Should a law abiding citizen; the pride of the community and a paragon of morality, be denied a concealed carry permit because he is legally blind? What are his rights? Should he be allowed to hunt (marksmanship is not a qualifying criteria to pass a hunter safety course)? Should he be allowed to teach? Should he be allowed to care for people with other special needs?

Just a thought.

My dad has been taking blind hunters on duck, goose, turkey, and deer hunts for almost twenty years. He's a founding member of Capable Partners, a group dedicated to helping physically challanged people hunt and fish.

-Blast

No, no, yes, and yes.

No, a legally blind citizen should NOT be allowed to carry a concealed weapon simply because they would not be able to even adhere to the four basic rules of gun safety... specifically...

Rule 2 - Never point a gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy
--If he is legally blind he cannot be absolutely sure where he is pointing the gun or at who or what

Rule 4 - Be sure of your target and what is behind it.
--Even if the blind person could see the bad guy standing up close to him he would not be able to see the 5 year old girl standing 10-15 feet behind the bad guy. If the blind guy fires and misses or the bullet over penetrates and hits the 5 year old noone on a jury is going to care about the blind guys 2nd amendment rights when they see the body of the dead or injured 5 year old.

Anyone who is physically incapable of properly carrying out the 4 basic rules of gun safety has no business carrying a gun in public.

Now if it was a controled hunting environment such as the one Blast refers to in his post that is very different and I would encourage that but as for a blind person carrying a concealed weapon in public, absolutely not.

Should they be allowed to teach? - absolutely!

Should they be allowed to care for people with special needs? - that would depend on the specific circumstances of the situation

Well, how do we define "legally blind"? Is that with or without glasses and other adaptations.

My eyes are so bad that in 15-20 years I'll probably be legally blind without my glasses. Will we deny that right to someone who with the use of adaptive technology can function as a normal member of society? Or those who have 90% the functionality of a fully sighted person, even though they can still drive? 80%? 70%? 60%?

A person with a prosthetic limb is still handicapped under the law, even if they use their new leg to run a marathon. And when ocular implants become available, what then? The big delays to getting "cyber eyes" on the market are the FDA and our understanding of neurology- the working parts of a digital camera, less the zoom mechanism, can be made about the size of an eyeball already. At that size it isn't great, but you can see well enough that it works as legal evidence. A large fiber optic front sight with a tritium bead at the front so it is always brighter than ambient light can be seen would just glow in that type of sensor. And mounted on something like a j-frame or a pocket pistol is suitable enough to self defense.

No, I don't think the law should deny them the right. That sets up a slippery slope. However, I would say that common sense says that if you can't see your hand in front of your face, you shouldn't carry.

I would love to say let him have the ccw, but Physical limitations are just that limitations. Without being able to identify the target or bystanders behind them then they would be a danger to every one else. If this were a real person they should ask whether or not they would ask for a drivers license. Of course if they can pass the ccw test every one else passes and they can do it safely and can prove it then that’s another story.

I say give them the permit. For a blind person it would be strictly symbolic, but the symbolism might be very important to them. A permit is not a "license to kill." Having a permit does not absolve a person, whether sighted or not, from exercising common sense. And common sense says that a blind person should never fire a weapon. If a blind person lacks such basic common sense, it is doubtful that withholding the permit is going to stop them from illegally carrying and discharging their weapon anyway.

I wonder if a blind person could sue for one under the ADA?

Very doubtful, there is a test the courts use in deciding certain constitutional matters known as the "substantial government interest" test. Basically it's a balancing test where the government (state or federal) must prove that it is entitled to regulate or limit (but not eliminate) certain rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution in order to enforce or protect a substantial government interest such as the safety of its citizens.

