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; 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. ...

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 64
Like Tree1Likes

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

  1. #1
    Member Array gunsite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    122

    Blind Man Having His Guns & License Confiscated (NJ)

    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/sta...ht-to-own-guns

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array sandman1212's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    229
    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!
    KAHR CW45, RIA 1911 Officer, S&W Sigma 9MM, Savage 1907 .32cal(BUG)

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array press1280's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    750
    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.
    "The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."
    Nunn v. State GA 1848

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,740
    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.
    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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #5
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,398
    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.
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,868
    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."
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array OldVet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    S. Florida, north of the Miami mess, south of the Mouse trap
    Posts
    15,721
    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.
    Retired USAF E-8. Remember: You're being watched!
    Paranoia strikes deep, into your heart it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... "For What It's Worth" Buffalo Springfield

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array boricua's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    3,873
    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.
    Duty, Honor, Country...MEDIC!!!
    ¡Cuánto duele crecer, cuan hondo es el dolor de alzarse en puntillas y observar con temblores de angustia, esa cosa tremenda, que es la vida del hombre! - René Marqués

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array packinnova's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    4,207
    Quote Originally Posted by OldVet View Post
    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....
    "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 **** out of them; no more rules...You'll see how primitive they can get."
    -The Mist (2007)

  11. #10
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,059
    Quote Originally Posted by packinnova View Post
    Tell that to the blind man that sticks a mouse gun in a violent attackers gut and pulls the trigger....
    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.

  12. #11
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,149
    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.
    Actually, it's always black according to my step-dad. He's been legally blind since birth and completely blind for a while now. He's owned guns his entire adult life and has had his LTCF for 20+ years. Don't worry people. He knows his limitations better than we ever will.
    "In a republic this rule ought to be observed: that the majority should not have the predominant power." -
    -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,740
    Tell that to the blind man that sticks a mouse gun in a violent attackers gut and pulls the trigger.
    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.
    And if such a person commits a crime, then treat him/her according to the actions. UNTIL THEN, no crime has been committed.

    I'm sure the blind and other disabled folks realize they've got the same standards to meet as everyone else. The do-good, nanny staters who would wrap him up with a number of rules applying only to him risk MUCH more than the ire of citizens grousing over trampling on the man's rights. The risk is the slippery slope of allowing rights to be trampled at all ... where does it stop?

    He's got the same built-in incentives as the rest of us to behave lawfully, avoid harming innocents, ensuring he protects his investments, ensuring his weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, etc. All the incentives already exist, through statutes that apply to everyone equally. As such, IMO, there simpy isn't any justifiable rationale for singling out this man or the blind simply because some nanny stater gets bent over the risks seen with the blind. The risks are little different than those everyone faces.


    Quote Originally Posted by kpw View Post
    Actually, it's always black according to my step-dad. He's been legally blind since birth and completely blind for a while now. He's owned guns his entire adult life and has had his LTCF for 20+ years. Don't worry people. He knows his limitations better than we ever will.
    Exactly so.
    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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,169
    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.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  15. #14
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,059
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    And if such a person commits a crime, then treat him/her according to the actions. UNTIL THEN, no crime has been committed.

    I'm sure the blind and other disabled folks realize they've got the same standards to meet as everyone else. The do-good, nanny staters who would wrap him up with a number of rules applying only to him risk MUCH more than the ire of citizens grousing over trampling on the man's rights. The risk is the slippery slope of allowing rights to be trampled at all ... where does it stop?

    He's got the same built-in incentives as the rest of us to behave lawfully, avoid harming innocents, ensuring he protects his investments, ensuring his weapons don't fall into the wrong hands, etc. All the incentives already exist, through statutes that apply to everyone equally. As such, IMO, there simpy isn't any justifiable rationale for singling out this man or the blind simply because some nanny stater gets bent over the risks seen with the blind. The risks are little different than those everyone faces.




    Exactly so.

  16. #15
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,740
    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.
    ... 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.
    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, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

Page 1 of 5 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

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 legally blind get gun permit in pennsylvania

,

do you need a permit to keep handguns in nj home

,
guns confiscated nj
,
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.