If you reasonably think somebody has Alzheimer's disease, or some other form of senile dementia, at what point should they (the person affected) voluntarily give up their guns or put them in storage, not keep them loaded and easily accessible? What if a responsible gun owner has had a stroke, a serious head injury, brain damage due to some other medical condition or incident? And what if this person has had their thinking and reasoning abilities greatly diminished? What if their emotions are less stable and they react inappropriately to others and to events? At some point should such an impaired person give up their firearms? If they do not, would it be appropriate to have a family "intervention" of sorts and push the issue, insisting that Grandma's revolver go into attic storage, or that Uncle Felix no longer keep that loaded shotgun behind the kitchen door? There are many articles that have been written about when an elderly person may be too old to drive. There have been many legal articles written about the law of incapacity and guardianship-- when it is appropriate to have a court declare a person incompetent. But I don't think I've ever seen or heard anyone talk about whether diminished mental capacity can be or should be a reason for the gun owner or his or her family (NOT the GOVERNMENT !!) to give up their right to keep and bear arms, because for such a person under those circumstances a gun kept handy for self-protection REALLY DOES represent an unacceptable risk of being wrongly used to hurt some innocent person. Again, I'm NOT talking about "the State" or "the Courts" or any government agency taking away the rights of the people. Call this FAMILY-BASED gun control. Where the person in question and his or her immediate family and guardians and caretakers (who have the best insight on the person's condition and the risks / benefits analysis of having a deadly weapon) make a private decision about a course of action that the government never needs to know about. What do y'all think?