Medical condition leading to loss of gun rights?

[Loosedhorse]

I find it bizarre that you would choose to live in a place where crimes are punished, rather than a place where crimes are prevented, if offered the choice.

Ah: perhaps a fan of the PreCrime Division of LE, as in Minority Report?

Yes: if the "solution" allowing us to prevent crimes is to take the RKBA from those who have demonstrated no criminal or reckless behavior because they might possibly demonstrate such behavior in the future; then yes, I'd much rather live in a society where crimes are punished rather than prevented.

Some "cures" are worse than the disease. Just think how many crimes could be prevented if we "bugged" every home, every phone, and every computer.

The word is "infantilize"

Proof that I don't type perfetly? Touché! (Ah, I meant "pefrectly." )

The point is that society uses their judgement in establishing rules

No. The point is that citizens of the US have fundamental rights, and they don't lose them as soon as someone (or even a majority) decide that it might be a good idea to take those rights away.

You want to take the RKBA away from the blind: pass a constitutional amendment. Then we can all agree that it is legal to deprive them...

Though I would still argue it is wrong to do so.

The founding fathers never anticipated arming the blind men of their time.

What? The government does not arm people; people arm themselves.

Please supply the contemporary statutes where the Founding Fathers empowered the government to deprive the blind of their firearms. You presume that it was always considered okay to treat the blind as less than citizens?

 

[Bobson]

Ugh. The problem with being open-minded is it can be difficult to maintain an opinion on a subject like this, where there is no clear-cut "right" response. I hate to admit it, but I do see certain benefits to gun control; or at least making guns harder to obtain, or limiting who they're available to. Then on the other hand, I'm of the firm belief that people will always mistreat others on criminal levels, whether guns exist or not.

And even though stupidity isn't a crime, I sorta believe it should be:

What about stupidity? Laziness? Lack of attention to detail? I'd bet we have all been those things, at one point in time or another. But some have had it happen at times that may have contributed to a ND - so I guess we should make them get rid of their guns, right?

Yes.

Some "cures" are worse than the disease. Just think how many crimes could be prevented if we "bugged" every home, every phone, and every computer.

This is pretty close to becoming a debate about the underlying sinfulness of man, but suffice it to say that minus a government filled with corruption, I would have absolutely no problem with this. Unfortunately, I don't believe that a government without corruption exists, or ever will.

 

[beatledog7]

The debate is every bit about RKBA, but as with any right, Person A's RKBA ends where Person B's right to be reasonably assured of maintaining his life begins.

If we argue that a blind Person A has RKBA, then we also must argue then that Person A's household member Person B has the right to not be gunned down as if he were an intruder. If blind person A cannot be relied upon to make that distinction correctly and consistently, then Person A must disavow RKBA because it infringes on Person B's right to not be shot in his own home.

As the discerning reader already knows (and may be ready to angrily type in response to the above), there is never a 100% guarantee of this "friend or foe" distinction being made correctly, even by a sighted person with years of training and experience (such as a long-serving LEO). Given that, it's pretty hard to see how a blind person could do so. So there again we have the conundrum; if RKBA ends where the right to live begins, can anyone of us meet the criteria? That's the sticky wicket. There seems little doubt that the sighted and trained person can get closer to 100% discernment between "lethal threat" and "other" than the blind person can, but the training and experience curve is and always will be asymptotic. You just can't guarantee what any person will do.

Government has no authority to strip the blind of RKBA. The right answer lies with family members and/or household members. A reasonable discussion between the blind person and those who face the greatest risk from placing an SD gun in the hands of that blind person can achieve a rational solution. They are the only ones who should be doing it.

 

[Strykervet]

In the original scenario apparently this individual was careless. His blindness may have been a contributing factor to him shooting himself. This individual should not have a gun. We are not taking away his rights we are trying to protect those around him. If you can't concede that there are people who should not have firearms you don't have a clue!!! The many scenarios of blind people shooting all seem to be controlled and supervised to one degree or another. All well and good but this case is different. There is a difference between "Blind" (CAN'T SEE A DAMN THING) and "legally blind". I still don't want "blind" or "legally blind" people driving on our roads.

Well, the antis just want to control your setting and protect those around you too. Where exactly do you draw the line?

 

[Strykervet]

Edit:

I change my position from disarming the blind to allowing them to continue to practice RKBA.

I can't debate this topic without leaning on my religious and moral beliefs, and I don't believe anyone else can either. In other words, we each have a bias that, likely, few others have. Even if you practice the same religion as me, we have very different life experiences.

