Blind Man Having His Guns & License Confiscated (NJ)

[QKShooter]

So back to my earlier question. Is he "legally blind" vision impaired or totally sightless?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[QKShooter]

BTW: The reason that I called it a License To Carry Concealed is that in PA - Open Carry (except in vehicles) at Age 18 & older is legal in PA without a LTCF but, in order to carry concealed in PA a LTCF is mandatory.
So "unofficially" it is a License To Carry Firearms concealed since legally you may only carry OPEN unless you have a PA LTCF.

Did that make sense?

[DaveH]

http://blogs.roanoke.com/dancasey/20...-a-gun-permit/

Only in New Jersey: The blind man with a gun permit
SNIP
Allow me to introduce you to Steven Hopler of Rockaway Township, N.J., the
blind man with a gun permit.

My post on point:

Dan, you having lived in NJ, do you have any insight into the "firearms ID
card" discussed in the article?

I suspect that it is the "ID card" that allows you to buy firearms in NJ, not
carry them. The newspaper article I read was unclear.

Intentional obfuscation?

Also:

1) Does NJ even require a permit/license to own / to possess a firearm? I
found the law re: purchase but must have missed the one on ownership, if there
is one. Do you have a citation for own/possess/etc?

2) Is the intended confiscation legal action based on the requirements of
such a permit/license to own/possess? Or is it something else? If so, what
else?

3) If confiscated, does the State reimburse him or just take his property?

Of course here in Virginia, we have no requirement for a permit/license to buy
or own a firearm. So the quadriplegic-with-a-gun-permit case would have never
happened.

FWIIW, I know folk who own cars but do not have a license to drive them --
some for reasons of health and sight.

I know of folk who are blind or near blind that own guns -- albeit never knew
one to carry.

So, what's the issue here? What does it have to do with Virginia, much less
Metro?

[Eagleks]

Don't forget .... the Courts / Judge "approved" him previously for owning and shooting a gun (under supervision). So, they had ALREADY known he was blind, reviewed it and approved it. So, what gave the Police the right to over-rule the Judge ? Where was due process ? So, you are blind and own a gun, and ? .... what if he wants to sell them, trade them, collect them , etc. ?

Blindfolded , and shoot..... yep, I would...... if someone kidnaps me or ties me up in my house and I'm blindfolded, but able to get to where I have a gun and it's shoot or else.... I would use all of my senses and point / shoot. This guy is single and lives alone.... unlikely anyone who knows him would be coming in without announcing themselves quite well....

This guy has gone to the range in the past to do some shooting, under some supervision.

Uh, Blind people play baseball too.....

[kpw]

Uh, Blind people play baseball too.....

We have a blind golfers league around here. Shooting a game of pool or darts seems to be a favorite. I know my step-dad heard it was legal to hunt duck in Wisconsin, he wants to try it. I try not to tell him he can't do something because he's blind, it gives him ideas. Btw, least favorite movie..."Quest for Fire".

[QKShooter]

I began shooting firearms at quite a young age. My very first "JOB" that was firearms related was when I was still in my teens as a summer camp rifle instructor where I taught .22 rifle marksmanship to very young kids.

All the way back then and until I croak I have (and will continue to espouse) the basic rules for safe firearm handling.

Those rules are what I taught back then and that is what I continue to harp on and preach these days.

In all of the years that I have introduced new shooters to firearms those four steadfast rules went along with the package my personal history with firearms has been without incident and likewise with the people I have taught.

I would tell folks;
"These are the rules. Memorize them. Follow them. Never forget them and you & your family & your friends and the innocent bystanders that surround you will always be
safe. Always abide by these simple rules and you'll never have a mishap. You will never injure or kill yourself or the people around you."

I NEVER told newbie shooters...These are the rules. Pick your favorite one out of the four and memorize it. Pick two out of the four and always follow those two.
These are the rules...feel free to pick two and ignore two.

No, I never did that and I would be a total hypocrite if I gave my own personal "Green Go Ahead" to any individual that (For ANY Reason) could only accomplish two out of the four.

I have nothing personal against any human being that is totally blind. It ain't personal.

