From p.harpur at law.uq.edu.au Wed Jul 5 02:06:06 2023 From: p.harpur at law.uq.edu.au (Paul Harpur) Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 02:06:06 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] A Disability Inclusion Strategy for Higher Education Message-ID: Unless you are really lucky, most of us in the low vision and blind community had some unnecessary challenges at university. Back in 2019 I gave a keynote at the Tenbroke conference 'The Vision of Ability Equality Becoming the Reality at a Disability Courageous University'. this disability led approach to inclusion at universities is now being adopted by the Australian federal government. I am on the once in a decade review of the sector and the university vice chancellors are meeting to consider some proposals I put to them around a disability steering group. We posted on this today and are trying to help motivate political and industry interest by getting traction on this post. If you have a peak at it you will see it is about supporting the disability led cause and no particular person or group. If you have a moment can you please have a peak at the Linkedin post, and if you think it is a good idea, make a comment, like it or even repost it with your thoughts. The post is at: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul-harpur-44442844_media-release-big-idea-for-the-universities-activity-7082168715689021440-dM3I?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android At my university, and for law students, this has had a positive impact. I am hoping this approach will have a wider positive impact. Associate Professor Dr Paul Harpur BBus (HRm), LLB (Hons) LLM, PhD, FHEA, solicitor of the High Court of Australia (non-practicing), PLY The University of Queensland Law School (TEQSA PRV12080) Member of the Ministerial Reference Group for The Australian Universities Accord 2022 Blind Australian of the Year Affiliate, Harvard Law School Project on Disability International Distinguished Fellow, Burton Blatt Institute, Syracuse University, New York Australian Research Council Future Fellow 2019 Fulbright Future Scholar "Universities train the disability leaders of tomorrow, employ the disability leaders of today, and produce research and innovation which can make the world more inclusive". Paul Harpur, 'Universities as Disability Champions of Change' TEDx 2021. [A screenshot of a computer Description automatically generated with medium confidence] -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 101093 bytes Desc: image001.jpg URL: From laurenbishop96 at icloud.com Sat Jul 8 15:01:16 2023 From: laurenbishop96 at icloud.com (Lauren Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:01:16 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility Message-ID: <3FA9EEF2-5541-4954-85FF-3CAA7D3186F5@icloud.com> Hello all, Have any of you used Themis for bar prep? I talked with their accessibility specialist, and I was going to play around with the NPR E course. I just wanted to get others experiences. My school partners with Barbri, so I have used it for studying and to prepare to take the NPRE. It was accessible, but there’s things I like better about Themis. Also, do you guys have any tips to get a bar prep course paid for by vocational rehabilitation? Thanks, Lauren Sent from my iPhone From michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Sat Jul 8 16:06:34 2023 From: michael.mcglashon at comcast.net (MIKE MCGLASHON) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:06:34 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility In-Reply-To: <3FA9EEF2-5541-4954-85FF-3CAA7D3186F5@icloud.com> References: <3FA9EEF2-5541-4954-85FF-3CAA7D3186F5@icloud.com> Message-ID: <1ae301d9b1b6$2dcd1700$89674500$@comcast.net> Quoting: do you guys have any tips to get a bar prep course paid for by vocational rehabilitation? End quote: Absolutely!! This coming from one of the most broke states in the union; (Illinois); pay for your prep course up front and then request reimbursement. That is how they did it for me. As a matter of fact, doing it that way, I never got questioned; I received immediate check. On the other note regarding accessible bar prep courses; I use quimbee which is awesomely accessible; however, I am thinking of trying something new for I have failed the bar twice already and do not feel much better this time around either. I am not sure if any other service does this; but, I would like to customize my review so that if I have trouble with personal jurisdiction, I can get hundreds of questions strictly on that point to drive it home. Quimbee does not do this. I am hoping there is another bar prep that works this way. Please advise as you like. Mike M. Mike mcglashon Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Ph: 618 783 9331 -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 10:01 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Lauren Bishop Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility Hello all, Have any of you used Themis for bar prep? I talked with their accessibility specialist, and I was going to play around with the NPR E course. I just wanted to get others experiences. My school partners with