Defensive Carry banner

Blind Man Having His Guns & License Confiscated (NJ)

5K views 63 replies 22 participants last post by  joecs1 
#1 ·
Does a person's right to purchase/own a hand gun or rifle cease to exist after an eye disease or physical condition occurs later in life.

If you lose your sight at 50 years old, should your guns and 2nd amendment rights be confiscated/revoked.

Does that person pose a risk to himself and community by owning GUNS?

Should State and federal Law enforcement revoke his rights and weapon collection for the best interest of Public Safety?

Does the Government have a right to enforce how you store your weapon within the confines of your own home (No Children).

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/nj-blind-man-fighting-for-right-to-own-guns
 
#2 ·
Pretty much a "NO" to all of these! You rights are your rights! Not to be taken and my home is my private property. but of course, everyone voted into office wants to think they do and if a judge says it's law, then the police will enforce it, with 0 regard to silly things such as our "unalienable" rights!
 
#3 ·
No on all counts.
If the guy had a CCW, there could be an issue with that, but the guns are legally owned property. The state cannot take them because of a non-mental disability.
 
#4 ·
NO. Absolutely not. I'd say that would be crimes of the first order.

Johnny's not a threat until he becomes a criminal via a criminal act. Until that time, he's not a threat. I'm of the opinion there are laws in place that cover the authority of citizens to come after criminals when they digress. But until that moment, they are equal citizens with equal rights, and it is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that's the case. Anything less is simply not liberty, not what we're about as a nation of free people.

At some point, the damned SCOTUS will stop screwing around and acknowledge how simple and direct the 2A is, that it's no less of a right, no less permanent, no less worth fighting for, than the 1A and all the rest.

If Johnny shoots his neighbor, or becomes a murder, then arrest his butt. Until then, don't touch him since he hasn't done anything wrong and isn't a threat to anyone. And if he determines to become a "threat" to himself, what do you (administrative putzes, all) care so long as he's not a threat to anyone else. In this land, one may do anything so long as it doesn't harm or threaten anyone else. The moment it does, and only AFTER the moment it does, plenty of existing laws are there to deal with actual crimes accordingly.

(Facetious.) Perhaps they should snatch the guy from his home with multiple SWAT teams and commit him to a psych eval, to see how far that goes. Seemed to be the thing to do with David Pyles in Medford, Oregon. The administrative schmucks got away with it there, and they haven't paid a nickel in jail times or restitution for erasure of Mr. Pyles's rights that day. It's a well-worn tactic that seems to work when apathy meets up with fascist, anti-Americans who disrespect the rights of citizens as much as anything. At least, it'll "teach" the guy to not fool with those who have power over him.
 
#5 ·
Although it seems that this blind man may have some unsafe habits, his rights cannot be trampled. If we based taking away his guns because of his 'accidental self-shooting', then there are a bunch of cops we've read about within these threads who should have their gun rights abolished?
Either convict this guy of a crime and treat him like everyone else, or leave him alone.
 
#6 ·
I would say no, he should not have his firearms removed from his custody, but with a few stipulations, as he is a unique case.


I would say the defendant has a few suspicious and quirky habits ( AS INDICATED BELOW) which he should personally address for his own well being,

Taken from article:
D'Onofrio said the office believes that Hopler poses a risk to the public safety and welfare by his lax storage methods and he said police had the right to be concerned when they saw firearms scattered in the home. While being interviewed about the theft, Hopler pulled a gun from under a seat cushion and tried to load it in front of police who ordered him to stop, D'Onofrio said.


The judge said he wants to consider a few issues before deciding the case, including the outcome of a situation in 2003 in which Hopler was intoxicated and police were called when he became unruly at a bar.



All though the intoxication incident was seven years ago, I would look at his behavior since ,and judge accordingly. If hes been a good upstanding citizen since, I would allow him to keep his weapons, but under the stipulation that he must get a safe to store them in, and only have 3-4 out in the living space for personal protection.
This would secure them, in a manner in which they would not so readily be stolen or otherwise used inappropriately.

I know that sounds like big brother intrusiveness, which I am adamantly against when it comes to things of this nature,but come on the guy IS legally blind.




"When you were born you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so
that when you die you are smiling and everyone around you is crying."
 
#7 ·
No, but the man assumes a much higher liability. Other than having them as a collection or investment, they're not much use to him. But they are his and his to do what he pleases.
 
#9 ·
No, but the man assumes a much higher liability. Other than having them as a collection or investment, they're not much use to him. But they are his and his to do what he pleases.
Tell that to the blind man that sticks a mouse gun in a violent attackers gut and pulls the trigger....:rolleyes:
 
#8 ·
IMO, Mr. Hopler has the same rights as any of us, but he needs a good gun safe at home and the ability to afford legal representation. Whatever/whoever he shoots, he is responsible for. Being blind will not get him off the hook in court.
 
