Blind Man Having His Guns & License Confiscated (NJ)

This is a discussion on Blind Man Having His Guns & License Confiscated (NJ) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; OK Fair Enough. Let's change course here. We all agree that many of the shooting sports are incredibly valuable for honing and refining NECESSARY self-defense ...

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 64
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Blind Man Having His Guns & License Confiscated (NJ)

  1. #16
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    OK Fair Enough.
    Let's change course here.

    We all agree that many of the shooting sports are incredibly valuable for honing and refining NECESSARY self-defense skills.

    In fact MANY members here have stated publicly that no persons should be permitted a license to carry a firearm unless they have mandatory range time inclusive of oral & written testing.

    And we all know that totally blind people have other senses that are so keen that they can smell a grasshoper fart 1,000 yards away.

    They cannot see at all but, their other senses are so highly honed that they are pretty much (at least) equal to people who have great eyesight.

    OK now that we have established the above as truthful "FACT."


    Kindly run down the list of names of totally blind individuals who have successfully competed in any of the following shooting sports (Listed Below)

    BTW...I don't even care if they have actually WON in any of the events but, I'll take finishing in say...the top 20.

    Bianchi Cup
    IDPA
    Cowboy Action Shooting
    Trap
    Skeet
    Combat Shotgun
    Sporting Clays
    Metallic Silhouette
    USPSA
    IPSC
    Bullseye
    S.A.S.S. Single Action Shooters Society
    The Six Rifle ISSF shooting events
    Biathlon
    The CISM Rapid Fire Match
    How about Gallery Rifle in the UK
    Benchrest
    Field Target Airgun...possibly?
    ActionAirgun
    Precision Slow Fire
    NRA Police Pistol Combat


    In fact...the answer is... You can't run down the list of sightless shooters names....because there is no list of totally blind people that compete in ANY of the above.

    And forget about any totally blind people that have ever actually WON any of the above events with their incredibly totally amazingly heightened and advanced other senses but, in fact - none as in "0" even compete.

    And WHY? Would that be that none even compete?

    Because....they all require VISION.

    Spell it. V - I - S - I - O - N.




    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    ... then he wouldn't pass the requirements necessary for the job, already part of the statutes covering acquiring a license to drive, let alone one to cover the driving of dozens of other passengers in a "commercial" sense. That's a job choice, with legitimate sufficient skills necessary to achieve competency in the job.

    Not quite the same thing as daring to deny a person rights.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    Oh...I should add that I am NOT for confiscation of any firearms belonging to totally blind people.
    I am not even for denying a License to carry to folks with poor eyesight or any vision that can be in any way corrected to the degree that the shooter can distinguish innocents or passerby in the line of fire.
    I am saying that totally blind individuals should not be granted a license to carry a firearm out in public.

    If I were an issuing authority I would not sign off on a license to carry for a totally sightless person.

    I'll go even further than that. If I became totally blind I would voluntarily give up my own License To Carry a firearm out in public...because I am a "No BS" responsible and logical thinking mature adult.

    Which Three Of The Sacred Four Are You Folks Willing To Toss Into The Trashcan In Order To Fuzzy~Stroke Totally Blind People?

    And Then IF You're Going To Trash Them For BLIND PEOPLE Then We Must Trash The Basic Safe Firearm Handling Rules For EVERYBODY Since (after all) This Is America.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety



    RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED <~~~ Blind folks can easily handle this one.

    RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY Hummm ~~>

    RULE III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET Humm...Wonder Why They Call Them "Sights?"

    RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET Big Huge....Hummm~~~~>

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RULE I: ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

    There are no exceptions. Do not pretend that this is true. Some people and organizations take this rule and weaken it;e.g. "Treat all guns as if they were loaded." Unfortunately, the "as if" compromises the directness of the statement by implying that they are unloaded, but we will treat them as though they are loaded. No good! Safety rules must be worded forcefully so that they are never treated lightly or reduced to partial compliance.

    All guns are always loaded - period!