Barbri, so I have used it for studying and to prepare to take the NPRE. It was accessible, but there’s things I like better about Themis. Also, do you guys have any tips to get a bar prep course paid for by vocational rehabilitation? Thanks, Lauren Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net From christinebusanelli at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 16:29:57 2023 From: christinebusanelli at gmail.com (Christine Busanelli) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 11:29:57 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] ABA Disability Rights Message-ID: Hello, on 7/6/23 I was appointed as a special advisor of the ABA Commission on Disability Rights, for a one year term. The commission will address issues concerning disability rights of importance to lawyers, the ABA and the public. From laurenbishop96 at icloud.com Sat Jul 8 16:34:42 2023 From: laurenbishop96 at icloud.com (Lauren Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:34:42 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility In-Reply-To: <1ae301d9b1b6$2dcd1700$89674500$@comcast.net> References: <1ae301d9b1b6$2dcd1700$89674500$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <220BFDB3-1E61-42E3-98E1-B0DD6FAC2835@icloud.com> Hi Mike, I would consider trying Adapti Bar. It customizes your questions based on how you do. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:08 PM, MIKE MCGLASHON via BlindLaw wrote: > > Quoting: > do you guys have any tips to get a bar prep course paid for by vocational rehabilitation? > End quote: > Absolutely!! This coming from one of the most broke states in the union; (Illinois); pay for your prep course up front and then request reimbursement. > That is how they did it for me. > As a matter of fact, doing it that way, I never got questioned; I received immediate check. > > On the other note regarding accessible bar prep courses; > I use quimbee which is awesomely accessible; however, I am thinking of trying something new for I have failed the bar twice already and do not feel much better this time around either. > I am not sure if any other service does this; but, I would like to customize my review so that if I have trouble with personal jurisdiction, I can get hundreds of questions strictly on that point to drive it home. Quimbee does not do this. I am hoping there is another bar prep that works this way. > > Please advise as you like. > > Mike M. > > Mike mcglashon > Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net > Ph: 618 783 9331 > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw > Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 10:01 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Lauren Bishop > Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility > > Hello all, > Have any of you used Themis for bar prep? I talked with their accessibility specialist, and I was going to play around with the NPR E course. I just wanted to get others experiences. My school partners with Barbri, so I have used it for studying and to prepare to take the NPRE. It was accessible, but there’s things I like better about Themis. Also, do you guys have any tips to get a bar prep course paid for by vocational rehabilitation? > Thanks, > Lauren > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laurenbishop96%40icloud.com From seifs at umich.edu Sat Jul 8 16:56:47 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:56:47 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility In-Reply-To: <1ae301d9b1b6$2dcd1700$89674500$@comcast.net> References: <3FA9EEF2-5541-4954-85FF-3CAA7D3186F5@icloud.com> <1ae301d9b1b6$2dcd1700$89674500$@comcast.net> Message-ID: I personally found Barbri to be more accessible than Themis. I had some issues with their platform that, backin in 2019, they said were not a problem (perhaps they fixed them by now). To gain an idea of their accessibility and teaching style, I recommend, as you did Lauren, trying all barprep courses for the MPRE. Since they are free, you can simulate a little how their barprep course would be like without paying/committing first. I did that and was able to choose the one most preferred and accessible for me. Barbri was, for me, more engaging than Kaplan and Themis; Themis did not, but Barbri and Kaplan both were able to provide me with downloadible content - I preferred watching the videos with my media player: Barbri mailled me a flashdrive containing MP4 files of their videos; word or txt (I like txt) files of their books; had their microsoft-word books have differentiating headings; droppoxed new updates/material to me so I could download them; provided copies of the lecture handouts that already contained the blanks filled in with the answers; and contracted with a third-party to send me brailled copies of the review material I found most helpful (especially the smaller 10/print-page or so overview outlines for each subject). My contact at Barbri was Christina DeSimone (or similar spelling), at adarequests at barbri.com; 1800-621-0498. Some do not like Barbri because of the large-amount of (overwhelming) material they have. I personally prefer more material than less; you can also choose to skim/not review that