Blind Applicant...

[jetboat]

My Aunt is blind for all intents and purposes (can see shadows etc), she has a foid and enjoys shooting (with help). She wants to know if she is able to take the class. I emailed my instructor and he doesn't know. I see nothing in the law that prevents a blind person...

[defaultdotxbe]

If she can qualify she should be able to get her permit, although I am not sure if anyone will be allowed to "help" her, depending on what the help actually entails

[Jefferson24]

if she can pass the live fire qualification she should be fine

[Netechsys]

I remember reading something in the past that stated as long as they can pass the live fire qualification, they can get a permit. If not, its an ADA / Equal Protection violation, I believe.

[vern]

I read someplace about a blind man getting a license in another state.

[InterestedBystander]

I read someplace about a blind man getting a license in another state.

 

Think it was in Iowa

[Terry 9595]

Iowa just lost a case for refusing to give a permit to a blind man.

[EODTech256]

There have been a few cases of legally blind people getting permits in Iowa.

 

As an instructor I would have to meet with the individual and discuss the extent of their condition. It would come down to whether the range portion could be done safely and if the person could identify the target without help.

 

From the legal standpoint I don't think there is anything prohibiting it.

[jetboat]

thats where my "guy" is nervous... he is willing to train her but, will they accept her. As he brought up, if they dont it could be an issue for the state.

 

Im not too worried about her passing the live fire. We actually tried it with her last summer and as long as we pointed her in the right direction and told her basic details (how far, how high) she could actually hit the target. Im not talking a tight group but it doesnt need to be.

[domin8]

I read someplace about a blind man getting a license in another state.

Iowa

[IL-Logical]

I may be mistaken but I don't think there is any question about your vision on the permit.

 

As for legally blind, its really a fairly low threshold. Without correction, I would meet the definition of legally blind which is something around 20/225. With correction I am at 20/15, since the other option was 20/25.

 

Without glasses or contacts I can still distinguish who is standing near me out to about 50 feet, so while they may appear blurry at that distance, positive identification can be made, even in low light and flash sighting on the target is still very easily done.

 

I have routinely practiced without corrective lenses as should anyone who needs them. In a home defense situation you may not have time to put your glasses on.

 

I think too much emphasis is placed on the "legally blind" thing.

 

Side note.. glasses are actually harder to acquire targets with than contacts. Glasses "bend" things and make them smaller, contacts make them appear larger.

[Dr. Rat]

There's a difference between blind and "legally blind". Can she identify her target?

[jetboat]

she can see the outline of a person or a target but, she cant tell the difference between Bob and Sally. I doubt she will actually carry but, she wants to be able to.

[mqqn]

she can see the outline of a person or a target but, she cant tell the difference between Bob and Sally. I doubt she will actually carry but, she wants to be able to.

 

How would she be able to determine if her target was a threat?

 

If she can follow the coursework and pass the written test, demonstrate the ability to safely handle and maintain the firearm, and meet the live fire qualification at the range she would pass and get her certificate in my opinion.

 

best

 

mqqn

[Hatchet]

Simple when some one runs up to her and tries to physically attack her, I'm sure she will figure out which is the threat. It will most likly be only used in close contact situations. I'll be watching this thread, I have a buddy who can see a little better than shadows but not by much.

[Uncle Harley]

That's what belly guns are for. They will have lesser odds than a sighted person who can pick up on a threat as its progressing , but stll better odds than nothing at all

 

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk

 

 

[mndza]

I'm sorry for her condition, but I really can't agree with allowing her to carry. She cannot completely identify her target and definitely cannot identify what is beyond her target. Recipe for disaster.

[GT1]

She should absolutely be allowed to take the class, and if she qualifies, carry if she wants to.

 

She is a poster child of why CC exists.

[Dr. Rat]

She should absolutely be allowed to take the class, and if she qualifies, carry if she wants to.

 

She is a poster child of why CC exists.

 

No, if she can't identify her target everyone is in danger. This is nuts.

[William8004]

She should absolutely be allowed to take the class, and if she qualifies, carry if she wants to.

 

She is a poster child of why CC exists.

 

No, if she can't identify her target everyone is in danger. This is nuts.

 

 

 

Do I have to identify parts of a sentence before exercising my freedom of speech?

 

[Dr. Rat]

She should absolutely be allowed to take the class, and if she qualifies, carry if she wants to.

 

She is a poster child of why CC exists.

