Carry permits for the legally blind in Iowa - AKA stay away from Iowa
82 replies, posted
[IMG]http://a.abcnews.com/images/US/ht_des_moines_register_blind_gun_permits_thg_130909_16x9_992.jpg[/IMG]
[quote] In 2010, Iowa became a "shall-issue" state when the legislature amended a law to create a uniform procedure for issuing gun permits statewide. As a result, Iowa residents could get a gun permit so long as they did not have a criminal background or history of mental illness, Wethington said.
While applicants need to take a firearm safety course to obtain a permit, it is available online and does not need to include hands-on firearms training, which "makes it a little difficult," LeClere said.
Still, advocates for the blind say the law squares away with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that the same restrictions that apply to sighted people should also apply to the blind when it comes to guns.
"A visually impaired person, in my opinion, is more entitled for a permit to carry, just for the sheer fact that they don't pick up on the cues that a sighted person would have," said Wethington, who has a daughter who is legally blind.[/quote]
[URL]http://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-iowa-law-grants-permits-blind-carry-guns/story?id=20204245[/URL]
not that anyone wants to go Iowa anyway
give them spoons instead, since gun rights activists think they are equally deadly
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("alt of perma'd user" - Orkel))[/highlight]
Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to give a blind person a gun?
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;42144010]Giggled at the face of the sales guy behind the counter. :v:
Even if the picture might be unrelated.[/QUOTE]
The guy holding the gun has a walking stick, and if I sold guns I would have that look too.
[quote]"A visually impaired person, in my opinion, is more entitled for a permit to carry, just for the sheer fact that they don't pick up on the cues that a sighted person would have," [/quote]
Are you serious? How about the fact that they are more likely to be unable to aim properly and thus FAR more likely to cause collateral damage?
[QUOTE=areyouserious;42143995]give them spoons instead, since gun rights activists think they are equally deadly[/QUOTE]
Username fits
Honestly I see nothing wrong with this. Just because he's blind doesn't mean he'll shoot into a crowd of people.
If someone's attacking or robbing him I'm sure he'll be alone with them, not hard to miss someone who'd think he's robbing/attacking a helpless blind man either.
The only problems are just the usual: People not having proper gun safety.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;42144037]Are you serious? How about the fact that they are more likely to be unable to aim properly and thus FAR more likely to cause collateral damage?[/QUOTE]
Can't legally refuse a blind person the right to bear arms in the United States. There isn't a exception in the bill of rights.
[QUOTE=LoLWaT?;42144010]Giggled at the face of the sales guy behind the counter. :v:
Even if the picture might be unrelated.[/QUOTE]
"What have I done?"
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42144281]Can't legally refuse a blind person the right to bear arms in the United States. There isn't a exception in the bill of rights.[/QUOTE]
The amendment text:
[quote]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]
What most people read:
[quote][del]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [/del]the right of [del]the[/del] people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/quote]
This refers to "the people" as a group. It does not mean every individual gets to have a gun.
When people see a blind man getting mugged and do nothing, they'll call it the by hider effect.
[quote]"just for the sheer fact that they don't pick up on the cues that a sighted person would have"[/quote]
Just the more reason to [b]not[/b] give them one, how the fuck are they going to correctly assess something as a threat?
If something happens in a dark place(back alley, parks, anywhere with poor lighting, night time in general) then legally blind people are pretty much completely blind, they won't see the threat much less be able to shoot it and the threat can possibly get a free gun.
[QUOTE=Altimor;42144314]The amendment text:
What most people read:
The amendment deals with militia, ie a group, and refers to "the people" as a group. It does not mean every individual gets to have a gun.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311[/url]
So uh yeah. All blind males over the age of 17 can still get guns apparently even if we go with your interpretation.
[QUOTE]In 2010, Iowa became a "shall-issue" state when the legislature amended a law to create a uniform procedure for issuing gun permits statewide. As a result, Iowa residents could get a gun permit so long as they did not have a criminal background or history of mental illness, Wethington said.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][B]In 2010[/B][/QUOTE]
So has this just gone unnoticed for 3 years or was someone just looking for some instant controversy?
As silly as I think it is for a blind person to own a gun, I doubt many blind people are planning to go around firing wildly in public so I don't really see the issue here. As long as they know how to carry/use the gun safely they're no more dangerous than anyone else.
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;42144361][url]http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311[/url]
So uh yeah. All blind males over the age of 17 can still get guns apparently even if we go with your interpretation.[/QUOTE]
Blind males over the age of 17 are not a separate group. They're a part of "the people", the general non-govt affiliated populace and militia as defined by that text. The right of the people as a whole to bear arms has not been infringed upon, anyone capable of using them safely can own them and carry a concealed weapon.
