NJ - Superior Court: State Trying To Take Blind Man's Guns

Bull crap.

I'm shocked at some of the crap statements made in this thread.

Let them have frangibles only.........................[rolleyes]

Don't be so shocked. Hell, some of the guys who "get it" in this thread would likely be posting anti liberty things in other threads... "felons shouldn't have guns", "pot should be illegal"...

People are going to start to realize at some point that your either for liberty for all, for all things, or you're a statist.

Doesn't matter if you think everyone should be able to own machine guns, even felons... if you turn around and then say that drug users should be locked up, or that gays shouldn't be able to marry... you're still a statist.

We should all practice this motto "Liberty for all for all things, even the things that make me uncomfortable".
 
Where to begin....

I am glad you brought up 1A. Surely, you know that it is not an absolute right. One has a right to free speech but cannot shout "fire!" in a theatre, because it puts the people around him at risk. People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car.
You can shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, nothing is stopping you. Just be prepared for the consequences that go alone with that. Just like you have the right to bear arms but be prepared for the consequences if you murder someone with those arms. The right to bear arms is just that - a right. Driving a car is a privelege. See the difference?



Would you bring your kids to the range if you knew that a completely blind guy would be shooting there that day?
Probably not. But he has every right to be there and I have every right not to be there.



If you lived in a townhouse on the other side of the wall from a completely blind guy who shot himself while cleaning a gun, how would you proceed?
That's his problem. ND's apply to blind and non blind alike.


By the way, thanks for the negative reps.
You're welcome.
 
I am glad you brought up 1A. Surely, you know that it is not an absolute right. One has a right to free speech but cannot shout "fire!" in a theatre, because it puts the people around him at risk. People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car.

Well, it seems that here you're factually wrong on two points. First, a person is perfectly free to shout "fire!" in a crowded theater. What the Constitution doesn't do is to immunize them against the repercussions of misusing that right. If there is actually a fire, a sane person might hope that someone did shout "fire!" to alert people to the danger. Second, as noted in previous posts, there are people who have demonstrated that they that some people who are completely blind can not only handle firearms safely (really a no-brainer, since we regularly disassembled, assembled and loaded firearms while blindfolded back in the day) but shoot better than a lot of people with uncorrected 20/20 in both eyes. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Now whether this particular individual has the skills and attitude necessary to possess, handle and use firearms safely remains an open question. What is beyond any rational dispute is that this question has little if anything to do with his visual acuity. Even when that question is answered, and regardless of what the answer is, the real question remains, what gives the police and this judge the legitimate authority to take away his rights based on their opinion that he might misuse them?

BTW, I'd react in exactly the same way to a perfectly sighted person who performed an ND next door to me as I would to that scary, completely blind guy who seems to terrify you so.

Ken
 
Even if you do believe in "community danger" being a limiting factor on rights, a blind guy who happens to own guns doesn't even fall within that realm.

How often do blind people cause NDs which result in the unintentional injury or death of another person?

(crickets)

I'm waiting for all the tales of woe about blind people with firearms. This is right up there with "injuries caused by falconers" [laugh]

-Mike
 
This sounds like an Onion article. Let's use some common sense. The public has an obvious interest in preventing a blind man, who is by definition incapable of handling a gun safely, from leaving loaded firearms strewn around all over the floor.

Whats wrong with leaving firearms all over the floor? You've been indoctrinated by the nanny state.
 
My implication was that one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre with impunity. One is also free to use libelous speech, but cannot expect to use First Amendment protections as an effective defense.

I see your point, and I suppose the fact that I am arguing against statutory disqualification for criminal offenses in another thread makes me something of a hypocrite. Perhaps I am going a little too far in the example of a blind person, and the following examples are by no means analogous, but where is the dividing line? Should the state intervene if a mentally retarded person with the faculties of a 7 year old wishes to own a gun? Someone with a violent history who is fresh out of a mental hospital? There has to be a point at which we make common sense decisions in the interest of general safety.
 
