Gun Nuts have jumped the shark: Iowa is granting carry permits to the legally blind

[riqster]

http://bluntandcranky.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/gun-nuts-have-jumped-the-shark-iowa-is-granting-carry-permits-to-the-legally-blind/

From the article referenced in the blog post: "Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011.

“It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads, we can’t deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing,” said Sgt. Jana Abens, a spokeswoman for the Polk County sheriff’s office, referring to a visual disability.

Polk County officials say they’ve issued weapons permits to at least three people who can’t legally drive and were unable to read the application forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments."

More at the link, including the usual cranky ranting.

[Frustratedlady]

1. Oh, joy! Common sense is dead. eom

[Robb]

2. What, you want only blind POLICE to have guns???

Authoritarian! Civil rights hater! Why do you hate blind people??!?!

[hack89]

5. This is an ADA issue

the law they are referring to is the ADA - good luck convincing any advocate for the disabled that the ADA needs to be altered.

[Robb]

7. Oh, good, DU's proudest NRA member's here.

Quick, someone's bad-mouthing gunz! Spin spin spin!

[hack89]

30. I think giving guns to blind people is a stupid idea - but unlike you I actually read the article

I have no problem with rigorous requirements to own a gun including a Firearms ID card, safety training and range time.

[liberalhistorian]

54. Except that the ADA does not give

carte blanche to give people whatever they want, it is not a free pass. You have to show that you can reasonably perform the duties, you cannot just cite the ADA and be given whatever you want. Somehow, I don't think someone who is blind or visually impaired could be considered able to "reasonably perform" accurate shooting of a gun without seriously hurting or killing someone, so I can't see the ADA being logically used here. You can try and make a case for it, but you can't really support that case.

[hack89]

56. Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, thinks ADA does apply

That’s for good reason, Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, told the newspaper. She said blocking visually impaired people from getting weapons permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

http://wqad.com/2013/09/08/debate-stirring-after-iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/

And the judge in the Steven Hopler case made the police return his guns even though he was blind. I don't think the issue is as clear cut legally as some would like to think.

I personally think letting blind people have guns is stupid - they need to add some sort of shooting test to eliminate blind gun owners like a driving test eliminates blind drivers.

[historylovr]

3. What could possibly go wrong?

Just as with Florida granting permits to violent, cowardly asshats, this cannot end well.

[hack89]

4. This is actually an ADA issue

classic example of unintended consequences.

[hlthe2b]

8. If ADA were "absolute" then no sight-impaired person could be denied a driver's license

Given that is NOT the case, I have to think this is a convenient excuse.

[SidDithers]

12. There's the small matter of the driving test that must be passed...

there's no similar competency test with respect to gun ownership, is there?

Sid

[hlthe2b]

17. That is an implementation requirement of the law, which CLEARLY could/should be

the case, here, as well--at least for anyone with common sense and concern for the welfare of others.


There is NO reason this law can not be either modified to incorporate this requirement--if they (and those defending this) actually gave a shit.

[stevenleser]

18. But if we return to the idea of the ADA trumping everything, wouldn't the test be struck down

as a result of a law that trumped everything else? Clearly there are common sense exceptions to the ADA's reach?

[hlthe2b]

23. Even Title I of ADA (part that impacts employers) has a public safety exception:

Are there any exceptions to the requirements of Title I of the ADA?

Yes. There are two exceptions to the requirements of Title I of the ADA.

First, an employer is not required to provide an accommodation if it will impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of its business such as accommodations that are excessively costly, extensive, substantial, or disruptive, or would fundamentally alter the nature or operation of the business.

Second, an employer may refuse to employ or provide accommodations to an individual who poses a "direct threat" to the health or safety of him/herself or other employees in the workplace. The determination that an individual poses a direct threat to self or others cannot be made simply based on stereotypical generalizations about mental illness, but may be based only on objective evidence from a treatment provider or another credible source that the individual’s present condition makes him or her a direct threat to self or others.

http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=Helpline1&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=47065

Some here are REALLY stretching to suggest otherwise.... It sounds very clearly like a premise/excuse to directly attack ADA, frankly.

[Drale]

33. Exactly,

a business would never hire a blind person to drive a forklift and that person would have no recourse to sue when they didn't get hired. This actually came up at my dad's company a few months back, the judge laughed at the guy and ordered him to pay legal expenses.

[hack89]

39. The issue is that it involves a constitutional right

the exceptions have to be explicitly stated. It is not a particularly high bar - there are plenty of of exceptions to the right to own guns. The problem is that there is no law that says blind people cannot own guns. They need to pass a law.

