means something different than what you are thinking.
A few years ago, some data showed that a number of veterans living on the street were getting their VA checks, but either losing the money though poor management (buying totally inappropriate things), or buying drugs, or giving their money away to scam artists, or to poor people, etc, and not having enough money to make it through the month.
So the VA, in it's infinite wisdom, was directed by Congress to do a better job of trying to make sure veterans who were unable to manage their money (in the opinion of their case worker) should be required to get a guardian for their money, or demonstrate money management courses, etc, to prove that they were capable.
I saw it most often used by the VA when someone was a known drug addict, and was spending all their money on heroin. The VA put their disability money into a special account, and held it for them, until they named a guardian, or someone to help manage their money.
Later, the Congress also then said "Hey, if they are incompetent to manage their own money, why are the not on the "do not buy firearms list"? As if not managing money might be the same as being declared a mental danger. It became an issue for gun rights people.
I agree that it isn't the same, but it also shouldn't be banned form being considered by the VA whether or not they should probably be on the don-not-purchase firearms' list.
It's complicated.
= new reply since forum marked as read