material, or focuss on the smaller chunks of material provided. Themis breaks their videos in to moduels, which is good; Barbri does that too, but the moduels are within the large hour-blocks (you can take a break) and so makes the breaks less apparent. Curious to know what you prefer in themis? (I am asked and would like to pass along that information.) I also used Michigan's Bureau of Services for Blind Persons (BSBP) to help pay for the barprep course: I needed to write my counselor a letter explaining why I needed it and a cost-projection; sign up for the course; present an invoice/bill; and BSBP paid Barbri directly. I also told Barbri that a third-party would be paying for me and they coordinated. For specific questions, I found adaptibar helpful (https://www.adaptibar.com/): I asked to have a trial period because their platform was workable but not the most accessible. They use real MBE questions and I think one can choose a practice area from which to choose specific questions as well. (Many courses use unofficial/company-created test questions. I found Barbri's harder than actual MBE questions (good for me), but that NCBE-official questions also had some tricks to them - like riding a river with unexpected, but not capsizing, currents/streams.) Lastly, I quite liked the Crushendo outlines: It condensed the subjects into an hour-or-so long outline; had audio mp3 files (helpful when moving around or for background tasks), one with sound background music and the other without; a good visually-formatted pdf which also had headings delineating between subjects; and, importantly, memorable mnemonics and an attack outline I found helpful. It is also not limited for the bar; they are good for general exam studying too. You can download a free subject to see how it works: I suggest choosing a subject with which you are least familiar (to see how it teaches you), or one you know more (to see how its learning compares to what you know/how you learn). Property and Civpro were helpful for me. Shop - Crushendo® https://crushendo.com/shop/ Code: 5687freetrial. (I do not work for them; I wanted to pass along what I found helpful.) Lastly, for accommodations on the bar (New York and michigan, both remotely during Covid), I requested an electronic copy (html or word), JAWS, extended time, use of a braillenote, a flashdrive to transfer between computer and braillenote, and computer--with word and without the inaccessible exam software--to write my multiplechoice answers and essays. Happy to talk to anyone about the bar too, including listening to rants about how it is. :) Sincerely, Seif -- Seif Saqallah (Mr.) University of Michigan Juris Doctor/ Masters in Middle Eastern and North African Studies J.D/M.A Graduate | 2020 International Studies, Arabic Studies, and Judaic Studies; Law, Justice, and Social Change B.A | 2017 248-325-7091 | seifs at umich.edu The information in this transmittal, including any attachments, is confidential and may contain privileged information protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email, delete this communication, and destroy all copies of the transmittal, including any attachments. Receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable legal privilege. From seifs at umich.edu Sat Jul 8 17:10:21 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 13:10:21 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Hello - hoping all are well. Appologies in advance if this causes discomfort. Does any here know, or can direct me, to good resources/instructors about blind people safely and compotently using firearms, including becoming conceal-carry certified? This in addition to McWilliams' work (he has an ok book and wikipedia page; I could not find his contact information). Carey McWilliams: A Shooting Guide for the Blind, Page Publishing 2018, ISBN 9781642143225, available on bookshare.org; Carey McWilliams (marksman) - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carey_McWilliams_(marksman) I have some experience and wish to improve. >From a legal aspect, some states even prevent legally blind individuals from CC-applying (I believe DC and Florida); I wonder if that remains legal? Sincerely, Seif -- Seif Saqallah (Mr.) University of Michigan Juris Doctor/ Masters in Middle Eastern and North African Studies J.D/M.A Graduate | 2020 International Studies, Arabic Studies, and Judaic Studies; Law, Justice, and Social Change B.A | 2017 248-325-7091 | seifs at umich.edu The information in this transmittal, including any attachments, is confidential and may contain privileged information protected from disclosure by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply email, delete this communication, and destroy all copies of the transmittal, including any attachments. Receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable legal privilege. From teresitarios22 at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 18:42:58 2023 From: teresitarios22 at gmail.com (Teresita Rios) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 13:42:58 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E9B4EAA-1C15-42EC-B49F-13F04B326676@gmail.com> That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on