I'm a firm believer that the RKBA extends to far too many people. All men may be created equally (this is in a spiritual sense, and IMO, absolutely nothing else), but all men are not equal in a literal sense - not at birth, and certainly not at adulthood.

Bottom line is this. The world is imperfect. Every man is imperfect. Every idea is imperfect. That means every man and idea has a flaw, or flaws. You may even disagree with that, which is fine.

I know disarming the blind is an imperfect option. That doesn't mean its entirely flawed.

I believe it extends to far too many people too. I believe that people who believe in religion should be in that category also. Checkmate.

Without going into the religion, do you see where this arguement is going? At some point you have to draw a line. It seems some of you are drawing it just the other side of yourselves.

If you believe it is the criminal that commits the crime and not the firearm, then you have to believe it is the individual responsible for his or her actions. Obviously a blind person knows they are blind and again, should know their limitations. Just because I took a blind guy shooting and controlled the situation doesn't mean anything other than he and I were both practicing safe shooting habits. He knew he couldn't aim, had no idea of what was behind let alone what was in front of his targets. He also didn't just walk out the back door and shoot willy nilly into the city either.

However, as an interesting point, this particular blind person likes to fight. As a result, his multiple assuault convictions led to a felony conviction, so now I guess he doesn't have to worry about it. Now he can't keep and bear arms, but for a different reason than just plain old discrimination. This guy shouldn't have arms nowadays, and I have no idea if he does or not, I haven't seen him since the army and that was '00 or '01, but he earned that revocation, he worked real hard to get to that point you could say.

Next time you folks draw lines, be careful about who you draw it around, because some folks might just throw you in there with them. Sort of the blind leading the blind you could say... And if everyone threw forks, we'd all be blind... You get it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Depends a lot on definition of legally blind.

Should a person have a gun collection confiscated from them be cause they have developed cataracts?

And how many collectors buy guns as curios, ornaments and investments rather than for use as weapons? Hint: read some of the ATF language on C&Rs like original Lugers with shoulder stocks. A lot.

 

[Bobson]

I believe it extends to far too many people too. I believe that people who believe in religion should be in that category also. Checkmate.

I fully understood that possibility while typing my response, but it's good that you wrote it. Truth be told, I should have written it myself, because it illustrates my point pretty clearly, which is right here:

At some point you have to draw a line.

Exactly right. At some point you have to draw a line. It does need to be drawn somewhere. Which effectively means that somewhere along that line, a group of people are going to feel as though their rights are being infringed upon. Welcome to life and it's disappointments. What else can I say?

There are four basic safety rules for firearms, which THR members go on and on about, and very few of us (if any) would ever volunteer to shoot with someone who isn't willing to follow even one of those rules. Blind people simply cannot follow two. It's impossible, which is as unfortunate as it is true.

So like I said earlier, disarming the blind is an imperfect solution, without question. A worse "solution" is to simply ignore the problem until it's too late for some innocent bystander. This is what you're proposing as the right choice.

Why would anyone defend my right right to reckless firearm ownership just because I haven't killed an innocent person yet? Is stripping the RKBA from the blind a punishment? No, it's not. It's the prevention of a punishment, which would be the result of a horrible mistake that could have been prevented.

A reasonable discussion between the blind person and those who face the greatest risk from placing a gun in the hands of that blind person can achieve a rational solution. They are the only ones who should be doing it.

I absolutely, fully agree. That reasonable discussion should go something like this:
"Look grandpa/whomever. You can't see me and I'm standing one foot in front of you. You can't safely manipulate a firearm in the confines of this house with your lack of eyesight, especially with grandma living here too, and your grandkids visiting regularly."
"You're right. Take my firearms." or maybe
"You're right. Take my ammunition." or maybe
"You're right. Lock up the weapons."

That's about as reasonable as it gets, if you ask me. This issue isn't about being mean, or about thinking I'm better than anyone else because I can see and they can't, or because I'm a Christian and they aren't. It's a matter of common sense, whether you want to admit it or not. If you can't see, you can't shoot safely (unless certain circumstances are taken, as in a special trip to the range, what-have-you).
1) If you want to restrict the purchase of ammunition to the blind, instead of firearms themselves, I'm perfectly fine with that.
2) If you want to mandate that the blind can only purchase non-functioning firearms, I'm fine with that too.
3) If you can come up with a totally different alternative that could adequately eliminate the risk associated with this issue, while still allowing blind people to safely drive, safely carry concealed firearms, and safely use those firearms due to superhuman increases of the other four senses, outstanding! I'm all for it.