For example, the 1st Amendment gives us the right to free speech but it is still against the law to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

"Rule 2 - Never point a gun at anything that you are not willing to destroy"

A rule that has probably saved more computer monitors over the years during "system crashes"

As to the original question, legally blind persons get driver's licenses every day. Most concealed carry laws require a proficiency test which not only includes the "legal" and "liability" questions but also include a shooting test. Now I have seen many of these tests which only require the shooter to hit a target at a short distance (usually around 21 feet) with 70 percent accuracy (7 times out of 10).

The tough part (at least here in Michigan) would be to convice the "gun board" (usually made up of the Sheriff, State Police, Prosecutor, and a County Council person) that you are the correct person to be given the permit.

My thoughts: of course, he can have a CCW. A piece of paper isn't dangerous (the occasional paper cut aside). Now, whether he can purchase a firearm? Totally different matter.

If he already has a firearm that he could carry? That's too sticky for me to want to touch.

Working and caring for others? Why not? I've heard of legally blind physicians. He could probably teach just fine. I doubt he'd be a truck driver, but there's no reason he can't be a functioning society member.

Only if he has sufficient vision with nothing more than eyeglasses. Same answer for hunting. If they cant see to hit the target on the range without help they don't get CCW permit or hunting license. First test should be a driver's license & you should have to pass the vision test for it on a regular basis.

If you lose the driver's license by failing the vision test it should immediately suspend both until you pass the test again.

Again, I point you to Capable Partners. They have been active for twenty years taking blind and other physically challanged people out hunting and fishing. They give the blind hunters plenty of safety training and stictly enforce all their safety rules. A spotter tells them where to point the gun. No one has ever been hurt.

It used to be a lot of there members suffered either motorcycle accidents or some sort of debilitating illness (MD, MS, etc...). Lately the've had a number of soldiers join their ranks... These boys (most under 25) grew up hunting and fishing and don't want to stop just because someone blew off their arms or face. It takes a lot of hard work to become a qualified blind hunter and for many of them it's the only thing that keeps them going. The sense of accomplishment when they bag the deer/turkey/goose almost makes them feel whole again.

Yes, this subject is very near and dear to my heart.

-Blast

The key detail here is "legally blind". "Legally blind" doesn't mean sightless. It means poor eyesight even after correction. According to http://vision.about.com/od/severevisionloss/f/legalblind.htm "legal blindness occurs when a person is unable to achieve at least 20/200 vision in the best eye even when eyeglasses or contact lenses are worn."

Without my eyeglasses my eyesight is probably worse than 20/200. So if my eyeglasses were knocked off, such as might happen in the beginning stage of an assault, my eyesight would be reduced to the level of 'legally blind'. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't be able to see well enough to defend myself with a concealable handgun. I wouldn't need 20/20 vision to recognize (and stop) a nearby attacker.

In my opinion, the answer to your questions is, it depends. Legally blind is a label, not a capability. If the person is capable they should be permitted to do anything they want so long as it does not unduly put other peoples' lives in danger. I don't believe that someone with poor vision carrying a concealable weapon would put my life in danger as long as they use good judgment, and judgment is independent of visual acuity.

Dennis

I know that my state allows for blind hunting by proxy. Personally I can think of nothing that would be more worthwhile, either for the hunter or the guide.

Your father has my respect.

"...marksmanship is not a qualifying criteria to pass a hunter safety course..."

It was when I got mine. Long long ago...

Welcome to the club. Around 20/20 with glasses. Without them at any distance I'd qualify as legally blind because the test is based on letter recognition. I can tell there is something there but its fuzzy. Clear vision ends about at the end of my nose.

That's exactly what I meant. If their vision is correctable with nothing more than glasses to pass the driving test they qualify to CCW or hunt. If they are legally blind by the definition, it would require investigation into why they are legally blind. Near or far sighted would require entirely different consideration than macular degeneration.

I like the idea for leg or arm damage but I'd still have a problem with a blind person hunting. But then I sat looking through a scope at what I would have sworn was a deer during my first case of buck fever. It was clear enough behind it that I would have taken the shot had I been sure it was a deer. A whats wrong with this picture feeling & not fully clear backdrop turned out to be a bunch of leaves.