I am glad you brought up 1A. Surely, you know that it is not an absolute right. One has a right to free speech but cannot shout "fire!" in a theatre, because it puts the people around him at risk. People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car.

Would you bring your kids to the range if you knew that a completely blind guy would be shooting there that day?

If you lived in a townhouse on the other side of the wall from a completely blind guy who shot himself while cleaning a gun, how would you proceed?

By the way, thanks for the negative reps.
That line is as worn out as the race card.
Actually you/I can yell fire in a theater, there will be consequences for that action just like if I was to wave a gun around in a theater.
 
Even if you do believe in "community danger" being a limiting factor on rights, a blind guy who happens to own guns doesn't even fall within that realm.

How often do blind people cause NDs which result in the unintentional injury or death of another person?

(crickets)

I'm waiting for all the tales of woe about blind people with firearms. This is right up there with "injuries caused by falconers" [laugh]

-Mike


Understood, but I would like to see some stats on how many blind people actually own firearms.
 
My implication was that one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre with impunity. One is also free to use libelous speech, but cannot expect to use First Amendment protections as an effective defense.

I see your point, and I suppose the fact that I am arguing against statutory disqualification for criminal offenses in another thread makes me something of a hypocrite. Perhaps I am going a little too far in the example of a blind person, and the following examples are by no means analogous, but where is the dividing line? Should the state intervene if a mentally retarded person with the faculties of a 7 year old wishes to own a gun? Someone with a violent history who is fresh out of a mental hospital? There has to be a point at which we make common sense decisions in the interest of general safety.

You didn't really choose a good supporting argument here. You are comparing a physical handicap with a mental disorder / criminal history (arguable that this is also a mental disorder in some cases).

If I as a legally blind individual understand the consequences of my actions with a gun, why should I not be able to own one or 300? Your example does not really work given that someone with the mental capacity of a 7 year old does not understand the cause and effect scenario. This is why mental health questions are asked as well as a criminal background check is done (at least here in MA).

At the end of the day, what should determine your ability to own a gun is your mental health, not a physical limitation such as blindness or ability to walk.
 
My implication was that one cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre with impunity. One is also free to use libelous speech, but cannot expect to use First Amendment protections as an effective defense.

I see your point, and I suppose the fact that I am arguing against statutory disqualification for criminal offenses in another thread makes me something of a hypocrite. Perhaps I am going a little too far in the example of a blind person, and the following examples are by no means analogous, but where is the dividing line? Should the state intervene if a mentally retarded person with the faculties of a 7 year old wishes to own a gun? Someone with a violent history who is fresh out of a mental hospital? There has to be a point at which we make common sense decisions in the interest of general safety.


Ah, so you're one of them. Your no friend of mine then.

A hint. There are no criminal people, and no criminal objects. Only criminal actions. See, the key about a retard with the mental capacity of a 7 year old is that they are already likely in the legal custody of another person. So, that's a non sequiter. If they are not in the legal custody of another, then hell yes, let them own guns. Then, if they do something stupid, lock them up or take whatever other action is needed.

There are only two ways you can live... freely, or not freely.
 
And another...

Carey McWilliams, 33, has been blind since age 10. But that hasn’t stopped him from living a full life, including going sky diving, scuba diving, appearing in Michael Moore’s "Bowling for Columbine," and writing two books. Now he wants a gun permit in Minnesota.

McWilliams already has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in Utah and North Dakota, but the sheriff’s department in Clay County, Minnesota, turned him down.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/blind-man-cant-get-gun-permit-but-baby-bubba-can.html
 
...People who are completely blind cannot safely handle a gun, no more than they can safely drive a car...

You're really not gonna like this then...

Could a blind person drive a car? Researchers are trying to make that far-flung notion a reality.

The National Federation of the Blind and Virginia Tech plan to debut a prototype vehicle next year equipped with technology that helps a blind person drive a car independently.....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/02/tech/main6639963.shtml

[wink] [laugh]
 
Back
Top Bottom