But turning a blind eye (no pun intended) to the matter until it's too late for the neighbor's kid is the wrong choice.

 

[average_shooter]

Blind people simply cannot follow two of the four. It's impossible!

1. Treat all firearms as if they are loaded.

Anyone can do that.

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.

A firearm in a holster or bedside drawer doesn't count, only firearms in hand. I doubt you'll believe this, but blind people tend to know their homes and surroundings very well if they've been blind for any length of time. They need to know what and who is where just to get around.

3. Keep your finger off the trigger and out of the trigger guard until ready to fire.

This is a no-brainer. Nobody needs to actually see their finger and see the trigger in order to make sure they follow this rule.

4. Always be sure of your target.

I don't need to see in order to know that the person with their hands around my throat is a threat. Hell, even people with perfect vision can be attacked in the pitch black night.

If there's no stars out and the lights are off does nobody have a right to self defense?

Oh, I suppose the guy choking you to death is just trying to give you a hug.


Edit:

But turning a blind eye (no pun intended) to the matter until it's too late for the neighbor's kid is the wrong choice.

You really seem to be suggesting that blind people must also be mentally incompetent. Anyone, regardless of age, gender, physical ability, race, religion, ANYONE can have a negligent discharge and the bullet can go ANYWHERE!

 

[Loosedhorse]

Blind people simply cannot follow two of the four. It's impossible!

I do not accept your statement.

For instance, Cooper did not state in Rule 4 that you need be visually sure of your target and what is beyond, only that you are sure. That might allow a 400 yard unassisted shot in some circumstances for a sighted person (even though that same shot would be reckless for that sighted person in other conditions). For a blind person, Rule 4 may allow a near-contact self-defense shot in the home. But you seem to believe that a blind person could never make a safe shot, and so is undeserving of legal armed self-defense.

Even if I did accept your "cannot" statment as true, so what? Although he is perhaps frequently confused with G-d (), Cooper's 4 Rules were not in fact handed down to us on tablets from a burning bush. Perhaps more importantly, his Rules are not part of 2A; that amendment does not say, "...shall not be infringed, unless a person is unable to comply with Cooper's 4 Rules visually."

2A is not conditionally present only if the government judges someone capable of following Cooper's 4 Rules.

my right right to reckless firearm ownership

There is no such thing as reckless ownership. There can be reckless use. You continue to assume that any use of a firearm by a blind person must necessarily be reckless, and therefore they must be denied the legal ownership of firearms and the legal use of a firearm in self-defense.

But recklessness does NOT result from lack of vision, but from lack of judgment. Why would a blind person, who demonstrates prudence and judgment in all other phases of her life, be presumed to lack the judgment to be anything except reckless when it comes to firearms?

You have not made your case, IMHO.

may be ready to angrily type in response to the above

Passionately, never angrily.

 

[Bobson]

2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
A firearm in a holster or bedside drawer doesn't count, only firearms in hand. I doubt you'll believe this, but blind people tend to know their homes and surroundings very well if they've been blind for any length of time. They need to know what and who is where just to get around.

I knew of a local elderly blind man who beat the snot out of a 20-something year old burglar and held him at gunpoint inside his (the blind man's) home until police arrived. I'm not suggesting the blind don't know their homes well. I'm saying that without seeing, one can't know what's going on around him with enough assurance to fire a weapon into the darkness. BTW, this guy would be one who proves the blind should own guns. Which I'm fine with, if you're paying attention. See my Potential Solution #3 at the end of Post #57.

4. Always be sure of your target.
I don't need to see in order to know that the person with their hands around my throat is a threat. Hell, even people with perfect vision can be attacked in the pitch black night.

If there's no stars out and the lights are off does nobody have a right to self defense?

Oh, I suppose the guy choking you to death is just trying to give you a hug.

I never said there's no situation when it would be good for a blind person being armed; and I did say removing the RKBA from the blind is a flawed solution.

You came up with a possible situation to support your opinion. Here’s a real-life situation to support mine:

My wife and I have friends (I'll call them Dan and Lisa) who own and manage a live-in care home. They have a seven-bedroom home, and are licensed to rent out five of the rooms to elderly people in need of extra help. It's like an old-folks-home, except the elderly people who live with our friends get extra attention, and feel like they're living with family. They tend to develop extremely close relationships over the years, with the managers of the home - our friends.