But, if any individual cannot physically KNOW exactly who or what he is covering with his firearm muzzle out in public and cannot positively identify a deadly threat and what or who is in the direct line of fire beyond his or her intended target then I personally cannot sign off on that individual carrying a firearm for self-defense out in public places.

My belief has nothing to do with that persons RIGHTS it has everything to do with the right of innocent people out in public who have the right to go about their daily business without being exposed to irresponsible and unsafe firearm handling.

And (up above) in this thread I see comments like..."Don't forget .... the Courts / Judge "approved" him previously for owning and shooting a gun (under supervision)"

and "supervised" at the range. So is the totally blind individual with a License To Carry going to be under constant supervision out in public? NO.

If a totally blind guy wants to collect firearms. Go for it. If a totally blind guy wants to defend himself with a firearm in his own home....Go for it Dude. If a totally blind person wants to target shoot supervised at any gun range...Go for that too dude.

If a totally blind person wants to carry a firearm out in public for the purpose of self defense - forget it Dude & Shop for a Taser because then at least you won't be sending bullets off into innocent skulls.

And if anybody here on this forum has ever told another to abide by all of the rules for safe gun handling.
And if they have have ever said "Never Point A Firearm At Anything You Don't Intend To Destroy." or "Never Cross Innocent People With Your Firearm Muzzle." and then they jump on this thread and and get on my case...then they are a Hypocrite willing to toss safe gun handling into the toilet and they should never tell anybody to follow all of the rules for safe gun handling again.

Because it would be total bullcrap coming out of their mouths.

That's my story & I'm stickin' to it.

[packinnova]

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?

There's that assumption that all blind people cannot possibly identify their target or what's beyond it. Assumptions rule your life don't they....
ok, so you're telling me that a blind person that has been dragged into a back alley, pressed up against a brick wall and is being actively engaged up close and personal by said BG, that said blind person can't turn said BG around back to the wall, press snub to gut and safely pull the trigger...all while knowing full well that there's a brick wall behind him? Is a blind person going to smartly engage a BG at any distance past arms length safely? Probably not, but that doesn't negate the possibility of defending themselves effectively WITHIN that limitation.

[kpw]

QKShooter, I can understand fully what your concerns are and they have merit. I cannot truthfully say that all blind individuals that do actually carry are as responsible or as capable as my step-dad or any of his friends. Remember when I said that they are aware of their limitations? I'll state for fact again based on my actually knowing a number of blind men and women, they know theirs better than most of us know our own. Their lives depend on it.
A situation like packinnova descibes would be one of the few types of scenarios where they could effectively employ a firearm. Think bad breath range. As far as Rule 4 goes, it's an absolute on the range but on the street, it's impossible to be 100%. People miss and even pistol bullets travel a long way. Anyone who says they are going to be 100% sure when they are attacked is probably delusional. You do the best you can and that's all any of us can do, blind or not.

[QKShooter]

packinova

You have me pretty much convinced with regard to the totally blind and granting them a license to carry.

The oral exam would not be any sort of problem & the written could easily be converted to Braille.

There would be a problem though in granting a totally blind individual a license to carry in states that require range testing & qualification.

I certainly don't want to make a false or incorrect assumption that they probably couldn't score, qualify, and demonstrate firearm aiming proficiency at the normal and typical distances usually used for qualification testing.

You know me...I'm always so totally filled with false assumptions & they completely rule my life but, I'm trying hard to work on that.

Your post did give an idea though and that would be to test them in the alley behind the shooting qualification range by placing the target approximately 4 to 6 inches in front of them and then just allowing them to draw & fire through the target and into the wall.

The brick wall would need to be covered with something that would prevent ricochet.

If they qualify at "Belly Button" distance then they could be given a special limited "arms length only" License To Carry...the same way there are things like "Corrective Lenses" restrictions on regular drivers licenses.

I honestly think that you hit on something.
When two great minds meld together to solve a problem there is no limit to what can be accomplished.

I am finished here.

There's that assumption that all blind people cannot possibly identify their target or what's beyond it. Assumptions rule your life don't they....
ok, so you're telling me that a blind person that has been dragged into a back alley, pressed up against a brick wall and is being actively engaged up close and personal by said BG, that said blind person can't turn said BG around back to the wall, press snub to gut and safely pull the trigger...all while knowing full well that there's a brick wall behind him? Is a blind person going to smartly engage a BG at any distance past arms length safely? Probably not, but that doesn't negate the possibility of defending themselves effectively WITHIN that limitation.

