Medical condition leading to loss of gun rights?

[JohnBT]

"The problem I have"

The problem is you haven't thought it through, you've jumped to a bad conclusion. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean people aren't already doing it. In this case, blind people do shoot. And some of them are quite good.

Blind people own cars. Some even drive them, though not usually on public roads.

John

 

[Strykervet]

They should have the same rights as everyone else. If they do something stupid with it, I'm assuming they know their limitations, then they should be held accountable like anyone else.

I used to know a blind guy that liked to shoot. He actually shot himself, that is why he is blind. Anyway, he could shoot safely at a range when I was with him.

Also, who is to say the blind person doesn't have the same fascination the rest of us do, and just wants to collect them? He or she doesn't necessarily have to fire them to exercise their rights as a firearms owner.

Finally, you'd be surprised at how accurate they could be in a HD situation. In their own homes, they may as well have sight. It is a severe disability to a shooter for sure, but doesn't deny them their rights as I see it.

 

[JohnKSa]

Medical condition leading to loss of gun rights?

Sensational title, but not really accurate.

Blind NJ resident fighting forfeiture proceedings after shooting self in the shin.

While his blindness may be an issue in the proceedings, the precipitating factor was that he shot someone (himself) accidentally. In addition, there are other contributing factors such as his D&D charge.

Like the judge says, it's not any single issue, "“It’s the totality of all the circumstances” that warrant forfeiture."

In my opinion, blind people should have the same gun rights as anyone else. And the same restrictions. It seems to me that he's getting a fair shake. If I shot myself, had a recent D&D charge and had some other contributing factor that indicated I might not be safe with guns, I wouldn't be surprised if someone decided to take a closer look to determine if I were a danger to myself and/or others.

The fact that I can see, in and of itself, doesn't give me the right to shoot a gun with impunity. I must insure that there are either extenuating circumstances that allow me to discharge the firearm in self-defense or I must insure that the circumstances under which I discharge the firearm (for practice or recreation) do not endanger anyone.

In the former case, even if there are extenuating circumstances that allow me to discharge the firearm in self-defense, I am still potentially liable for mischief done by any errant rounds I fire so it behooves me to keep that in mind and plan ahead when I select a self-defense firearm and ammunition for it.

In the latter case, if I neglect to properly insure that the circumstances under which I discharge the firearm (for practice or recreation) do not endanger anyone then I am liable for any damage or injury done.

A blind person has exactly the same responsibilities and liabilities that I do, and as long as they manage them properly then I have no problem with a blind person owning or using a gun.

 

[Strykervet]

"The problem I have"

The problem is you haven't thought it through, you've jumped to a bad conclusion. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean people aren't already doing it. In this case, blind people do shoot. And some of them are quite good.

Blind people own cars. Some even drive them, though not usually on public roads.

John

Yeah, I let him drive my car too. A '68 Dart GT. He did okay, but I had to micromanage the instructions step by step. He really enjoyed it, since he lost his sight at 14 yo and never got to drive a car really.

 

[mortablunt]

Cataracts and Dementia would be good reasons. Of course, being NJ, being a New Yorker, or just loving guns could be reason for a denial.

 

[Dead]

The ones trying to take their guns should lose their rights to own a gun...

 

[snubbies]

Back to the Top

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.

 

[TexasRifleman]

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.

So you advocate that anyone who has ever had a Negligent Discharge should lose their 2A rights? Lots of cops and others on that list.....

 

[Loosedhorse]

Cataracts and Dementia would be good reasons.

Re cataracts: most folks above 50, and a lot above 40, have some early stage of cataract. Some folks get them much earlier, some are born with them.

Most cataracts are not severe enough to cause blindness. It seems to me the "cataract = lose your guns" idea is even worse than the "blindness = lose your guns" idea--and I don't even agree with the blindness idea.

[If anyone's interested: should a blind person be issued a CCW permit?]

Dementia? There are degrees. I think that I'd agree that anyone who has been declared incompetent (no longer allowed to make any legally-binding decisions, contracts, or consents) should not be able to access guns. But: does that mean we need a law about that, or that the incompetent person's guardian (or conservator) now takes responsibility for the guns (as for everything else).

For lesser degrees of dementia: when would we take guns away? As soon as someone gets "forgetful"?

There has been a lot of opinion about how "antigun" physicians are in general. How much authority to take away people's guns should we give them?

In the original scenario apparently this individual was careless.

I had an ND. In fact, before I changed my ways, I had two. I was careless--should I have lost my gun rights? How long? Who would decide when to give them back?