A few weeks ago, Dan answers the door during the day, and finds that Jehova's Witnesses have shown up ready to convert him and his wife. As a joke, he cracks his best redneck accent and calls out, "Lisa, git me the gun, we gots sum Jehova's Witnesses 'round hur." The solicitors chuckle nervously and leave the residence quickly. No problem.

A few days later, they were in the bedroom watching a movie after lunch, and the doorbell rang. Lisa got up and answered it. Dan heard her call out, “Danny, get the gun.” Dan, who's a young guy of sound mind and body, and very proficient with his firearms, immediately thought of the recent home invasions that have been happening around the country. He rolled out of bed, grabbed his shotgun from the corner, racked the foregrip to chamber a shell while running, turned the corner with the barrel pointed at the front door just in time to see two young, pale guys in suits running away with apparently shaking knees. They were Mormons distributing pamphlets or something.

A lesson in taking guns seriously, without question. What if Dan were blind? What if one of his residents, all of which are in full control of their faculties (and therefore legally allowed to own firearms), was blind, and heard the same thing Dan heard?

For instance, Cooper did not state in Rule 4 that you need be visually sure of your target and what is beyond, only that you are sure.

How, pray tell, can I be sure of what lies beyond my target, if I can't even see beyond it (not to mention my target itself)? Did Cooper state that my friend should be sure of what lies beyond my target, or did he say I should be sure? I realize Cooper's opinion isn't law, but you can't deny that following these rules does save lives.

Many people here on THR condemned those of us who are licensed to carry firearms in a recent thread regarding Night Sights, saying "it would be incredibly foolish to fire at night anyway, because you can't see beyond your target." And we're talking about people who can see, here. That's a paraphrase, but I'll get the link for a citation if anyone wants it. It was a THR thread in the last couple of weeks.

But you seem to believe that a blind person could never make a safe shot, and so is undeserving of legal armed self-defense.

I'm fairly certain I specifically said the exact opposite. That it is possible, but unlikely that every blind person is capable of it. Which leads me back to where I started. Disarming the blind is a poor solution. But until a better solution is provided, it's better than doing nothing.

 

[average_shooter]

A lesson in taking guns seriously, without question. What if Dan were blind? What if one of his residents, all of which are in full control of their faculties (and therefore legally allowed to own firearms), was blind, and heard the same thing Dan heard?

How about we go to the root of the problem and talk about how joking about firearms and shooting someone based on religious belief is a hate crime, terroristic threat, brandishing, and all sorts of other things those folks could be charged with if the Jehovas really wanted to bring it to the attention of the police?

Your example is horribly flawed. What you are saying is essentially that a blind person in that situation would not have the mental cognition to withhold fire, and they would simply grab a gun and start spraying down the whole building. Again, that isn't how blind people work. Mentally they are the same as the rest of the population. I do not understand how this is impossible for you to realize. The ability to see has no real bearing on a person's ability to ascertain a close or contact threat and the appropriate action to take.

Even sighted people shoot their friends when they can supposedly clearly see and identify the target. So, if it prevents just one child from being killed by a sighted person with a ND, shouldn't we ban all firearms?

 

[Bobson]

How about we go to the root of the problem and talk about how joking about firearms and shooting someone based on religious belief is a hate crime, terroristic threat, brandishing, and all sorts of other things those folks could be charged with if the Jehovas really wanted to bring it to the attention of the police?

You're intentionally misquoting me in a weak attempt to discredit my opinion (which wouldn't add any validity to your opinion, by the way).

Nobody was threatened. No weapon was brandished. Nobody said anything about shooting anyone. Asking for a gun due to the presence of certain people on one's private property is neither a hate crime nor an act of terrorism. Get your facts straight; as it is, you're wasting my time and yours.

 

[average_shooter]

Your example really has nothing to do with sighted versus blind people being able to defend themselves.

He rolled out of bed, grabbed his shotgun from the corner, racked the foregrip to chamber a shell while running, turned the corner with the barrel pointed at the front door just in time to see two young, pale guys in suits running away with apparently shaking knees.

I'm not misquoting, that's a direct quote from above, bold emphasis added.

If they were "running away with ... shaking knees" after he had "the barrel pointed at the front door," which I presume is where they had been standing, they were obviously afraid.

I'm not a Jehova's Witness fan, but I don't threaten to shoot them when they come to my door. If they tried to force their way into my home or drag me out, that would be a different story.

The moral of your story is, firearms are nothing to joke about. But any rational person already knows that.



