I can’t believe this is even a debate! Common sense, people!
A: As witnessed by the fine and wonderful documentary, “The Blues Brothers,” blind people are excellent marksmen. Especially if they’re Ray Charles.
B: Seriously, I think this is more a matter of gun safety than anything else… so let’s see what the NRA has to say. Duck blinds…
Nothing.
http://www.burrelles.com/transcripts/cbs/esho0101.htm
has a blind gun owner discussing his concealed carry permit
So, it must be legal somewhere. Just very unusual.
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,546245,00.html
Here we go. “Danger to themselves or others.” is in the wording. Personally, I suspect it’s like a driver’s license. Yes, I understand it’s a second amendment right.
Yes, I personally favor the milita comprised of the people angle.
Yes, I think he should have the right to own a gun.
But I don’t see anything wrong with anyone refusing to sell said man a gun without more personal knowledge of his situation. He should buy from a local gun store, not a gun show.
How about just selling them guns, but not ammo? That way they can instill fear in someone they feel is threatening and scare them away but don’t run the risk of blowing some little old ladies head off by mistake.
I’d be hard pressed to argue that a blind person should carry a gun in public. He can’t be sure of innocents in the vicinity. I would probably say it’s OK in his home if he is willing to take the responsibility.
I can understand pkbites reluctance to sell a gun to a blind person and support his right to decide as he sees fit. However, my first thought was that perhaps the man wanted a gun for target practice. In the presence of a sighted person that should be a safe form of recreation for him if that’s his bag.
E-Sabbath sums up in the last paragraph my position: “I don’t see anything wrong with anyone refusing to sell said man a gun without more personal knowledge of his situation” That’s the key: more information. What exactly are the circumstances.() And the blind person, should he want a weapon for self-defense, should find a reputable gun club in his community, where they can sit down and properly discuss his needs and he can tell them exactly what it is he wants. The gun show is the wrong venue.
()I know that some people just now started shouting HE DOES NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF, IT’S HIS RIGHT! I know it is. However, that something is a right does not mean it’s always an unconditional entitlement. Amendment II is that the government shall not deny the people the right to keep and bear arms, not that anyone is obligated to arm the populace. Otherwise every citizen who can’t afford a firearm would have to be issued one by the welfare office. So merchants not selling guns to the blind is NOT running afoul of the 2nd Amendment. If concerned about a radical interpretation of ADA or something to that effect, I think we could say that in the “gun show” environment there was no way to provide a reasonable accommodation.
How in the HELL are you “upholding the intent of the Constitution” by denying someone their right to free thought and speech?
Good GOD!!! :rolleyes:
Pot, meet the Kettle.
Pot, kettle, meet sarcasm.
Of course blind people should be allowed to own guns. They can own cars, why not guns? Geez. My late father-in-law was a gun collector. He was marksman who made it to the national semi-finals in skeet shooting 4 years in a row. He was also a diabetic. Had he not met an untimely death, it is possible that he would have suffered from blindness long before he died. Would you have his guns taken from him upon his losing his sight? Why injure the dignity of the blind further by legislating against them owning any thing you think they might not be able to operate safely?
If you feel that there needs to be more regulation on who may operate a gun just as there is extensive legislation on who may operate a vehicle, then go ahead lobby your congress critters for it.
I see no reason that you should sell a gun to anyone that you don’t want to. However, since the ADA makes it illegal to refuse to sell someone something based solely on their disability you may not have any choice.
Ya know, My Grandpa owned a car. When he became blind, he did not drive it anymore. who here would demand that his car be confiscated?
He owned guns too. Should these be confiscated?
As is usual around here, people want to proclaim "I’m right ’ without all the information. Does a gun dealer have to sell to the blind? Take it to court? Can a gun dealer sell to a blind man? I bet he can.
Who cares weither anyone likes or agrees with it either way?
The only good thing about our so called justice system anymore IMO, is that they generaly will wait until you do something wrong before you go to jail or court.
