If we’re assuming that all adults are competent and would make the best choice for the safety of all, why do we have driving tests and vision tests for operating a vehicle?
I am pro second amendment and I feel that giving ccw permits to the blind is creating more of a hazard to the public and the the blind person. The blind person is more then likely to have his weapon snatched or end up shooting in the wrong direction hitting innocents then hitting a target.
This is an argument for eliminating all regulatory laws. That’s really not a reasonable thing to do, IMHO. There’s a difference between allowing adults to decide on potentially self-harming behaviors like alcohol or drug use, or BASE jumping or walking into the wilderness without supplies, and doing something with potential life-threatening consequences to everyone else. As moonlitherial points out, we don’t let just anyone operate a vehicle. That ain’t because they might hurt themselves.
As I believe I said “unrestricted access to guns” should not be allowed for the blind. Simply owning? Fine. Target shooting under supervision? Fine. Collecting antiques? Fine. Public carry (concealed or open)? No. Effing. Way.
Yeah, and we banned telemedicine. It’s been a bad week.
No. And in some cases it makes camouflaged things more noticeable.
I’d have thought that this type of thing would come under the “well regulated” part of the amendment, but I’m not a constitutional scholar by any means.
I think sometimes you come to different conclusions if you start at “does this make sense” rather than “is this constitutional”.
Exactly so. It makes no sense to ban people from carrying weapons simply for being blind.
Making all concealed carry owners pass the same test to demonstrate competence, that makes sense.
Singling out a single group- based on assumptions about them- makes no sense at all.
Edit- sighted shooters aren’t all that accurate in real-world/real time situations.
I seriously am sitting here wondering if a blind person has an advantage in a surprise situation.
Is this for real? I mean, I can see if you’re a limited government type and are against banning things in general. Like, it doesn’t have to be illegal for a blind dude to think, say, chainsaw juggling is a Really Bad Idea. But that doesn’t seem to be what your argument is, you seem to be suggesting that blind people can shoot guns just fine, maybe even better than sighted people in surprise situations. Which is awesome. I love this fucking country!
Hahahahahahaha. Assumption: Blind people can’t see. THAT’S SO BIGOTED, YO!
I’m basically on the left politically. I don’t mind laws in general.
But yes, I’m serious. Banning someone from carrying a weapon solely for being legally blind is wrong.
It’s morally wrong and factually wrong. OTOH, banning anyone, sighted or blind, who cannot safely handle and operate their weapon does make sense.
I’m all for this, there aren’t enough guns and gun owners in America.
Next up - ‘Guns for Pets’.
On a reread of the article, it seems that they cannot get their story straight whether we are talking about owning a handgun or legally concealing one. It is likely that it is not the former, as Iowa does not require registration AFAIK, and if a blind person can fill out form 4473 and is not a felon, etc. then they can own. Yet in several places it says things like “The Gun Control Act of 1968 and other federal laws do not prohibit blind people from owning guns. But unlike Iowa, some states have laws that spell out whether visually impaired people can obtain weapon permits.” Two different issues, owning and CCW.