It saddens me and brings up an almost visceral response when I visit a firearms forum that promotes rights and equality and read posts from people stating that otherwise able and cognitively intact individuals don't have certain rights simply because of a disability.

I realize I'm not going to change anyone's mind, I just hate to see the hypocrisy.

 

[kynwatch]

I'll admit I skipped reading a lot of posts. I had a man in my CCW class that was blind. The only concession made for him was he was given the written test orally. He passed the range portion on his own. I'm talking totally blind. I was impressed. In talking with the instructor we found out that he worked on cars (including doing instructors wifes brakes) and probably spends more time on the range than 90% of us. I'm not saying ever blind person can do this, but you'll be amazed at what a person with physical challenges can do if they want to! How many of you could pass a written by only hearing the information once? I know he didn't have any help because I read the test to him and recorded his answers.

***Warning grammar police! Sent from an android phone using Tapatalk.***

 

[Bobson]

I didn't think to explicitely clarify that my opinion is just that - my opinion, not that of The High Road or its owner(s). If I came across as if attempting to make my opinion seem like THR policy, that was my mistake and I apologize for it. That wasn't my intention.

That being said, I'm gonna let this one go. Obviously I'm not changing any opinions here, and I have no intention of being the cause of any anger toward myself or any THR member, or THR itself. Let's chalk it up as agree to disagree.

 

[Loosedhorse]

How, pray tell, can I be sure of what lies beyond my target, if I can't even see beyond it (not to mention my target itself)?

Precisely my point.

Even sighted people, in poor lighting, or with the attacker so close that he obscures some of their vision of what is beyond (not to mention the phenomenon of "tunnel vision" thac can attend a high-stress situation) will not always be absolutely sure of Rule 4 when they fire. If you are saying that therefore no one is allowed to fire in such a situation, I disagree: we all will do the best we can, and be held accountable for any mistakes we make as well as the harm those mistakes cause. And we accept that for sighted persons: the fact that they might fire without being absolutely sure of Rule 4, and they are responsible for that. Just because they MIGHT shoot in violation of Rule 4, we don't disarm them.

But, apparently, you want different rules for blind persons: they MUST be absolutely sure, and that absolute surety MUST be obtained by vision only, and because they can't do that, they MUST be disarmed. Everyone of them.

Perception is not limited to vision. In fact, in the circumstances I've seen fit to "clear" my house at night because of an unidentified noise, listening was a huge part of that clearing. I suspect that many a blind person would be better at that clearing than I am--especially in their own home, or own bedroom. And as has been said many times now, you don't have to have vision to know when you are being attacked.

Disarming the blind is a poor solution. But until a better solution is provided, it's better than doing nothing.

That is not how rights work. You don't get to strip away the basic right of effective self-defense from an entire class of disabled persons because you can't at the moment think of a better solution for a hypothetical problem. And, again, that hypothetical problem depends entirely on the blind behaving recklessly, which you have absolutely no basis for believing.

You would disarm all the blind based on your unsupported hypothesis that, without your violating their rights, they would recklessly cause harm--more harm than would be caused by your disarming them.

You seem to think that an unproven theory of "this restriction of rights would be worse for those restricted, but better for others" gives you all the reason you need to restrict others' rights. I don't believe that.

Oh: even if your theory (that taking away the guns of the blind would save more lives than it costs) could somehow be proven right, I'd still believe it would be wrong to restrict others' fundamental rights. Just the same way that even if it could be proven that bugging everyone's home, phone and computer would on balance save lives, it would still be wrong.

 

[JohnKSa]

The fact that a blind person would almost certainly have to limit/restrict their use of firearms much more than a sighted person would doesn't mean that they shouldn't be able to own or use them at all.

As pointed out, a person in the dark being strangled or stabbed, or grappled with would know that they're being attacked and have a very good idea where the attacker is even if he can't see the attacker due to the darkness. A blind person would be in exactly the same position.

It's true that a blind person would be ill-advised to take a 25 yard shot at an attacker, but it's also true that a sighted person would be similarly ill-advised to take the identical shot in the dark. So should we all be forced to lock up our guns when the sun goes down?

The point is that shooting at an attacker requires the defender to be prudent. A blind person doesn't lose the ability to be prudent just because he can't see. Basically he has the same responsibilities as a sighted person, he just has to understand his limitations. Exactly like a sighted person has to understand his limitations. The fact that those limitations differ is irrelevant as long as each person deals with their limitations in a reasonable and prudent manner.