It seems a lot here want you to be punished because they are afraid for themselvs because they dio not think that people are natually nice. Bwhahahahah, Look in the mirror folks. that is what you should be afraid of.
OK, first things first. Having read through the posts of E-sabbath, GusnSpot, et al, I can see that I’ve basically gone off on a complete tangent from Soisi’s post about whether a blind person could reasonably use a gun safely for safe defence. As a number of posters have posted the correct answer to the OP - namely that there’s no reason a blind person shouldn’t be allowed to OWN a gun. Apologies.
To return to Stankow’s post though:
Erm, is the NRA an acceptable authority for you?. Do a search for yourself - the golden rule is never to point a gun in an unsafe direction.
Anyway, to the rest of your argument
Ah, the hypothetical game. Let’s play along then. Who’s in the house? A fireman, rushing to find a reported blind person in a house fire? A policeman who’s scared off a burgler, and is checking to see if anyone has been hurt? Or is the burglar a smart guy, who’s cased the house, and is happy to shout “No worries mr x, just the police - someone tried to break in?” Ain’t it amazing how we can all hypothesize situations all day that will support our argument?
Either way, I can’t say you’ve met the first rule at all. How has he identified that he’s pointing his gun in a safe direction? Any cites showing how accurate the average blind persons hearing is? Even at a range of 2 yards, he’s going to need to be able to pin noises down to under 10 degrees to just hit the noise he’s heard, even before we argue if he’s identified what that noise is.
Who then says, “Sir, I’m a fireman. There’s been a fire. Can you hear the sirens?”
**
Who then says, “Sir, I’m a policeman. We’ve just scared off a burglar, and I was checking to see if anyone was hurt. Please call 911 and verify that I’m here.”
**
Quite. For instance, let’s hypothesize that a criminal is smart enough to have cased the house and found out that there’s a blind resident, yet not smart enough to
A) break in when no one’s home, or
B) neutralize the resident immediately.
Am I saying that a blind person will necessarily be as safe as a sighted person with a firearm? No, clearly not. But if your sole criterion is the possibility that a person will possibly be unable to use a firearm safely and appropriately, then no gun dealer would ever sell to anyone.
Blind people should have the RIGHT to buy guns.
Merchants should have the right to Deny sales to them if they want to.
But, if a Blind person is refused service, they cannot say “How dare you refuse to serve me! Its my constitutional right to bear arms!”
Its the Merchants right not to sell if they don’t want to.
End of Argument.
As a matter of law, I don’t think it should be forbidden for a blind person to own or purchase any type of legal firearm. To use the analogy of the automobile, there are no laws preventing the a blind person from owning one - but there are laws regulating the safe operation of the vehicle on public roads and punishments for failure to obey those laws. The same already exists with regard to firearms.
Anyone (within certain, debatably constitutional, restrictions) can purchase a firearm. Laws governing proper usage also exist: Negligence, negligent homicide, negligent endangerment, man slaughter, homicide, etc. are punishable in court.
I tend towards a minimalist approach to laws - don’t create a new law unless existing law is inadequate to cover new circumstances.
Personally, however, I would be reluctant to sell a firearm to a blind person. As I see it, I would be legally in the clear to simply sell the weapon and go on. Morally, however, I would want to satisfy myself of the person’s intentions. In plain words, I don’t want to be responsible for having armed a blind Rambo. Or, to use the car analogy, I would find out if the blind person intended to own the car but have it driven by some one else, or whether the intent was to drive the thing personally. No problem with a chauffeur driven car, or if the intent was for the blind person to drive it personally on private property. My conscience would not, however, let me make the sell if I were convinced that the blind person intended to drive the car on public roads.
Legality is the responsibilty of the courts. Morality is the responsibility of the individual.
GAWD!!! Seems like ya’ll want to turn this into a Second amendment debate. The only two questions in the original post were…
1 - What do you think about a blind man owning a gun?
2 - Is PKbites justified in not wanting to sell a gun to a blind man?
In answer to Question number 1… Yes a blind man should be allowed to own a gun.
Number 2… Certainly an individual should be allowed to choose who they do business with.