'Legally blind' is defined as with eyeglasses. Macular degeneration causes a blind area in the enter of the field of view, with vision around the edges.

If someone who is legally blind has a pistol for protection, I would suggest he/she be very careful as to what kind of ammunition it contains.

Sue

So, basically most all of you are saying that the only time you would be willing to use a firearm to defend yourself or others is if you could see under ideal conditions? I guess then that means that if you get pepper sprayed, or debris in your eyes, or it is just too dark out, you would then just lay your gun down and either run or surrender?

I dunno about you, but many times when I am suddenly awakened in the middle of the night, I can't see for crap. It can take me a few minutes for my eyes to adjust. If I am in the dark and my eyes get strobed with a bright light, like witnessing a snubby 357 flash go off, then I am just as handicapped. In that crucial moment, my vision acuity is worthless. I've also got caught in my own trailing pepper spray discharge and not even been able to open my eyes.

So I guess if it is a permanent or persistant disability then that would preclude being able to defend yourself, whereas if it is just a temporary but immediate problem, then that somehow makes it okay?

Umm, I don't think we have the right to tell someone else they can't share the same privilege we have to defend themselves. This isn't a question of convenience, like driving a car would be, but of life or death. Based on that logic, a gun control advocate would successfully argue that your vision might also be obstructed or compromised at a critical moment, and therefore you should not be allowed to arm yourself because that is a likely condition you would find yourself in.

Yeah, you might refrain from shooting until you regain your vision, provided the assailant affords you that opportunity, but what if the threat is ongoing and imminent? What if you get hit and the threat persists? Are you going to refrain from discharging because you can't see the assailant, or are you going to fire for effect?

Once you start down the road of qualifying people for their rights, then none of us are safe from scrutiny.

Here's the deal, if a gunman takes one of my daughters hostage and is using her as a shield while shooting at me, I will take the shot, even if I have to shoot through her to get to him, to make him stop. To my mind, neutralizing the threat takes precedence over collateral damage, regardless of the obstruction. I wouldn't like it, any more than I would like shooting blind, but you do what you gotta do, and we are seldom presented with the ideal situation. Would you disqualify me then from carrying?

Leave it to the judgement of the individual as to using it within their limits of ability and willingness.

In no state where I have been legally allowed to carry concealed has there been any proficiency requirement.

Not exactly. The situation is that they are starting in that condition. Effectively they were pepper sprayed before they ever went to the gun store. If they were on the firing range they would have to have someone point them in the direction of the target.

You're right about the definition of legally blind. What I was getting at was that the cause changes the ability to see at a given range. As an example, I can thread needles without glasses but I can't read a 3/4" vcr display at four feet without them.

Right, and since the loss of sight is an inherent weakness in any of us, that it can be easily compromised and the most likely situation a person can end up defending themselves in, then it stands to reason that we should all be so restricted, unless we can demonstrate that we will wear suitable eye protection and always maintain an area of illumination around ourselves so that we can readily distinguish our intended targets.

How about if you go to the range to qualify for a CCW and the new requirement is that you have to score a certain number of hits with the range completely dark. That is a plausible self defense scenario, and since none of us has built in night vision, that would be a disqualifier as well.

I dunno, I am getting pretty rummy from lack of sleep, so maybe this is just a rambling. I will refrain until I can get some more rest for a while.

Wow, new day. I guess my point was supposed to be something like qualification seems a little unfair. I gotta get more sleep when I get back home.

"...most all of you are saying that the only time you would be willing to use a firearm to defend yourself or others is if you could see under ideal conditions? I guess then that means that if you get pepper sprayed, or debris in your eyes, or it is just too dark out"

I think there might be a difference between not being able to see at all, and being able to see where the shots that are hitting you are coming from.

Sue

Yep, definitely too rummy yesterday.