    This must be your mind-set. If someone hands you a firearm and says, "Don't worry, it's not loaded," you do not dare believe him. You need not be impolite, but check it yourself. Remember, there are no accidents, only negligent acts. Check it. Do not let yourself fall prey to a situation where you might feel compelled to squeal, "I didn't know it was loaded!"

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RULE II: NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT WILLING TO DESTROY

    Conspicuously and continuously violated, especially with pistols, Rule II applies whether you are involved in range practice, daily carry, or examination. If the weapon is assembled and in someone's hands, it is capable of being discharged. A firearm holstered properly, lying on a table, or placed in a scabbard is of no danger to anyone. Only when handled is there a need for concern. This rule applies to fighting as well as to daily handling. If you are not willing to take a human life, do not cover a person with the muzzle. This rule also applies to your own person. Do not allow the muzzle to cover your extremities, e.g. using both hands to reholster the pistol. This practice is unsound, both procedurally and tactically. You may need a free hand for something important. Proper holster design should provide for one-handed holstering, so avoid holsters which collapse after withdrawing the pistol. (Note: It is dangerous to push the muzzle against the inside edge of the holster nearest the body to "open" it since this results in your pointing the pistol at your midsection.) Dry-practice in the home is a worthwhile habit and it will result in more deeply programmed reflexes. Most of the reflexes involved in the Modern Technique do not require that a shot be fired. Particular procedures for dry-firing in the home will be covered later. Let it suffice for now that you do not dry-fire using a "target" that you wish not to see destroyed. (Recall RULE I as well.)

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

    Rule III is violated most anytime the uneducated person handles a firearm. Whether on TV, in the theaters, or at the range, people seem fascinated with having their finger on the trigger. Never stand or walk around with your finger on the trigger. It is unprofessional, dangerous, and, perhaps most damaging to the psyche, it is klutzy looking. Never fire a shot unless the sights are superimposed on the target and you have made a conscious decision to fire. Firing an unaligned pistol in a fight gains nothing. If you believe that the defensive pistol is only an intimidation tool - not something to be used - carry blanks, or better yet, reevaluate having one around. If you are going to launch a projectile, it had best be directed purposely. Danger abounds if you allow your finger to dawdle inside the trigger guard. As soon as the sights leave the target, the trigger-finger leaves the trigger and straightens alongside the frame. Since the hand normally prefers to work as a unit - as in grasping - separating the function of the trigger-finger from the rest of the hand takes effort. The five-finger grasp is a deeply programmed reflex. Under sufficient stress, and with the finger already placed on the trigger, an unexpected movement, misstep or surprise could result in a negligent discharge. Speed cannot be gained from such a premature placement of the trigger-finger. Bringing the sights to bear on the target, whether from the holster or the Guard Position, takes more time than that required for moving the trigger finger an inch or so to the trigger.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

    Know what it is, what is in line with it, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified. Be aware of your surroundings, whether on the range or in a fight. Do not assume anything. Know what you are doing.
    SUMMARY:

    Make these rules a part of your character. Never compromise them. Improper gunhandling results from ignorance and improper role modeling, such as handling your gun like your favorite actor does. Education can cure this.
    You can make a difference by following these gunhandling rules and insisting that those around you do the same.
    Set the example. Who knows what tragedies you, or someone you influence, may prevent?

    Excerpted from: The Modern Technique of the Pistol, by Greg Morrison, Gunsite Press, Paulden, Arizona, ISBN 0-9621342-3-6, Library of Congress Number 91-72644, $40

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,575
    GAINESVILLE, Fla. --
    A Gainesville man's lack of sight didn't stop him from defending his home from an intruder.
    ...
    Officials are praising Williams for protecting himself.


    From the results of real world shootings, most cops don't use their sights anyway.

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,698
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Spell it. V - I - S - I - O - N.
    Right. Obviously, the point is that having a set of minimum requirements for roles and jobs has nothing to do with trampling or erasure of a person's rights, which no bureaucrat has any right to do. Two completely different things.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #20
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    Well, there is a difference between being considered legally blind and being totally sightless. They are usually two different animals.
    And also there is some control over the home environment that quite simply does not exist out in public places.

    Example a "legally blind" person knows when their home is locked up and when they are expecting guests and when they are confident that they should be alone.

