I saw it today, even talked to the guy. Blind and packing openly. For the purpose of full disclosure he is not totally blind, he can see light and some shapes. He can't recognize a face at any distance or fill out a 4473....what do you think?
Simple answer? No, sight should not be a requirement for legal carry. Any time a question about the 2nd comes up, I apply the same logic that is applied to the first. So, the guy doesn't have to be able to see to write a book or go to church, so he shouldn't have to see to exercise his firearms rights, either.
May not be WISE to carry like that, for a plethora of reasons, but far be it from me to tell him he can't carry.
May not be WISE to carry like that, for a plethora of reasons, but far be it from me to tell him he can't carry.
The blind easily compensate for their sightlessness by having more advanced olfactory and aural senses. It might surprise you how well they can shoot at odors and noises.
That's a tough question... I don't think it should determine ownership but carrying is a whole other thing. If you are legally blind and can only see lights and shapes there is no way to determine your target or know where that bullet is going. Even if the blind guy were shooting at a bad guy right in front of him and the shot was point blank there's no way to determine if there is an innocent behind them taking the pass throughs. You would be guessing and so, I hate saying this but without more time to consider the question I say "Yes, it should be a determining factor for carrying a gun but not owning a gun".
I understand your concerns... however... look at the Zimmerman case. Not anything to do with the motivations behind it or whatever, but if someone is on top of me pounding my head into the ground, having a gun in my waistband is a lot more effective than a knife. And as for someone being behind them, well, I'm sorry, but if I'm fighting for my life, I'm fighting for my life. I do nothing for fear of hittong someone else and I die. If I shoot not knowing what is behind the guy who is ground-pounding me, there is a CHANCE someone else dies.
I agree with the poster above, applying restrictions to the 2nd becomes very very slippery.
Point shooting for the win!
The Zimmerman case isn't exactly what I'm talking about. In that case the guy could see just fine, was aware of his surroundings and could easily see where he was and what he was doing until someone was on him trying to kill him. If someone can only see shapes and bits of light that person has no idea if he's in real danger unless someone was wailing on him and then, yeah, he could probably take a point blank shot but otherwise the threat is an indistinguishable shape that may or may not be armed, may be a kid with a finger gun or just shapes. If the bad guy was on top of him that's one thing but if someone is going to attack a blind guy or a "legally" blind guy they probably aren't going to do it through a ground and pound session.
Its a hard question to answer and telling someone who's not a felon they can't carry a gun doesn't sit well with me but if you can't identify your target... I suppose you could leave it up to the discretion of the blind person and assume they are responsible enough not take a bad shot. All things considered I've seen some people who can see just fine but are completely inept with a gun and they can carry so what's the difference, a responsible blind person trumps a moron who can see. I guess I'll say if a blind guy feels like he's capable of safely using a gun then let him. Hard to ban something that hasn't even happened, I retract my no vote earlier.
Its a hard question to answer and telling someone who's not a felon they can't carry a gun doesn't sit well with me but if you can't identify your target... I suppose you could leave it up to the discretion of the blind person and assume they are responsible enough not take a bad shot. All things considered I've seen some people who can see just fine but are completely inept with a gun and they can carry so what's the difference, a responsible blind person trumps a moron who can see. I guess I'll say if a blind guy feels like he's capable of safely using a gun then let him. Hard to ban something that hasn't even happened, I retract my no vote earlier.
That's what I mean, Brandi... I would like to think a responsible person (a stretch, I know) with limited sight capabilities would use good judgement and only utilize such a dangerous tool if there were no other option AND he knew his target was "almost guaranteed". Such as in a case like Zimmerman (again, looking ONLY at the actual physical confrontation) where someone is imminently and literally ON TOP of you. So Grandpa Munster with his 5-foot range of vision has a thug up in his face trying to assault him or already has him down, the up-close-and-personal shot, almost by FEEL, is the only option.
I was trained by a CLEET instructor who had me practice the quick-draw one-handed up-close shot into the gut or chest of an attacker who was essentially at arms length. You use your off-hand to push/hold them back as much as possible, draw and fire by proprioception into the gut or chest. That's pretty much the scenario I'm envisioning.
I was trained by a CLEET instructor who had me practice the quick-draw one-handed up-close shot into the gut or chest of an attacker who was essentially at arms length. You use your off-hand to push/hold them back as much as possible, draw and fire by proprioception into the gut or chest. That's pretty much the scenario I'm envisioning.
What about Parkinson's Disease or anything that makes the hands unsteady? Then consider mental health anger issues. Trust the man or woman on the street to do the right thing otherwise it is a never ending nanny state.
Similar threads