Or should we say that only NDs that cause injury lead to loss of gun rights? Again, how long, and who can restore them?

 

[BigN]

Seems to me a person who can't see wouldn't try to shoot his guns anymore. I don't believe he should use them though. He should be able to keep them.

 

[snubbies]

Negligent discharge

If he /she is blind and that blindness is a contirbuting factor then YES

 

[beatledog7]

It's not the right that's in question; it's the ability.

With existing technology, a blind person cannot reasonably drive a car. There are experimental systems that theoretically enable this, but these are unproven and unaffordable for the average person. So, a blind person can legally own many cars if he or she wants to, but cannot be licensed to drive them because of the vision aspect.

How to manage an already licensed driver's onset of blindness is a state matter. You can bet that if blind driving ever does become practicable and affordable, states will require special licensure and specially tagged vehicles for blind drivers.

There is no similar license to shoot. Perhaps there ought to be.

For a blind person to carry for SD, he or she must be able to demonstrate the ability to discern targets at SD range and be wise and experienced enough to not shoot when such discernment is not assured. If that's not possible for a given person, then a blind shooter license ought to be a no go. [Maybe that should be applied across the board. Worm can opened.]

But even if there were a license to shoot, what would physically stop a formerly sighted and licensed but now blind and no longer licensed gun shooter (I'm not talking about a gun owner here but my hypothetical licensed gun shooter) from loading a gun and pulling the trigger? Similarly, what would stop the now blind car owner (whose license has been revoked due to the onset of blindness) from picking up the keys and making her way to the car, starting it up, and heading down the driveway?

In both cases, the only way is to render the item unusable. For the blind former driver, you simply lock the car, recover all the keys, and secure them. For the blind former shooter, you simply install appropriate trigger or action locks and secure the keys. That leaves both the car and the firearms intact but unusable.

In both cases, the right (in the gun instance) or privilege (in the car instance) of ownership is maintained, but nobody's safety is threatened.

 

[Loosedhorse]

he or she must be able to demonstrate the ability to discern targets at SD range and be wise and experienced enough to not shoot when such discernment is not assured.

Should we suppose that, once her attacker's hands are around her throat, the blind defender has now "discerned" her attacker, and may shoot?

How does a blind person "demonstrate" such discernment ability--and to whom?

 

[beatledog7]

Loosed,

I know the theory brings up many legitimate questions, yours among them. I don't know exactly how it would work; that's why it's hypothetical.

 

[Bobson]

Perhaps we should declare that the blind may not vote, because they can't see the ballot? Ridiculous, we all say, they can be provided a braille ballot or other accommodation.

This is a pretty big stretch, and you know it. Nobody's suggesting that blind people can't think. And you're right, they can vote by other means.

What other means [aside from vision] exists for a blind person to ensure the barrel of his gun never sweeps or rests on a target he doesn't intend to kill?
What other means [aside from vision] exists for a blind person to be sure of his target, and around/beyond it?

It's impossible for a blind person to properly follow two of the four basic rules of gun safety. I hate to say it, but based on that, I don't think the blind should be armed, at this point at least.

 

[beatledog7]

Bobson,

You may be correct in a certain practical sense, but what about the fact that 2A does not specify that blind people lose their RKBA? The Founders knew that there were blind people and that there always would be, yet they made no special provision for them when they drafted 2A. They didn't include the four rules either. Congress and the states were equally aware, yet the amendment was passed and ratified.

So, if one argues that the blind should be disarmed, along with the demented, the criminally inclined, etc., where does it end? How about the non-fingered person, or the paraplegic, or the person whom for whatever reason we simply don't think ought to be armed?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Nobody's suggesting that blind people can't think.

Actually, that is, IMHO, exactly what some people are saying.

They seem to be saying that the blind WOULD shoot wildly, without being sure of target, or even perhaps sure of the real presence of a threat, with no thought whatever to the possible consequences of that action. Because they would not control themselves, we must control them, for their own good, and for ours.

I think that the blind are acutely aware of their disability. They realize that they cannot visually identify a threat, but that does not mean that the blind could not identify that someone is an immediate lethal threat by other means, and eventually during the attack identify the attacker's exact location.

You seem to believe that the inability to visually check for Rule 2 should take away the right of armed self-defense. If the person learns a muzzle-sweeps-the-ground draw (as most of us learn), then, I guess if their were silent innocents on the floor of her home as she drew her gun on her attacker, she might sweep them.

Similarly, you think that inability to visually check for a Rule 4 should cost her the ability to shoot an attacker strangling her. Well, I submit that any sighted person being strangled by a larger attacker probably can't check behind the attacker (if they would even bother) as they bring their gun to bear.