[QUOTE=Altimor;42144314]The amendment text:
What most people read:
The amendment deals with militia, ie a group, and refers to "the people" as a group. It does not mean every individual gets to have a gun.[/QUOTE]
Your interpretation is not the one that was intended by the writers or borne out in court cases. 'Well-regulated' in 18th-century English means well-equipped, not 'regulated' in the modern sense of being managed. And the militia, if you read the Militia Act, was defined as all able-bodied adult males. It wasn't a voluntary, elective commitment like it is today. A 'modern English' version of the sentence would read something like this:
[quote]Because a well-armed populace is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[/quote]
The law has been repeatedly upheld to be that unless you can give a convincing reason why someone should not be allowed to own a gun, usually criminality, then they have a right to own it. Even if they're legally blind, they can safely own and use a firearm. The right is only waived if there is good reason to think someone may use that firearm to the ill of others, like criminal tendencies or mental illness.
Put simply, this isn't just the law in Iowa. Any state that requires no permit for a long arm is fair game. Given that we haven't seen news articles about blind people killing innocents left and right, I don't think it's an issue.
[QUOTE=Altimor;42144314]The amendment text:
What most people read:
The amendment deals with militia, ie a group, and refers to "the people" as a group. It does not mean every individual gets to have a gun.
EDIT: To clarify I'm not saying the militia is some manner of exclusive group, anyone can be militia, I'm just saying that it's a group[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html[/url]
Who cares if blind people have guns. Like most gun owners, they're not raging dicks that shoot up a school. They're entitled to 2nd amendment rights and self-defense just as much as everyone. It's not like they're gonna go to the shooting range and shoot everyone, but the target.
[QUOTE=catbarf;42144579]Your interpretation is not the one that was intended by the writers or borne out in court cases. 'Well-regulated' in 18th-century English means well-equipped, not 'regulated' in the modern sense of being managed. And the militia, if you read the Militia Act, was defined as all able-bodied adult males. It wasn't a voluntary, elective commitment like it is today. A 'modern English' version of the sentence would read something like this:
The law has been repeatedly upheld to be that unless you can give a convincing reason why someone should not be allowed to own a gun, usually criminality, then they have a right to own it. Even if they're legally blind, they can safely own and use a firearm. The right is only waived if there is good reason to think someone may use that firearm to the ill of others, like criminal tendencies or mental illness.
Put simply, this isn't just the law in Iowa. Any state that requires no permit for a long arm is fair game. Given that we haven't seen news articles about blind people killing innocents left and right, I don't think it's an issue.[/QUOTE]
I edited my post to clarify, I'm not saying the militia is a special group. I'm saying the people have the right to bear arms as a group, it doesn't mean every individual will always have the right to bear arms. It isn't unconstitutional to restrict firearms on an individual basis based on health issues.
[QUOTE=cqbcat;42144617]Who cares if blind people have guns. Like most gun owners, they're not raging dicks that shoot up a school. They're entitled to 2nd amendment rights and self-defense just as much as everyone. It's not like they're gonna go to the shooting range and shoot everyone, but the target.[/QUOTE]
Right, they'll shoot everyone [I]and[/I] the target. But [B]hey,[/B] that is gonna be [I]one dead target.[/I] Take that, robbers!
I'm actually curious how a blind person would do with a gun... In a heavily controlled environment with everything behind cover.
Kind of like that Mythbusters thing with the blind guy in a car.
[editline]10th September 2013[/editline]
I mean, if you made it so the target emitted a sound, would a blind person be able to home in on that sound accurately enough to make a good shot?
I didn't see that coming!
Legally blind != blind. My friend is legally blind and is a hell of a better shot than I am.
Hey, blind people want to fondle guns too.
[QUOTE=Altimor;42144314]The amendment text:
What most people read:
The amendment deals with militia, ie a group, and refers to "the people" as a group. It does not mean every individual gets to have a gun.
EDIT: To clarify I'm not saying the militia is some manner of exclusive group, anyone can be militia, I'm just saying that it's a group[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/media]
[QUOTE=JerryK;42143976]not that anyone wants to go Iowa anyway[/QUOTE]
As a resident of Iowa I can confirm this.
[QUOTE=Judas;42145186][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/media][/QUOTE]
Ok now that I reread my post I see my wording was clumsy, I agree with this. My point is that the amendment refers to groups and not individuals.
[QUOTE=CheezMan;42144005]Who the fuck thought it was a good idea to give a blind person a gun?[/QUOTE]
probably the same person who thought it was a good idea to have gun safety training without the need to ever hold a gun
[QUOTE=Altimor;42145273]Ok now that I reread my post I see my wording was clumsy, I agree with this. My point is that the amendment refers to groups and not individuals.[/QUOTE]
Which can be challenged, which is what we are doing, and people have been doing for a while, thus this argument is all a matter of opinionated interpretation in which unless you are going to bring it to the supreme court so that [B]they[/B] can possibly reinterpret it, it shall stay as it has been interpreted.
Also who determines if you and your buds with mosins aren't a local militia, do you have the federal government have regulations on what is and isn't a militia? That can be challenged as infringing on the right to bear arms in this case. In addition, how would you begin a militia without those arms in the first place?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.