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.