#13 ·
Most blind peoples other senses are highly developed,using hearing and smell they could tell that there was more than one person if that was the case,If a cricket farts they can point at it.How about we take away the first amendment rights of people who swear,or disagree with the government.
 
#17 ·
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. :usflag:

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

Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety



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

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

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~~~~> :confused:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#22 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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...
 
#25 ·
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?



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...
 
#26 ·
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.
 
#27 ·
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.
 
#31 ·
Every blind person I have met is well aware of their limitations.

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.
Exactly so.

To be able to carry a gun concealed in public, I feel like vision plays a very big part in that.
Only beyond a certain distance. That's simply not the only distances at which a firearm is useful and effective.

And very few (if any) upstanding people are going to be blasting away at something "in that general direction" where they cannot distinguish the deadly threat. That's no different for sight-impaired people. Trouble is, disarming such a person takes away one of the most effective defensive tools. That's a pretty darned high price, for mere fears a person's going to go haywire and blast away.

Again, show ANY example of this sort of thing, and then we'll be able to speak to the likelihood of the risk. Until then, it's simply a fear.
 
#29 ·
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.
 
#30 ·
* 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 ?
 
#32 ·
That's good news. So we can finally rid ourselves of Rule #IV

RULE IV

IT'S OK TO BE UNSURE OF YOUR TARGET - REALLY....DON'T GIVE IT A PASSING THOUGHT UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY KILL OR MAIM AN INNOCENT PERSON.


There is no need to know what anything is - or who - or what is behind your target.
It is A-OK for your muzzle to cover other people as long as you don't know they are there. Maybe you will but, maybe you won't destroy people that you cover with your firearm muzzle. It should be up to innocent people to either duck behind cover or get the Hell out of your way should you need to defend yourself with your firearm out in puplic places.
It's fine to shoot at absolutely anything you have not positively identified. Don't sweat it.
Even wearing a blindfold while defending your life (for fully sighted persons) should be considered to be proper gun handling from this point forward.
It is no longer important for you to be fully aware of your surroundings no matter if you are at the range or in a gunfight out in public.
Try really hard to know WHAT you are doing even if you cannot actually SEE what you are doing.
It is OK to compromise on safety....and your most valuable sense for purposes of self defense is no longer relevant. Your RIGHT to blindly launch deadly projectiles with a killing range of 1.5 Miles trumps being able to actually see what is out there.
It is downright SILLY for others to believe that you actually need to be able to see and know who and what you are shooting at.
ALWAYS try to smell if any innocent people are out there in your immediate line of fire before you pull the trigger unless (of course) the wind is blowing in the opposite direction.
In which case don't worry about it too much.
Weapon mounted lights are no longer necessary. Firearms will no longer sport obsolete picatinny rails for mounting TAC Lights.
Indoor shooting ranges will now be completely dark and minus all forms of artificial lighting. Please disregard the earlier version of Rule IV.
All totally blind people will now be eligible for Military Service since you have no problem whatsoever identifying the enemy and sorting them out from innocent civilians. Congress did not recognize that you could do that by means of your greatly heightened sense of smell and hearing up until such time as they read this thread on DefensiveCarry.com.
Alway be certain that you have your Braille version of your License To Carry on your person at all times so that totally Blind Law Enforcement Officers will know that it's legal for you to carry.

Oh Wait...Stupid Me!...What was I thinking???...You're totally BLIND. You can't read my post to see that the rules have changed.

Oh Well...that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Now that the rules have changed....I'm finished here. I have a forum to moderate.
 
#33 ·
That's good news. So we can finally rid ourselves of Rule #IV

[
All totally blind people will now be eligible for Military Service since you have no problem whatsoever identifying the enemy and sorting them out from innocent civilians. Congress did not recognize that you could do that by means of your greatly heightened sense of smell and hearing up until such time as they read this thread on DefensiveCarry.com.
Alway be certain that you have your Braille version of your License To Carry on your person at all times so that totally Blind Law Enforcement Officers will know that it's legal for you to carry.

Oh Wait...Stupid Me!...What was I thinking???...You're totally BLIND. You can't read my post to see that the rules have changed.

Now that the rules have changed....I'm finished here. I have a forum to moderate.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^In bold above is simply ludicrous^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


The military disqualifies thousands on many different stipulations.
Should those people also LOSE their right to carry , or own firearms based on those assumptions also.?????