    I don't want it to seem like I am going out on an attack vendetta against blind people but, there are real reasons why sightless people do not involve themselves in certain tasks.

    There are no blind practicing heart surgeons. Even though they may know the human body intimately inside out and forward & backward.

    A heart surgeon that has lost eyesight may still teach class in medical school.
    He/She may still consult.
    He/She may write a book on heart surgery and surgical technique but, I can guarantee you that you'll never get a transplant or a quadruple bypass from that surgeon.
    Even though that blind surgeon could feel around and know precicely where your liver and your kidneys are located and the sense of touch has been greatly amplified.

    You wouldn't allow a blind heart surgeon inside your chest no matter how brilliant and talented that person was before the sense of sight was lost.

    You can take that to the bank.

  7. #21
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    Well, we are getting into word games now because the thread topic is Confiscation (which I am against) and losing a state license to legally carry a firearm.

    If you are losing the license to legally carry a deadly weapon in a certain state then for practical intent & purpose you are losing that right (I mean call it a Right or call it a permitted permission) unless you want to take it all the way up to the Right to yell FIRE! in a crowded movie theater (yawn) which I don't want to do since I don't have any Jiffy Pop left tonight.



    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Right. Obviously, the point is that having a set of minimum requirements for roles and jobs has nothing to do with trampling or erasure of a person's rights, which no bureaucrat has any right to do. Two completely different things.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,698
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    You wouldn't allow a blind heart surgeon inside your chest no matter how brilliant and talented that person was before the sense of sight was lost.
    That's a matter of task performance. And that's not a right, to be a practicing surgeon. It's one possible job, but it's obviously pretty much one that requires sight in order to accomplish even the most basic procedures.

    And it's not a right. Being armed isn't comparable to any of these sorts of things. I'm of the opinion that even carrying under the CHL nanny state mechanism isn't either, though no bureaucrat would agree with that. As mentioned previously, the criminal code already covers reckless or dangerous behavior that harms others. Only if a person were to use a defensive tool in such a manner as it harmed innocents would that person be liable for the damage. Only then. BEFORE then, IMO, any attempt to head off such a situation as if it had much likelihood of occurring, ignoring the man's rights while doing so, has no basis in law. Not when we're speaking of rights, it doesn't.

    'Round and 'round we go. I don't understand the point, if it hasn't been long since covered.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  9. #23
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,261
    Your big huge "hums" are nothing more than big huge assumptions. You make assumptions that every blind person is going to automatically violate most if not all of the 4 "rules" which are really "rules" set it stone anyway(especially #3). I've heard and read it stated in so many different forms its not even funny. As an example for your #3...
    Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
    Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER until you are ready to fire, until you are sure of your intended target, until....
    Assumptions are more dangerous than any blind person. Assumptions are the mother of all foulups...
    "My God David, We're a Civilized society."

    "Sure, As long as the machines are workin' and you can call 911. But you take those things away, you throw people in the dark, and you scare the crap out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  10. #24
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    For instance PA Constitution Section 21

    Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

    But, in the real world 5 year old kids are citizens and they are not allowed to bear arms in defense of themselves.
    We do not give our kids firearms and tell them if anybody bothers you at school...you take your handgun out of your knapsack and you handle it. There is no "age restriction" given in Section 21.
    And it also states that "Right" cannot even be questioned.

    Patients in mental hospitals in Pennsylvania are citizens and they are not allowed to be armed. Why is that? Who questioned their Right to bear arms and WHY?

    PA citizens go to court all the time but, PA Citizens are not permitted to take their firearm into a courtroom.

    We may not like or agree with all or some of that but, Alice isn't in Wonderland - We don't all have Ruby Slippers & I live in the real world where our "Rights" do have some ridiculous and some "common sense" restrictions.

    So if you lived in Pennsylvania...you tell me honestly and truthfully that you would give your 5 year old kid a handgun and send him to school and tell him (or her) that as PA Citizen they have a right to carry a firearm and use it to defend themselves out in public.
    Why wouldn't you do that? Because........................why?





