Medical condition leading to loss of gun rights?

[snubbies]

ATF

ATF called back. There is no restriction applied by ATF except that portion of the Form 4473 dealing with the applicants ability to read and understand the forms. In the event he/she can't then they are allowed to get assistance. Two persons are required to witness filling out and signing the 4473. The applicant blind or not must sign the form. Now this is applicable only to interstate sales or transfers involving an FFL. The next question goes to State Law.

 

[kb58]

Make it like a driving test, which would have a standarized shooting test as part of obtaining a gun permit. If the applicant hits the target, they get a permit. I like this approach because it solves the question of the shooter's ability in a practical sense, not by some formula or set of check-boxes. If the person doesn't, they're considered a threat because they can't indentify what they're shooting at. Put the target 10 ft away to make up for firing under diress.

 

[average_shooter]

kb58, so you argue that there is no pre-existing right to firearms ownership and to self defense? Firearms ownership is therefor a privilege granted by the state?

 

[Loosedhorse]

If the person doesn't, they're considered a threat because they can't indentify what they're shooting at.

Nobody with good intentions, good training, and good judgment should be considered "a threat" when they have a firearm. Even if they are blind.

 

[snubbies]

Illinois

Checked with ISP No restrictions on "Blind" citizens obtaining a FOID card.

 

[imac98374]

He should be able to own the gun, but if he uses it, he needs to be held to the same standard that someone with normal vision is. I.e., shooting the wrong person in a situation where a person with normal vision could be reasonably expected to avoid the error should cost the blind man dearly.

 

[Birch Knoll]

He should be able to own the gun, but if he uses it, he needs to be held to the same standard that someone with normal vision is.

Of course. Justice is, after all, blind.

 

[kb58]

He should be able to own the gun, but if he uses it, he needs to be held to the same standard that someone with normal vision is. I.e., shooting the wrong person in a situation where a person with normal vision could be reasonably expected to avoid the error should cost the blind man dearly.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets this. Blind and want to buy a gun? Fine, but want to use it? Unless a competent level of accuracy and control can be demonstrated - blind or not - no permit. At some point, a handicap must be taken into account.

Case in point, my local FFL is wrestling with the following. He's currently holding a .45 pistol for a guy who's in a wheelchair. His upper body strength is iffy, his hands aren't steady, and he has trouble controlling where his arms go. It's the FFL's professional opinion that the guy is a large potential danger to himself and everyone at the range because he can't control where that pistol will point, or when it'll go off. However, the 2A says it's his right. For those who agree, how would you like to be in the stall next to the above gun owner? At what level do things have to get to before you concede that maybe the 2A isn't a God-given right?

 

[Owen Sparks]

Perhaps this is one case where a good duck load might make sense. It poses very limited risk to the neighbors.

BTW, A drunk was arrested near my town last New Years Eve for firing a pistol into the air in celibration even though he was shooting on his own property. The crime was that the bullets were landing on other peoples properety and putting everyone within a half mile radius in harms way. (he broke a neighbors bedroom window who called the cops) Would a blind person not be endangering others if he simply shot in the general direction of a sound and the bullet exited his property? How can a blind person be sure of his target much less what is beyond it?

 

[Birch Knoll]

For those who agree, how would you like to be in the stall next to the above gun owner? At what level do things have to get to before you concede that maybe the 2A isn't a God-given right?

Why do so many posters insist on conflating the right to buy or possess a firearm with the ability to utilize it to some standard of competency? The man indisputably has the right to purchase and possess a firearm. Whether or not he can safely handle the weapon is a question for the range, when and if he ever decides to patronize a range.

 

[Birch Knoll]

Would a blind person not be endangering others if he simply shot in the general direction of a sound and the bullet exited his property? How can a blind person be sure of his target much less what is beyond it?

Why do you assume that the only purpose a blind person would have a firearm is self defense? That's not the only reason I own them.

 

[kb58]

Why do so many posters insist on conflating the right to buy or possess a firearm with the ability to utilize it to some standard of competency?

Yes, you're absolutely correct, a blind man has the right to buy guns for his collection. This whole issue of handicapped gun owners gets real complicated in a hurry, but there's something wrong when the range is the only authority IF a handicapped owner wants to shoot. It gets even more complicated if the owner decides to shoot it on his own property. As was said, beyond SOME level of self-control, the owner becomes dangerous to his neighbors. How on earth gun sellers, FFLs, and ranges are expected to handle this, I don't know, especially if the owner starts getting loud about his 2A rights.

 

[Birch Knoll]

You don't have to be blind or otherwise handicapped to be unsafe with a gun, and being blind or otherwise handicapped doesn't mean you are unsafe.

If you keep or carry a gun for self protection, you might wish to reflect on the fact that you too are a blind shooter whenever it's too dark to see clearly.

 

[krupparms]

slippery slope

I am always surprised at the resistance to giving others their rights, As a veteran &someone. Who fights for civil rights, I must say, We must use reason in making laws that take rights from others! People with disabilities should show reason & if they cannot only then should someone step in! REASON SEEMS to be the key here. We have so many laws already that no one can keep up! Freedom is something we have to give to get! Reason is something we must learn! God Bless our Republic &our Freedom! Krupparms

 

[Owen Sparks]

I have no problem with blind people owning and shooting firearms if it can be done safely. Shooting blind within range of other people and their property is not safe and is sort of like texting and driving. You can't shoot safely if you can't see what you are doing. You would not want me driving down your street with my eyes glued to my phone would you? Of course not because I can't see what I am doing and that puts you and your property at risk. Again, a high powered duck load might be the answer.

