No guns for the blind?

mkk41

US Veteran
Joined
Aug 2, 2004
Messages
5,027
Reaction score
1,621
Location
South East , PA . USA
Seems to be the newest crusade. Iowa is issuing permits to SOME people who are considered legally , but not 100% totally blind. Of course , it's being blown out of proportion on the talk/news shows. Like a certain CNN blankity-blank-blank crowing that he doesn't want ''people blind as bat having an AR-15 assault rifle"!:rolleyes:



Should a person deemed legally blind , but only has limited vision be denied their 2nd Amendment rights?

That would mark them as defenseless and an easy victim!

I know a few people who , due to injury , age or other reasons , are considered legally blind because they cannot pass a drivers eye exam , but can see enough at 10-20ft that they can tell a threat and hit a person at arms length to social distance.
 
Register to hide this ad
I would assume that part of the test to obtain a license includes shooting. If they can pass that part I would see no problem in them having a permit.
 
I would assume that part of the test to obtain a license includes shooting. If they can pass that part I would see no problem in them having a permit.

For better or worse , some states don't require any gun handling/shooting qualification or even a knowledge of legal use of deadly force test in order to be issued a permit/license to carry. We don't here in PA. I'm also unaware of any restrictions on buying/carrying for the blind.
 
I've seen braille instructions at drive up ATM machines.

I think ADA prevents discrimination based on physical limitations. In NJ all you need is a clean mental health and criminal record and you can purchase a gun. There's nothing that says you have to be able to see.
 
Being blind should not deprive a person of their rights. Anybody who says it should is a bigot. Anyone against the second amendment is a racest. That certain CNN talking head is both.
 
For better or worse , some states don't require any gun handling/shooting qualification or even a knowledge of legal use of deadly force test in order to be issued a permit/license to carry. We don't here in PA. I'm also unaware of any restrictions on buying/carrying for the blind.

Where I live a person has to shoot at distances up to 15 yards in order to obtain a license. A minimum score of 180 points out of a possible 250 is required to pass. I wasn't aware that some states would issue a license without a test of shooting skills. That seems like getting drivers license without having to pass a driving test.
 
my state of vt anyone over 16 can carry but 18 to buy and we follow constitutional carry, open or concealed no permits or tests
 
Blind?

What's the difference in 'practice' for low and no light?

Everyone is guaranteed equal rights....Or so I thought

.
 
Where I live a person has to shoot at distances up to 15 yards in order to obtain a license. A minimum score of 180 points out of a possible 250 is required to pass. I wasn't aware that some states would issue a license without a test of shooting skills. That seems like getting drivers license without having to pass a driving test.


A drivers license is a privilege.

Owning a firearm is a right!

And in PA , carrying is also a right; "Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.



I think there should be an IQ test before a person is allowed VOTE! But it's a right , not a privilege.
 
Last edited:
mkk41 im discussing the matter with myself as to using the 1st, 2nd, and 4th in your statement above as my signature. that is brillaint
 
mkk41 im discussing the matter with myself as to using the 1st, 2nd, and 4th in your statement above as my signature. that is brillaint

Just don't get into an argument with yerself over it!:cool:

I got into an argument with myself one time and got so mad I didn't talk to myself for 2 weeks!
 
BIL is legally blind. He can see OK in daylight and could hunt if he wanted to but has problems in darkened areas. He works full time stocking shelves but by law is considered legally blind.
 
Federal law says that the disabled are a protected class. It would be illegal under federal for the state to discriminate against a blind person that met the legal qualification for a concealed carry permit.

This is a win win issue for some. They could complain about the state issuing the permit or if the state didn't issue the permit they could yell about discrimination of the disabled, how convenient. Then again, maybe they just hate the blind and don't think they should have a right to protect themselves.
 
Lets say it like this : What somebody does in his home is his business. You can own a car without a license, you just can't drive on the street.
So why not own a firearm at your house for self defense?

The whole question comes down to the point that you just can't revoke somebody's constitutional rights because of a disability. Where would it stop? Dyslexia and you have no 1A ?

I hope people use common sense. 100% blind should be disqualifying to carry outside the house, but I think they should encourage concealed carry of tazers
 
Are we talking about a permit to carry concealed or a permit to own a firearm? I fully agree that everyone that is mentally competent, of legal age and has no criminal record should be able to own a gun.
 
I never understood where these anti gun people getting the idea of obtaining licence to carry or possessing a gun equals to free pass to meaningless shooting around like Yosemite Sam?

Most carry permit holders will not need to use their guns for shooting or threatening somebody for the rest of their lives anyways.

So what's the problem?
 
Are we talking about a permit to carry concealed or a permit to own a firearm? I fully agree that everyone that is mentally competent, of legal age and has no criminal record should be able to own a gun.

Which branch of government would you trust to determine mental competence?
 
Back
Top