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.