 

No, if she can't identify her target everyone is in danger. This is nuts.

 

 

 

Do I have to identify parts of a sentence before exercising my freedom of speech?

 

Really? That's the best argument you have?

[j2dawson]

 

Do I have to identify parts of a sentence before exercising my freedom of speech?

Did you even consider the absurdity of that analogy before hitting the "post" button?

[William8004]

Do I have to identify parts of a sentence before exercising my freedom of speech?

Did you even consider the absurdity of that analogy before hitting the "post" button?

 

Yes I do. But I thought everyone would recognize sarcasm when they see it.

[bmyers]

You say she is not able to identify the threat, but I would disagree. The distance at which she can identify a threat will be different than those with sight. You and I may recognize a threat at 30 feet and be able to take action with our self defense weapon then, her on the other hand may not be able to positively identify a threat until it is within 10 feet or arms reach, but once realizes that there is a threat she should have every right that you and I have to protect herself.

 

The disadvantage for her is the threat will be on top of her, where you and I would hopefully recognize the threat before we would allow it that close.

[Dr. Rat]

You say she is not able to identify the threat, but I would disagree. The distance at which she can identify a threat will be different than those with sight. You and I may recognize a threat at 30 feet and be able to take action with our self defense weapon then, her on the other hand may not be able to positively identify a threat until it is within 10 feet or arms reach, but once realizes that there is a threat she should have every right that you and I have to protect herself.

 

The disadvantage for her is the threat will be on top of her, where you and I would hopefully recognize the threat before we would allow it that close.

 

Actually, thinking about it, this is a very slippery slope and comes down to personal responsibility. There's a continuum of impairment and it should be up to the individual to decide what they can and can't do responsibly. I stand corrected.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

We've discussed this topic once before. I wouldn't have a problem with a blind person in my class.

[carry]

I may be mistaken but I don't think there is any question about your vision on the permit.

 

...

 

I think too much emphasis is placed on the "legally blind" thing.

 

Side note.. glasses are actually harder to acquire targets with than contacts. Glasses "bend" things and make them smaller, contacts make them appear larger.

 

Thanks for the tip on contacts.

[carry]

You say she is not able to identify the threat, but I would disagree. The distance at which she can identify a threat will be different than those with sight. You and I may recognize a threat at 30 feet and be able to take action with our self defense weapon then, her on the other hand may not be able to positively identify a threat until it is within 10 feet or arms reach, but once realizes that there is a threat she should have every right that you and I have to protect herself.

 

The disadvantage for her is the threat will be on top of her, where you and I would hopefully recognize the threat before we would allow it that close.

 

Actually, thinking about it, this is a very slippery slope and comes down to personal responsibility. There's a continuum of impairment and it should be up to the individual to decide what they can and can't do responsibly. I stand corrected.

 

Exactly.

 

There are so many hypothetical situations where even a blind and/or deaf person could reasonably defend themselves with concealed carry, it just takes their reasonable judgement.

[Pipedoc]

You guys are joking, right? Where is your sense of liberty and freedom? I am truly astounded at the anti-gun rhetoric I read on this forum sometimes. Yes, I said it, anti-gun because what we are talking about here is gun control. Just because you call yourself progun doesn't mean it is not gun control. It is just your brand of gun control.

 

The woman has a handicap. It is just a physical challenge she has to overcome. What is next? No guns for people without perfect 20/20 vision? What about other physical impairments? I had a vet take my class who had absolutely no feeling in his gun hand. Should he be denied too?

 

Just because she is legally blind doesn't mean she can't be proficient with her defensive firearm at a limited distance. She may also not even wish to carry a firearm with loaded cartridges. Did you even think of that? The FCCL allows us to carry a loaded or unloaded firearm secreted on or about our person. What about a firearm loaded with blanks to be used solely as a contact weapon? Her defensive capabilities are more limited than a person with full sight but she is still capable to a degree of self defense with a firearm none the less. This whole notion that she cannot safely defend herself with a firearm is offensive.

 

Here is a man with 5% eyesight who is an IDPA competitor. http://www.kxii.com/home/headlines/85444362.html

Here is a blind competitor in precision rifle. http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Blind-shooter-national-champion/story-18663647-detail/story.html#axzz2vCFQeotM

 

 

 

I am so sick and tired of hearing people rant about how someone should not be allowed to carry a gun for defense of life unless said person meets their level of proficiency. Some of you need to spend a little more time thinking this one over.

[carry]

/\/\/\