Examples below, taken directly from the military site noted here;;; http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/pdf/r40_501.pdf



2–5. Dental
a. Current diseases of the jaws or associated tissues that prevent normal functioning are disqualifying. Those
diseases include, but are not limited to temporomandibular disorders (524.6) and/or myofascial pain that have not been
corrected.
b. Current severe malocclusion (524), which interferes with normal mastication or requires early and protracted
treatment, or a


2–6. Ears
a. External ear. Current atresia (744.02) or severe microtia (744


2–8. Endocrine and metabolic disorders




b. Hand and fingers.
(1) Current absence of the distal phalanx of either thumb (885) is disqualifying.
(2) Current absence of distal and middle phalanx of an index, middle, or ring finger of either hand, irrespective of
the absence of the little finger (886), is disqualifying




2–14. Genitalia
a. Female genitalia.
(1) Current or history of abnormal uterine bleeding (626.2), including, but not limited to menorrhagia, metrorrhagia,
or polymenorrhea, is disqualifying.
(2) Current unexplained amenorrhea (626.0) is disqualifying.
(3) Current or history of dysmenorrhea (625.3) that is incapacitating to a degree recurrently necessitating absences
of more than a few hours from routine activities is disqualifying.
(4) Current or history of endometriosis (617) is disqualifying.


2–15. Urinary system
a. Current cystitis (595), or history of chronic or recurrent cystitis is disqualifying.
b. Current urethritis (597.80), or history of chronic or recurrent urethritis is disqualifying.
c. History of enuresis (788.30) or incontinence of urine after 13th birthday is disqualifying (



Shall we continue based on this assumtion????

I think not, because if we did, there would be nobody carrying a weapon in this country based on the military and QKShooters guidelines for acceptance.
 
#34 ·
Gee...oneshot. I was totally unaware of that until you just now brought that to my attention.
That's pretty neat how you totally sidetracked the focus completely away from the tread topic.
Let's talk about people with urinary problems now and how that could possibly affect their right to carry a firearm out in public.


I submit the following as proved and easily document-able fact.
Every single time on this forum and on every other firearm related forum on the INTERNET - there is one thing that all of those sites have in common. Inclusive of DefensiveCarry.
Every time there is a story or scenario posted of an accidental/negligent discharge or an innocent person gets shot.
Or a innocent person gets hit with a stray bullet or a shooter injures him or herself.
Or there is a range accident or somebody touches off a round at a gun show...blah...blah...blah...you get the picture.

At least ten seasoned, responsible, logical, and educated shooters will post that the tragic incident only happened because that person did not adhere to one or more of the basic "tried and true" accepted, longstanding, rules that govern safe firearm handling.

Every single person that has been on any gun or firearm related forum for any length of time knows that above statement is true.

It's my personal opinion that a totally blind person out in a public places CANNOT abide by two of those basic rules due to the fact that strict adherence to those two rules requires at least some degree of eyesight.
That is not arguable or debatable.

A totally blind individual lacks eyesight - so what is a logical and thinking person to conclude regarding a totally sightless person discharging a firearm out in a public place?

You need to be honest and truthful with yourself regarding your answer. It's not something you can change or alter just because ideally you wish it was not so.
 
#35 ·
Every once in a while, one of these blind guy with a gun threads shows up and people make assumptions about how a blind CCWer would act in a public situation. I've known my step-dad since I was 14, because of him, I've gotten to know many others. In college, I had a job aiding blind students. I can tell you that, without doubt, that they are much more aware of their own limitations than we are of ours. If you think your going to see a blind person open up in a diner or mall trying to take out a BG, forget it. There are very few scenarios that they will be able to use that firearm effectively and they know it better than we do. Not all blind people are like Stevie Wonder either. Some have adapted better to their circumstance than others and are much more capable in just about everything they do. Like with most subjects, assumptions can leave you with a less than educated opinion.

Btw, QKShooter, my step-dad lives here in PA. If ya see a blind guy at the range shooting a G19 or Colt .38, say hello.
 
#39 ·
The Law?

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

So, a slightly different tack, here.

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

2) Is the proposed legal action based on the requirements of such a permit/license? Or is it something else? If so what else?
 
#42 ·
Yes, Erie County. I know he isn't the only one either. Sandy Amendola is the deputy in charge of LTCFs in Erie.

Not trying to be a stickler but in PA it's a License To Carry Firearm = LTCF. No concealment implied or required on the license.
 
#45 ·
I live in Morris County NJ. It's a fairly conservative county as Jersey goes...so I was a bit surprised by the LE aggressiveness in this case.
Maybe the cops are concerned about some sort of mental disability/limitation as well???
I can guarantee that the BG (blind guy) doesn't have a CCW.
They're pretty much impossible to obtain. (We're in the same situation as IL & WI.) You need to a FireArms ID card to purchase any gun, including airguns...(and to own a handgun?).
And to obtain these cards requires a full FBI background check, character references, fingerprints, etc.)
 
#47 ·
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? :biggrin2:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top