DRED goddammit where are you? If you don't answer me I'll shoot."

 

This is a guy you should really and truly never never believe when he says, "Don't worry, it's unloaded."

 

I can hear distant NJGF voices regarding less serious situations (most recently the "girlfriend" who was afraid of guns but wanted one, strangely): "That #$&@*$ should not have a gun."

 

 

I know for a fact this guy has just two beers a night. That's all he needs to wash down a quart of gin. 

 

"What was that safe combination again? Nevermind can't see the dial anyway, I'll just leave the danged thing open."

 

"Hey officers these thirteen guns lying around next to ammo strewn all over the f-ing place are too stored safely! They're close to my safe. Safe. Safe-ly. Get it?"

 

"You're picking on me because I'm blind you islamaphobe!"

 

(burp)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, my mom has already stuck me on a bunch of things like this. It's not because she can't handle things, it's because she wants it sorted out BEFORE she can't handle things. 

Well then she's not in conservatorship is she?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Newt complains that real life stories are "barely believable" then he goes into a multi paragraph fantasy he's concocted to make his point.

 

You can't argue with that kind of "blind" hypocrisy.

ya but, isn't shining a light on it sorta fun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I came around on the law. It's a bad law but therein is something to think about. 

 

At the range we go through all kinds of ritualistic safety stuff, which is good, then your hero advocates giving guns to the blind.

 

Again I point out -- and I'm trying to be gentle here -- if your wife has problems with something as basic as writing and cashing checks, if she's disabled enough to collect, then either you or the agency that awarded her benefits have something to think about. You can't have it both ways. That's why I suggested your example was a bit strange. I don't like arguing this because it's personal and very painful to you (and frankly none of my business) but you keep goading me.

 

As for the guy with the grandfather who is around the same age as my 91 year old sharp as a tack father: people don't give up personal stuff like writing their own checks (or wiping their own asses -- not being facetious) because they're lazy or bored. They do it because something not-so-pleasant is going on. Unless it's absolutely necessary it's a very bad idea to take tasks like that away from old people. 

That's the POINT, Newt....

 

Let me say this so you can understand it.....She DOESN'T NEED SOMEONE TO DO HER DAMN CHECKBOOK. Some clerk at Social Security followed their checklist that put her on their DAMN LIST! 

 

there WAS NO ADJUDICATION....NO ONE DEEMED HER MENTALLY UNFIT....

 

THAT IS THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL PART....

 

NOW do you understand?????

 

 

And I don't 'goad' anyone....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many lawful, firearm-owning people, who are incapable of handling their own finances, have firearm-related incidents in New Jersey per year? Per decade?

Even though the numbers are very low, or zero, what is the arbitrary number where you would accept rights being abridged by fiat? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think he's arguing. Pointless to fix( or try) a problem that doesn't exist. If if does exist it's minuscule at best.

Whether he is or isn't, my point is that the question is irrelevant. You don't give away human rights in the name of safety. Ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether he is or isn't, my point is that the question is irrelevant. You don't give away human rights in the name of safety. Ever.

 

I think Zeke has some sage wisdom for you...

 

 

In life it's ok to be wrong. It's how we learn

 

 

Doubling down on stupid is what the mainstream media is doing.

Oh, my bad....

 

 

Now just admit you misunderstood, shut up, and keep the line moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Zeke has some sage wisdom for you...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now just admit you misunderstood, shut up, and keep the line moving.

 

Please point out where I'm wrong. You think it's ok to sacrifice freedom in the name of safety? Really. For the children?

 

I'll wait for you to take your own advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then she's not in conservatorship is she?

 

The law didn't target conservatorship in general, that'd usually involve a court. It included some SSA determination, which my mom stayed away from based on legal advice as it was not her primary area of concern. I could however see someone including medical issues on that. 

 

You get a court to do it with a chance to defend yourself in court, fine. You do it administratively without due process, not fine. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admitted I was wrong about the law and wrote that families should make these decisions. 

 

You guys keep blabbing about rights though. You won't even admit that 5 year olds should not own handguns and ammo. At least no-one has the last 5-6 times I've posted that example (in this thread and others where absolute rights come up). And the ridiculous statements about trading rights for other goodies. News flash: We do it all the time. It's the degree and mechanism that are bad. We strip prisoners and armed forces of their basic constitutional rights. These were not even deemed worthy of a constitutional provision. It was understood in 1789 that you can't go off to a tavern while on guard duty. Children for the most part don't have constitutional rights. And there are rights and privileges we don't allow physically or mentally handicapped people to enjoy either. 

 

If you value the gun rights of your wheelchair-bound Alzheimer's suffering grandfather so highly then give grandpa what he wants and have little Johnny's next birthday party at grandpa's house. Leave the kiddies there for the afternoon and lots of sharp objects hanging around the place while you're at it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...