Yes, you do seem to indicate the blind can't think: that they would be unaware of their disability, unable to come up with reasonable compensatory strategies, and unable to contemplate the consequences of their actions. And so should lose their right to effective (armed) self-defense.

Any person who understands the consequences of their actions should, IMHO, be allowed to exercise their full rights until such time as they have demonstrated that they will harm others intentionally or recklessly.

 

[snubbies]

Common Sense

There must be a degree of common sense applied to this situation. There is no one answer to some of the hypothesis presented here. We don't allow children to buy guns. We have rules to protect society.

 

[Bobson]

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.

 

[Loosedhorse]

We don't allow children to buy guns.

Because of their judgment, not because of their physical ability. You are suggesting we infantalize the blind, who have no problem with their judgment.

there are probably tens of thousands of blind people in the world who would own and manipulate firearms in a safe manner.

The thing is, what about those who won't?

[Note: the above quote has been edited out by the poster. For now, I'll let my quoting of it and response to it stand, as I think this is at the heart of the matter--Lh]

And there are millions of non-disabled persons who would use guns legally.

The thing is, what about those who won't?

That same argument is the very root of ALL gun-control arguments: I should have a gun, just not other people who aren't as worthy as I am. So deprive the many because of the potential misconduct of the few.

limit ones' ability to function at full moral, physical, and/or ethical capacity? Let me be clear: Abso-freakin-lutely.

Even with persons who have "limited" moral or ethical capacity, we do not deprive them of their rights prospectively: after they commit a crime (that is, after they harm someone), we punish them. That is unfortunate for their victims (I mean that sincerely) but it is the price of a free society. People are not deprived of rights based on what they might do in the future.

As for the physically handicapped (you mentioned folks in wheelchairs, and the thread is about the "blind"): since they are neither rationally nor morally incapable persons, they should weigh their own abilities, needs, and circumstances and decide for themselves if they should be armed. If a blind person voluntarily sells all her guns, her rights have not been violated, even though she might possibly regret that action some day if she is attacked. Similarly, if she keeps her guns, and eventualy harms an innocent, she will regret (and pay for) that decision. That is a tough choice to make.

IMHO, the best person to make that choice is the individual herself. Not the government.

 

[Bobson]

That same argument is the very root of ALL gun-control arguments: I should have a gun, just not other people who aren't as worthy as I am. So deprive the many because of the potential misconduct of the few.Even with persons who have "limited" moral or ethical capacity, we do not deprive them of their rights prospectively: after they commit a crime (that is, after they harm someone), we punish them. That is unfortunate for their victims (I mean that sincerely) but it is the price of a free society.

If your problem is with gun control, you're debating in the wrong place, imo.

There's nothing wrong with gun control. If you really believe EVERYONE should have the right to own guns, there's nothing left to be said here.

Additionally, just as a side note, 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.

And I'm not suggesting the elimination of guns would result in the elimination of violent crime. Even if every person on earth was nothing more than a bouncing head, there are those who would spit on others. And really, that's the entire point of my posts.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If your problem is with gun control, you're debating in the wrong place, imo.

You mean THR is a pro-gun-control site? I'm surprised.

However, it is being considered here whether citizens who have no history of criminal or reckless behavior can be deprived of a fundamental, enumerated, incorporated civil right based on what they might possibly do in the future. That sounds like gun control.

If you really believe EVERYONE should have the right to own guns

This I think is a strawman argument, but I can't be sure...

Because you haven't specified who (besides perhaps the physically handicapped) should not have the right to own a gun.

 

[hermannr]

Violent Criminals and criminally insane...that is it for restricted people in my book.

Like MI, in WA you can even obtain a special hunting license if you are disabled, and being blind is considered disabled.

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.

 

[Tim the student]

Those who would disarm the blind: shame on you.

I agree.

Negligent discharge
If he /she is blind and that blindness is a contirbuting factor then YES

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?

 

[snubbies]

Missed the Point

The word is "infantilize" and NO I don't favor that. The point is that society uses their judgement in establishing rules which govern our rights in a free society. We may not like the rules and we have the ways to change them. I don't believe that the majority of the population would condone or advocate the sale of firearms to a "blind" person. Sale of firearms to a physically handicapped person is another story. You cannot equate the physical handicap, depending on the nature of the handicap, with "blindness". Each case must be evaluated on its own. As inferred ealier are we taking the RKBA a little far afield. The founding fathers never anticipated arming the blind men of their time.