[NutmegYankee]

44. A blind man has the right to own a gun, BUT

there is no right for a state to give you a permit to carry it in public. Unlike a felon or someone who was adjudicated as mentally defective, someone cannot be denied that right just because they are blind. It takes due process per the fifth amendment. But why on earth give a blind guy a carry permit? That's just madness.

[hack89]

48. It is a flaw in the law that needs to be fixed

There are some ADA advocates that support this right.

That’s for good reason, Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, told the newspaper. She said blocking visually impaired people from getting weapons permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

http://wqad.com/2013/09/08/debate-stirring-after-iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/


I personally think letting blind people have guns is stupid - they need to add some sort of shooting test to eliminate blind gun owners like a driving test eliminates blind drivers.

[hlthe2b]

45. That is pure unadulterated BS

[hack89]

47. Of course it is. nt

[Jenoch]

53. In order for someone to be

granted a CCW permit in Minnesota, a person must pass a target shooting test at the end of the classroom training.

[riqster]

57. Not in every state.

Requirements vary widely.

[Jenoch]

62. Of course, that's why I qualified my statement.

[riqster]

64. Gotcha.

No offense meant.

[NM_Birder]

65. What state doesn't require certification, including range test to issue a conceal/carry permit ?

[riqster]

70. IIRC, one of tbe southwest states does not require range time.

Utah, I believe. Classroom time also varies as do the shooting requirements where they do exist.

[NM_Birder]

71. Huh, just assumed all states had range certification requirements,........

had to check, you're right about Utah, class time only, that seems really irresponsible to not have range certification. I had class time as well as range certification, and I am only allowed to carry the highest caliber firearm I qualified with. Also, had to qualify with revolver and semi-auto, of the few things NM does well, it seemed like the conceal carry program is prety strong.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. Legally, driving is considered a privilege...

not a right, so they can limit it any way they want and it's not subject to the ADA.

Gun ownership, thanks to that amendment, is a Constitutional right, so subject to the ADA.

This could be worked out rationally if anyone wanted to, but don't hold your breath.

[hlthe2b]

22. Public endangerment ALWAYS trumps the right to bear arms...

THAT is why they can remove that right from a convicted felon. So, too could they use this to restrict in this case. This issue has NOT been examined by the courts, so some are merely ASSUMING it is not a lawful restriction.

[TreasonousBastard]

25. This is true. A quick search shows that...

serious mental problems are quite common reasons for denying a license, and they are list under "disabilities."

I haven't found any court that backed up the claim that there is a Constitutional right for the blind to carry, but I haven't looked that hard. The cited article had just the opinions of a few sheriffs.

[hack89]

34. They simply need to make it unlawful for a blind person to own guns

don't know how the courts would rule but right now the assumption is that blind people have the same constitutional rights as everyone else.

[hlthe2b]

43. No, ADA already alllows for these kind of exceptions under public safety...

Using ADA as the scapegoat reason for this is really beyond the pale, IMO.

[hack89]

46. Show me the explicit wording from the ADA

we are talking about a constitutional right here - the legal standard for restricting it is harder. You can't just say that a blanket public safety exception is adequate.

Just pass a law - it is not that hard.

[hlthe2b]

50. I already did...

and your logic breaks down even further with respect to violent felons ban on owning guns. Public safety TRUMPS.

That is why other constitutional protections/rights have been eroded (e.g. search and seizure)--Public safety trumps.

[hack89]

52. You need to talk to Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa

she disagrees with you.

That’s for good reason, Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, told the newspaper. She said blocking visually impaired people from getting weapons permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

http://wqad.com/2013/09/08/debate-stirring-after-iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/

And then talk to the judge in the Steven Hopler case.

[hlthe2b]

67. and she is a fool or very misguided. Though Iowa courts are very notorious for political cronies

and ignorance at the helm.

[hack89]

68. If you say so. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

72. The Hopler case was a county court in New Jersey that hardly...

defines the Constitution.

Show us a Federal case, or at least a superior state court case.

The county decided not to spend the money on an appeal, presumably hoping he wouldn't shoot himself again, leaving us with no real case law on the subject.

[hack89]

73. It's not that big a deal

I agree that giving guns to blind people is not wise. I just think that the notion that the ADA is perfectly clear on the issue is not correct. It will either require a court decision or the state can clarify their laws by requiring a test that would window out blind gun owners.

[hack89]

31. I agree they need to change the law to require a shooting test

just like one would take a drivers license. What we have here is a conflict between two laws - the solution is to fix the laws.