    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    That's a matter of task performance. And that's not a right, to be a practicing surgeon. It's one possible job, but it's obviously pretty much one that requires sight in order to accomplish even the most basic procedures.

    And it's not a right. Being armed isn't comparable to any of these sorts of things. I'm of the opinion that even carrying under the CHL nanny state mechanism isn't either, though no bureaucrat would agree with that. As mentioned previously, the criminal code already covers reckless or dangerous behavior that harms others. Only if a person were to use a defensive tool in such a manner as it harmed innocents would that person be liable for the damage. Only then. BEFORE then, IMO, any attempt to head off such a situation as if it had much likelihood of occurring, ignoring the man's rights while doing so, has no basis in law. Not when we're speaking of rights, it doesn't.

    'Round and 'round we go. I don't understand the point, if it hasn't been long since covered.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  11. #25
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,300
    I can't even merit this post with an answer. Obviously you have not read all of my posts above. My comments are facts and not assumptions.

    RULE IV: BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET

    Know what it is, what is in line with it, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything you have not positively identified. Be aware of your surroundings, whether on the range or in a fight. Do not assume anything. Know what you are doing.


    A totally sightless person CANNOT accomplish rule #4 out in public places.
    That is fact and not an assumption.

    Let's do this hypothetical test.
    I will blindfold you and face you directly toward a man-size FBI B27 Target at only 6 feet away from you.

    You're blindfolded but at only 6' away...How could ya miss?

    BUT, 25 or 50 yards beyond that target (and even off to either side) I will tell you that I will either place 3 large 200 pound sacks of Black Eyed Peas....or your child, your ol' Aunt Bessie & your Wife or girlfriend seated in lawn chairs & they will be casually playing Monopoly.

    Now, give your best guess at where you feel the B27 target is located and pull the trigger.

    Of course...You personally would do that?



    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Your big huge "hums" are nothing more than big huge assumptions. You make assumptions that every blind person is going to automatically violate most if not all of the 4 "rules" which are really "rules" set it stone anyway(especially #3). I've heard and read it stated in so many different forms its not even funny. As an example for your #3...

    Rule III: KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER until you are ready to fire, until you are sure of your intended target, until....
    Assumptions are more dangerous than any blind person. Assumptions are the mother of all foulups...

  12. #26
    VIP Member Array varob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    4,450
    Let me throw this in to the mix. Where do totally blind individuals who chose to carry concealed in states like Alaska, Vermont and now Arizona where no permit is required stand?

    Are they not held to the same standards as the totally blind people in other states.

    Do the points made thus far not apply to them simply because there is not permitting/licensing process?

    Just asking.
    Don't believe what you hear and only half of what you see!
    -Tony Soprano

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array ctr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Shenandoah Valley in Virginia
    Posts
    2,342
    I was not going to mix it up in this thread, but some of the posts are so disturbing, I cannot sit quietly on the sideline.

    How can those who so passionately demand recognition of their right to carry so quickly dismiss the rights of another to carry? What is the heart of the issue here - is vision a requirement for CCW? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Why should a blind person have any less right to defend their life than a sighted person? Those who make that argument are in essence stating that their life is more valuable, more meaningful than the blind person's life.

    Every blind person I have met is well aware of their limitations. I had a blind person in my family before she passed away. I guarantee you she could tell how many folks were in the room with her, where they were, and she could even tell those she knew from strangers by smell and sound.

    Does a blind person have limitation in executing a justified ccw shooting? You bet. But how on earth can anyone justify denial of the most basic right of all, to live and defend oneself - every hear of contact shots? Most defensive shootings happen within 3 feet. I have no doubt that a blind person can tell exactly where someone is standing that close to them.

    Some of the replies on this thread disgust me.

  14. #28
    Distinguished Member Array Knightrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    1,324
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    Tell that to the blind man who honestly believes he is sticking his mouse gun in the bad guys gut when in reality the bad guy is holding a totally innocent individual in front of him as a human shield.

    I'm just sayin'.......................... nothing is always all black & white.
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    So what about the man that had been an A-1 School Bus Driver all of his life and then became totally blind.

    He remains absolutely convinced that he is still qualified to drive a School Bus because he has followed the same route for 20 years.

