Whutmeworry
NES Member
If you have a stroke, and suffer partial paralysis or vision issues as a result, the DMV will know NOTHING about it. Your license is still valid, all-day every-day, unless someone from that patient's medical staff drops a dime. Often, the only reason the DMV gets a call is because a relative of the patient demands that action be taken because impairment is quite obvious, but common-sense isn't legally mandated. There will be MANY snowbirds/golden-agers who would rather be euthanized than give up their driving privileges due to old age. Shall we have the discussion regarding firearms possession and someone diagnosed as legally blind?
The thing is, common sense CANNOT and SHOULD NOT ever be "mandated" because it is always a matter of one's own opinion. We now live in a world where some people consider it "common sense" to let people unilaterally decide whether they want to use a men's or women's restroom on any given day regardless of what they have between their legs.
As to your question of whether or not we should discuss firearms possession of someone who is legally blind, that should be no different than a discussion of whether or not someone who is blind should operate a motor vehicle, a power tool, a bicycle, a chain saw, etc. Are there laws regulating all of these individual circumstances? Probably not, and even if there are, there probably shouldn't be. Why? BECAUSE "COMMON SENSE" IN THE CONTEXT THAT YOU USE IT IS A EUPHEMISM FOR LOSS OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY.
I don't want a patient's medical staff "dropping a dime" to the DMV about his/her condition. The DMV has already been delegated waaay too much power by the people, as has the VA. I'm ok with a custodian or family member making that call.
Please consider the below quote from an extremely wise old, dead white guy:
"They who give up essential liberty in exchange for a little bit of safety deserve neither liberty nor safety, and will lose both." - Benjamin Franklin