[stevenleser]

9. Let me get this straight, the Americans with Disabilities Act is the bad guy here?

[Robb]

10. It's all in the delivery.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2793671

[stevenleser]

11. Wow. I'm inclined to believe that person is a long standing troll after taking that in.

I'll bet he is one of those folks who reports in to one of those anti-DU websites.

[Robb]

14. hack89 is not a long standing troll.

[stevenleser]

16. OK, you can take that three ways. He hasn't been here a while or he's not a troll or...

both are incorrect?

I wonder what the purpose is of misleading the DU community the way that person did it if not to troll?

[Robb]

19. I don't wonder at it in the least.

His purpose seems quite clear.

[hack89]

40. If you like, we can discuss my actual views on gun regulations

instead of getting them second hand. If you like.

[2ndAmForComputers]

69. Fine. Let's discuss it. I'll start with the two contradictory posts Robb linked.

Which one of them is the truth and which one is the lie?

[Eleanors38]

63. H89 is right here. Talk to him. nt

[TreasonousBastard]

24. It's not the bad guy, but it's interpretation is.

[hack89]

32. The executive director of Disability Rights Iowa thinks so.

That’s for good reason, Jane Hudson, the executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, told the newspaper. She said blocking visually impaired people from getting weapons permits would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

http://wqad.com/2013/09/08/debate-stirring-after-iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/


I personally think letting blind people have guns is stupid - they need to add some sort of shooting test to eliminate blind gun owners like a driving test eliminates blind drivers.

[stevenleser]

6. What could go wrong?

[ileus]

13. can they see a set of night sites?

[HereSince1628]

21. sites or sights?

[ileus]

26. can I spell sights....opps.

[SecularMotion]

28. oops or opps?

[NCTraveler]

15. Link to the USA Today article.

Not a poorly cited blog with the foolish phrase "This is bats*** crazy. Blind people packing heat and blazing away on the street. Absolutely bugf*** insane."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/iowa-grants-gun-permits-to-the-blind/2780303/

Serious issue that needs some attention at the Federal level.

[riqster]

27. The blog post cited the Des Moines Register.

And quoted from it in accordance with the fair use standard. That is not poor citation.

[ZombieHorde]

29. I agree that this seems very unwise,

but doesn't there need to be a legal basis in order to deny someone the legal right to own a firearm? Wouldn't this need to be legally challenged in court before a new demographic can be denied their 2A rights?

[sarisataka]

35. Duplicate thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023622812

[riqster]

37. Thanks!

Missed it when I looked.

[Katashi_itto]

36. Cool. Another state to stay away from. Making it easier and easier to move out of the U.S.

[Robb]

38. Sometimes it feels like sensibility has its back to the sea. nt

[Katashi_itto]

49. True

[Tommy_Carcetti]

41. Welcome Morlocks! nt

[Auggie]

60. LOL

[In_The_Wind]

42. Insanity strikes again.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Will they also give them hunting licenses so they can shoot other hunters...ooops I mean wildlife?

[riqster]

58. Per the article, yes, they have for years.

"Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes that took effect in Iowa in 2011"

[Eleanors38]

61. Since 2006, it is legal for the blind to hunt in Texas...

This anticipates the hunter has a legal RKBA. The blind hunter equips his/her rifle with a laser scope, and an assistant directs the hunter as to the beam's location. When the beam is in proper position on the game (presumably deer), the blind hunter is signaled to "fire." The law is primarily for formerly-sighted hunters who wish to continue with the sport after having lost proper vision. I believe this has worked out.

The issue seems to be CCW, and Texas has an unassisted shooting test for that.

[uppityperson]

55. Fwiw, here is the definition of "legally blind". Without glasses, many of us see like that

I am staying out of the discussion other than to point out what "legally blind" means since many assume it other than it is.

http://www.blind.state.ia.us/legal-definition-blindness

What is the Legal Definition of Blindness?
Legal blindness occurs when a person has central visual acuity (vision that allows a person to see straight ahead of them) of 20/200 or less in his or her better eye with correction. With 20/200 visual acuity, a person can see at 20 feet, what a person with 20/20 vision sees at 200 feet.

In determining legal blindness, visual field (the part of a person's vision that enables them to see what is happening to the side of them) is also considered. A visual field of 20 degrees or less is considered to be legally blind. Eye care professionals can assist in diagnosing legal blindness.

(clip)
About 80 percent of individuals who are blind have some remaining vision

[riqster]

59. Yep. I'm legally blind in one eye.

The other is 20/15. I can shoot, although I don't do much except maintain proficiency these days.

[AtomicKitten]

66. Armed Marco Polo.