 

[Shadow 7D]

You have to remember, it is the states business to keep the PUBLIC safe. It is not the states business to keep you safe from yourself.

Sale of firearms to a physically handicapped person is another story.

One handicap is much the same( Legally), there comes a LIMIT on certain activities society decides to allows ALL people to do. Look the blind can't drive, but then the SAME rules limit teenagers, those with poor sight and those who can't comprehend traffic signs. THE BAR IS THE SAME TO EVERYONE

YOU think you know what is best for the disabled? I got a few organizations that will be happy to show up at your house and picket, just realize that there is some history when they call you a Nazi and yell at you about institutionalization. Just remember 40 short years ago, you family could send you to the funny farm to get a lobotomy, because they knew best...
I do believe that the current law requires that a person who owns a gun be responsible.

Gosh darn, there I go with that word.
If the person is able to be held responsible for the their actions, then they should be able to own a gun (barring those legally unable to.)

Why put special limits?
As for CCW, if a blind person can pass the class and qualification course, I'm all for them and their right to carry.

 

[DT Guy]

Snubbie, "we've" determined that your hand shakes too much to legally fire a handgun safely. "We'll" be by later this afternoon to collect your firing pins.

See how that works, now?


Larry

 

[bikemutt]

Snubbie, "we've" determined that your hand shakes too much to legally fire a handgun safely. "We'll" be by later this afternoon to collect your firing pins.

See how that works, now?


Larry

Astonishing! We were having breakfast at the local Denny's this morning when I noticed an old guy come in, right hand shaking like there's no tomorrow. I reflected on this thread and thought "when will they take his guns away?".

 

[JohnKSa]

Look the blind can't drive...

The blind can drive, just not on public roads. A blind person is free to drive on his own property as long as he takes precautions to insure that no one is placed at risk.

 

[Loosedhorse]

As for CCW, if a blind person can pass the class and qualification course, I'm all for them and their right to carry.

This to me is the most interesting part of the question.

There is still no doubt in my mind that even a completely blind person attacked outside the home would be able in some circumstances to use a handgun to effectively and safely (safe for everyone except his attacker) defend himself from a lethal attack. It might be a contact or near-contact shot.

But I also recognize the state's "public safety" interest in regulating carry outside the home.

Does that mean we should allow the blind only to own firearms and keep them (ready for defense) at home, but not allow them to legally carry outside the home? (No totally blind person is going to qualify on a standard course of fire, so requiring that test is the same as banning them from carrying in public.) Some "legally blind" (not totally blind) persons might qualify, but not all.

Is it acceptable that we say the blind may not legally carry firearms for SD? Or do even the totally blind retain a right to armed self-defense outside the home? If so, how would we modify the qualification course to "accommodate" visually impaired applicants (accommodate as in the Americans with Disabilities Act)?

Should we perhaps allow them to carry only if they pass a "special" course of instruction---and buy liability insurance?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Should we perhaps allow them to carry only if they pass a "special" course of instruction---and buy liability insurance?

Why should they be subjected to any additional restrictions at all?

What is being said here is that blind people might shoot someone else since they can't see. If that happened it would be because of poor judgment rather than blindness would it not? A blind person exercising good judgement would not pull the gun unless they knew they could safely shoot their attacker without endangering innocents. Seems to me that is the same requirement placed on all the rest of us as well.

How many fully sighted people carry guns who we know to have very poor judgment. We read stories all the time about ND's in public, LEO's leaving guns in restrooms etc.

A blind person should be trusted to exercise restraint to only use the firearm when they know they can use it without undue danger to others around them, probably a contact shot.

That's the exact same requirement that is put on every other legal gun carrier, the requirement to exercise good judgement and restraint.

So why should we legislate that judgement and restraint on some forms of diminished capacity (sight) and not for other forms of diminished capacity (goofballs and careless people)?

What you are saying, in effect, is that being blind somehow impairs ones judgment. That's nonsense.

If you advocate special training or certifications for the handicapped then you must advocate an IQ test, or a psych eval, for everyone who would touch a gun. Wouldn't be the first time such a thing has been suggested. Doesn't sound like a path we should even consider.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

How can anyone think for a minute that a blind person should have the right to own a firearm. If you can't see it how can you shoot it???

Keep and bear has nothing to do with being able to see. There has been a gun on my hip all day and I haven't seen it once! Seeing will have some impact on shooting in some instances, but that has nothing to do with keeping and bearing.

Woody

 

[Birch Knoll]

Look the blind can't drive

Can the blind own cars?