    So....(of course) you allow your kids to ride in that bus with him at the wheel because...after all....He has not killed any kids yet.

    After the bus load of kids are dead that's soon enough to prosecute him?

    So do you allow your kid to get on that bus? No, naturally you do not because "sight" is absolutely necessary for some tasks as much as we would all love to be politically correct and fuzzy-stroke the world that it's not.

    AKA you have no problem with a blind individual not being able to identify innocents that are in his or her line of fire in a self-defense shooting?

    Personally, I do.
    x2

    I don't want me or my family shot by a blind person "shooting" at a BG that as just ran the other direction.
    Glock: G22 .40 S&W and G23 .40 S&W Sig Sauer: P938 9mm Smith and Wesson: Model 437 .38 Spl, Model 65 357 Mag, and Sigma SW9VE 9mm

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array DIABLO9489's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Buffalo
    Posts
    1,071
    I'm sorry but I'm with QKShooter on this one. To be able to carry a gun concealed in public, I feel like vision plays a very big part in that. I'm not saying you take away his right to bear arms, I'm just saying take away his ability to carry in public. It's just like in NY, anyone thats 18 can walk into a gun store and buy a long gun for HD/range/hunting, but not everyone can buy a pistol and carry it concealed. So therefore he still has his weapons for HD but you take away the risk of an accidental shooting in public.
    Colt New Agent, Dan Wesson V-Bob, Glock 19,20SF, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30SF, 36, Kahr P380 w/CT, PM9, PM45, CW9(SOLD), Kel-Tec P32, P3AT, PF9(SOLD), Kimber Ultra Crimson Carry II, Stainless Pro TLE/RL II (SOLD), Rohrbaugh R9s, Ruger LCP w/CT, LCR, SP101 S&W J-Frame 638 w/CT, M&P 340 w/CT, Walther PPK/S

  16. #30
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,724
    * Improperly stored ? Oh, is that like California where you have to have them unfirable and locked, so you can't use them if you needed them ? If that becomes a universal standard, there's a lot of people in trouble. I can see why to have them loaded and around the house, so if someone broke in he doesn't have to guide himself to another room, find the gun, find the ammo, load it.... and by that time... won't need it.

    * Confiscation based upon what ? IF confiscation due to having loaded guns in the house, there are lots of people in trouble. I think they confiscated them without any legal authority to do so, but not knowing the laws there.... I'll say they couldn't do it here "legally". He still could keep them, sell them, hand them down to someone else, etc.

    * Is he capable of point -n-shoot at sounds if someone is busting in his front door ? Then don't come in his door or break into his house.

    * He was "approved" when they knew he was blind to shoot at a range with supervision, so he's already been "approved" and they knew he was blind .... and that he can handle guns safely.

    * AD ? Well, better fire a lot of policemen and take away their guns. The people I"ve seen have the most AD's are LEO's.

    * When he was rowdy in a bar , did he use a weapon or a gun ? Or was he just a rowdy drunk that night ? And......... this proves what ?
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. No violations found after 57 guns confiscated from St. Herman's
    By pistola in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 8th, 2011, 08:20 PM
  2. All private guns will be confiscated by september 2009, us tells russia
    By Romak3 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2009, 05:36 PM
  3. Tijuana LEO guns confiscated - slingshots issued
    By pogo2 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 25th, 2007, 12:49 AM
  4. Katrina victims finally get CONFISCATED guns back
    By Doc Holliday in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: April 25th, 2006, 08:32 PM

Search tags for this page

accidental shooting in nj fid revoktion
,
antique guns in nj
,
blind ccw permit
,
blind man to give up guns
,
blind mans guns confiscated
,
can a legally blind person buy a hand gun in virginia
,
can i blind person legally buy a gun in pennsylvania
,

can legally blind get gun permit in pennsylvania

,

do you need a permit to keep handguns in nj home

,
guns confiscated nj
,
inherit guns from new jersey to pa
,
inherited handguns and new jersey
,
law on blind man purchasing firearms
,
method for appeal of firearms confiscated in nj
,
the best self defense weapon for a blind man
Click on a term to search for related topics.