 

[average_shooter]

Holy dear God, some of you folks clearly can't seem to use reason and logic. I shouldn't be participating in this forum so late at night...

Owen, and others, I pray you never get attacked while asleep in your bed, because you yourself state you will be unable to identify the attacker on top of you in the middle of the night and defend yourself. You'll just have to submit to the guy choking or stabbing you or your wife to death since you can't actually "see" the guy stabbing you, because it'll be dark and you'll be "blind as a bat."

Sight has little to nothing to do with me being able to identify the person that grabs me from behind and drags me to the ground as a threat. I don't need to see the person on top of me stabbing me to know he's trying to kill me.

By some of your guys' logic all rights to self defense cease come sundown and lights out. If you honestly are unable to see the flaws in this mode of thinking then I'm sure I know plenty of blind people with a lot more sense than you.

It absolutely astonishes me that so many people get angry about politicians saying, "I can have guns, but you can't" then those same people turn around and use that same BS line on people they wish to discriminate against.

Again, being blind does not mean a person has lost all sense of reason and will shoot at the slightest sound or shoot wildly into the crowd.

A person's physical limitations do not automatically translate to them having mental disabilities. Some of you seem to be suggesting otherwise...

Maybe in bold people will actually read and understand it?

 

[Shadow 7D]

answer me this
has anybody studied the history of the treatment of those with disabilities?
In the US you have the RIGHT to purchase and even *!GASP!* use a firearm...
as long as you are not a prohibited person.

See physical limitations aren't the first classes they will ban
all you that say, "how can a blind person use a gun, hell he shouldn't even own one"

Realize, the first classes of disabled stripped of their rights are those with cognitive, 'emotional', and psychiatric disabilities.
so please flee this thread if you have ever been to a psychiatrist, Oh, you haven't
well has your wife EVER been treated for depression, ADHD, kid?? does you mother come over??

yeah, best to let a the blind guy bust caps into the broad side of the barn than even start down that slope

OH, and for those who really are a so bigoted, or what my disabled, wheelchair bound wife calls Ignorant ********.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EKqEat9irs
A disabled man rocks his 45, where there is a will there is a way

 

[average_shooter]

Just thought of something that might help clarify this:

When you get to court, after somebody has been shot or shot at by you, you will not be subjected to a physical test of ability and agility. You will be put to the "reasonable person" test. That is, the jury must answer, "would a reasonable person, in your situation, act as you did and take the same actions?"

Ability or disability has no bearing on this. It's all mental. And blind people are perfectly able to reason.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Realize, the first classes of disabled stripped of their rights are those with cognitive, 'emotional', and psychiatric disabilities.
so please flee this thread if you have ever been to a psychiatrist

Well, there's a real point here.

Many of us seem to feel somehow that the shooter of AZ Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims that day, or the Virginia Tech shooter, "should" have been prevented from getting guns. Real tricky on how to do that, without subjecting anyone whose ever seen a grief counsellor or psychologist to the risk of being denied legal access to guns unjustly.

And, as has been said in this thread, those who have had their judgment severely impaired by age or disease should be kept away from guns. But again, the mechanism is tricky.

 

[MrWesson]

Taking is guns is no different than taking his car to me if he had one and still was trying to drive it.

Owning and operating a vehicle is not a right.

IMO no man should be stripped of his rights for any reason.

I also think felons should have the opportunity after they repay their debt(especially non violent). That's a different thread though.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If a blind person wanted to drive his car around in a big pasture somewhere I would not care. The same with shooting a gun. It is only when it puts ME in danger that it becomes my business. I personaly use a shotgun for HD with a light so that I can SEE because it lessens the danger to others.

 

[average_shooter]

Owen, you're refusing to counter my points. I guess I can't force you to read them, and even if you do I can't know that you would understand them. But you're just going in circles now.

The reasons why we should not limit people's rights have been pointed out repeatedly, logically, and with great thought.

The reasons for limiting people's rights has boiled down to the Brady Campaign level of, "they shouldn't have it because it makes me feel scared."

 

[Shadow 7D]

+++ 1
Just because you feel scared, isn't a grounds to remove someone's rights, if it was, I would remove ALL cellphone users, ALL (sorry chicks but yer getting just as bad as they boys) people under the age of 21 from our nations roads.

I know that this would inconvenience ALOT of teenage perfect drivers who are VERY safety conscious, but since they top the list of those who cause accidents, they are gone. Also on a side note, disabled individuals are allowed on the road (NOT a right so long as they can pass (and this a MAJOR legal point) the SAME driving test, if they use adaptive devises, such as Franklin D. Roosevelt's hand controls (yeprs a president some here would neither trust with a gun or a car) or a simple knob on the steering wheel. The only Fair standard is a UNIFORM standard.

 

[Ryanxia]

Obviously it would be dangerous for him to go to the range but if I lived alone and was blind I'd still want a double barrel shotgun in case anyone broke in.

The right to defend your own life is a human right.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Just out of curiosity, if a blind person hears someone breaking in he will direct his shot based on the percieved direction of the sound. What then? Gunfire in a confined space will ring your ears and will temporary deminish your hearing. What about follow up shots while your ears are still ringing? How can you hear subtle sounds then?