[DaveH]

I'm not sure how we got off onto "Carry."

Did the OP / News-report even say he had a permit to carry?

I was under the impression that this thread was about "owning" guns and "confiscating" guns because of sight loss.

[BugDude]

The issue is they are trying to take away his right to possess firearms in the privacy of his own home as a collector and hobbyist. Basic 2nd Amendment right, not carry a firearm in public. Lets look at it another way. If Jay Leno, an avid car collector and hobbyist, lost his sight tomorrow (and lost his Driver's license as well), should they take away his right to possess cars or own a car collection?

[Eagleks]

I think there are 2 discussions going on here :

1. Is he capable of and should he have a loaded gun in his house , and is he capable of shooting it safely.
a. He has shot at shooting ranges and approved to own the guns
b. If someone breaks in his house, he can sure shoot to 'sound' ..
c. We have night sights for what ? in very low visibilty situations.

2. The other issues is, does the Govt have the authority (when previously approved) to confisicate his guns, based upon how he's storing them without any due process and for what he's already been approved to do...... and ownership has nothing to do with shooting nor safety.

[joecs1]

In the republic of jersey, qujestion 21 and 22 would have to be answered very carefully!
21- DO YOU SUFFER FROM A PHIS. DEFECT OR DISEASE?
22- DOES THIS MAKE IT UNSAFE FOR YOU TO "HANDLE" FIREARMS?
Unfortunately, this F'n state suks!

[DaveH]

In the republic of jersey, qujestion 21 and 22 would have to be answered very carefully!
21- DO YOU SUFFER FROM A PHIS. DEFECT OR DISEASE?
22- DOES THIS MAKE IT UNSAFE FOR YOU TO "HANDLE" FIREARMS?
Unfortunately, this F'n state suks!

1) Are those question on the "ID card" that allows you to buy firearms in NJ, or the permit/license carry them. The newspaper article I read was unclear.

2) Which did he have? Carry or buy?

3) Or maybe, does NJ require a permit/license to own / to possess a firearm? I found the law re: purchase but must have missed the one on ownership, if there is one. Do you have a citation for own/possess/etc?

4) Is the intended confiscation based on the requirements of such a permit/license to own/possess? Or is it something else? If so, what else?

[BugDude]

There's a very important issue at stake here and we all (gun owner or not) have a vested interest in how this plays out.

1st issue - The Bill of Rights:

My post was in reference to the entire bill of rights. You may like to draw the line, but you may not like it when someone else comes along and moves it beyond a point that impacts you. The issue at hand is not about carrying firearms, but owning them in the privacy of your own home. If someone draws that line that says a blind person doesn’t have the 2nd amendment right, what stops them from moving that same line and applying it to other rights. Blindness is a physical difference. Color is a physical difference. People fought long and hard to eliminate the discriminating manner in which rights were denied based on physical differences. The Americans with Disabilities Act was the result of another long fight to eliminate the discriminating manner in which rights were denied. If you’re going to strip a blind person of their second amendment right to own a firearm in the privacy of their own home, how can you justify stopping there…next you’ll be taking their freedom of religion, speech, protections from illegal search and seizure, confront their accusers, due process (oh, it looks like you’re already taken due process away from them…sorry).

It’s all fun and games as long as you get to define and decide…not so fun when someone else changes the definitions and move the lines to where they cross you. Once it starts, it’s only a matter of time.

Second Issue - Still The Bill of Rights:

If we don’t protect our rights now, we won’t have any left when we get old. If we let them whittle away at rights because they don’t apply to us right now, before you know it they’re all gone. I’m going to take a little creative liberty with the story from Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984) in order to illustrate it in the context of this discussion:

THEY CAME FIRST for our Guns,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t like guns.

THEN THEY CAME for our Religions,
and I didn’t speak up because I don’t have a Religion.

THEN THEY CAME for our Right to Due Process,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t on trial.

THEN THEY CAME for our Freedom of Speech,
and I wasn’t allowed to speak up.


I would encourage you to look up the original version of the story, the history and context in which it was written. Apply that principle to our rights today and you can see how it can happen.