blind gun handling. With much gratitude, Teresita Rios > On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw wrote: > > Saqallah From tim at timeldermusic.com Sat Jul 8 19:00:11 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 12:00:11 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Karla Gilbride Discusses Arguing at SCOTUS Message-ID: <02d801d9b1ce$6c162430$44426c90$@timeldermusic.com> For anyone who didn't catch Karla's fabulous presentation at the NFB convention this past week. https://www.youtube.com/live/ZdkNCcfOLOw?feature=share &t=7801 From teresitarios22 at gmail.com Sat Jul 8 19:12:40 2023 From: teresitarios22 at gmail.com (Teresita Rios) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 14:12:40 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility In-Reply-To: <220BFDB3-1E61-42E3-98E1-B0DD6FAC2835@icloud.com> References: <1ae301d9b1b6$2dcd1700$89674500$@comcast.net> <220BFDB3-1E61-42E3-98E1-B0DD6FAC2835@icloud.com> Message-ID: <3059A151-19CE-4EAE-9A0A-B362AA7FE21D@gmail.com> I am currently studying for the Bar!! I will sit for it starting on July 25th! I am using Barbri and am pretty happy with it. For the most part, it is accessible. The only issue was a writing online workshop (with a special name) I had to move text boxes around to build logical IRAC arguments. That was not fun. Barbri has a lot of practice and I love the fact that I can meet with real coaches and speak about my study struggles. The coaches have good strategy ideas. (I think, hope). As accommodations, Barbri does provide several Onedrive or Dropbox PDF and Word formatted versions of all their books and handouts! They are filled out too!! My contact with Barbri was ADArequests at barbri.com Cristina DeSimone. I literally just had to ask for accommodations do to my blindness and they just gave me the links. I then just downloaded the Word docs. It was great! I am also using Adapti Bar for more MBE review and it has flashcards. DOR will get my receipts and my Counselor said CA Dor was going to pay. I will let you know how that turns out. Wish me luck, everyone! With much gratitude, Teresita Rios > On Jul 8, 2023, at 11:34 AM, Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw wrote: > > Adapti Bar From laurenbishop96 at icloud.com Sat Jul 8 19:32:21 2023 From: laurenbishop96 at icloud.com (Lauren Bishop) Date: Sat, 8 Jul 2023 15:32:21 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility In-Reply-To: <3059A151-19CE-4EAE-9A0A-B362AA7FE21D@gmail.com> References: <3059A151-19CE-4EAE-9A0A-B362AA7FE21D@gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john.vickers07 at gmail.com Sun Jul 9 23:12:14 2023 From: john.vickers07 at gmail.com (john.vickers07 at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 18:12:14 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Sitting for the LSAT Message-ID: <00ec01d9b2ba$cc88f850$659ae8f0$@gmail.com> John Vickers 07/09/2023 Greetings My name is John Vickers, and I am new to the mailing list. I feel privileged to have a group of competent and amazing individuals who I can call on for support and guidance. I know that many of you attended the National Federation of the Blind National Convention, and I hope you had a blast. For me, one thing that I took home was that I would like to start attending law school. Yes, that is right-after 6 days, I made the decision. I am currently a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for the state of Texas-working for the Texas Workforce Commission. I would love to share my reasons behind my career change, and discuss in greater detail if you are interested, or think you could provide some additional guidance; however, I have a couple of questions that I am seeking answers to first. While I have not registered for the LSAT exam at this point, I am planning to take it in November of this year (2023). Does anyone know if there are some resources that are available to help solidify some of the analytical and logical reasoning concepts-that are specifically designed for those with visual impairments in-mind? I am currently using a "ok," study guide, and chat GPT to help evaluate my understanding of the information within the chapters. I have recently emailed the LSAC accommodations team to see if it would be appropriate for me to bring the following items with me on testing day: 1. A standard Perkins Brailler 2. Draftsman Tactile Drawing Board from APH. I also think it would be wise to have a reader as compared to Jaws. I appreciate any feedback or thoughts. Cordially John Vickers From ces2266 at columbia.edu Mon Jul 10 01:11:42 2023 From: ces2266 at columbia.edu (Caleb E. Smith) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 21:11:42 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Bar prep course accessibility In-Reply-To: References: <3059A151-19CE-4EAE-9A0A-B362AA7FE21D@gmail.com> Message-ID: I used Themis, and did fine. Now, granted, I have some usable vision, so I'm not as good a resourc e on the complete accessibility of a program. But Themis was very cooperative and sent me word files of all the docs. I also liked the shorter videos, and I think, personally, it is better to have questions which are at about the level of the questions of the bar instead of doing what Barbri does and making the questions much harder. I have also heard amazing things about adapt-a-bar. On Sat, Jul 8, 2023 at 3:33 PM Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw < blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: > How do you like the accessibility of adapti Bar? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 8, 2023, at 3:12 PM, Teresita Rios > wrote: > > I am currently studying for the Bar!! I will sit for it starting on July > 25th! > > I am using Barbri and am pretty happy with it. For the most part, it is > accessible. The only issue was a writing online workshop (with a special > name) I had to move text boxes around to build logical IRAC arguments. That > was not fun. > Barbri has a lot of practice and I love the fact that I can meet with real > coaches and speak about my study struggles. The coaches have good strategy > ideas. (I think, hope). > As accommodations, Barbri does provide several Onedrive or Dropbox PDF > and Word formatted versions of all their books and handouts! They are > filled out too!! > > My contact with Barbri was ADArequests at barbri.com Cristina DeSimone. > I literally just had to ask for accommodations do to my blindness and they > just gave me the links. I then just downloaded the Word docs. It was great! > > I am also using Adapti Bar for more MBE review and it has flashcards. > > DOR will get my receipts and my Counselor said CA Dor was going to pay. I > will let you know how that turns out. > > Wish me luck, everyone! > > With much gratitude, > Teresita Rios > > On Jul 8, 2023, at 11:34 AM, Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw < > blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: > > Adapti Bar > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ces2266%40columbia.edu > From elizabethrouse.nfb at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 01:22:16 2023 From: elizabethrouse.nfb at gmail.com (Elizabeth Rouse) Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2023 20:22:16 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Sitting for the LSAT In-Reply-To: <00ec01d9b2ba$cc88f850$659ae8f0$@gmail.com> References: <00ec01d9b2ba$cc88f850$659ae8f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi John, I'd love to talk through this process with you in greater detail if you'd like to reach out to me off-list. I will also toss out now that Kaplan's Prep Plus Manual was great for my prep work, notably for the analytical reasoning (logic games) section. Best, Elizabeth On Sun, Jul 9, 2023 at 6:13 PM John Vickers via BlindLaw < blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: > John Vickers > > 07/09/2023 > > Greetings > > My name is John Vickers, and I am new to the mailing list. I feel > privileged > to have a group of competent and amazing individuals who I can call on for > support and guidance. I know that many of you attended the National > Federation of the Blind National Convention, and I hope you had a blast. > For > me, one thing that I took home was that I would like to start attending law > school. Yes, that is right-after 6 days, I made the decision. > > I am currently a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for the state of > Texas-working for the Texas Workforce Commission. > > I would love to share my reasons behind my career change, and discuss in > greater detail if you are interested, or think you could provide some > additional guidance; however, I have a couple of questions that I am > seeking > answers to first. > > While I have not registered for the LSAT exam at this point, I am planning > to take it in November of this year (2023). Does anyone know if there are > some resources that are available to help solidify some of the analytical > and logical reasoning concepts-that are specifically designed for those > with > visual impairments in-mind? I am currently using a "ok," study guide, and > chat GPT to help evaluate my understanding of the information within the > chapters. > > I have recently emailed the LSAC accommodations team to see if it would be > appropriate for me to bring the following items with me on testing day: > > 1. A standard Perkins Brailler > 2. Draftsman Tactile Drawing Board from APH. > > I also think it would be wise to have a reader as compared to Jaws. > > I appreciate any feedback or thoughts. > > Cordially > > John Vickers > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/elizabethrouse.nfb%40gmail.com > -- Elizabeth Rouse, She/her/hers Board Member | National Association of Blind Lawyers (NABL) blindlawyers.net Board Member | Performing Arts Division nfb-pad.org Elizabethrouse.nfb at gmail.com (563) 210-1854 “If you can see yourself as an artist, and you can see that your life is your own creation, then why not create the most beautiful story for yourself?” - Miguel Ruiz From helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 05:36:22 2023 From: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com (Helga Schreiber) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 01:36:22 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Sitting for the LSAT In-Reply-To: <00ec01d9b2ba$cc88f850$659ae8f0$@gmail.com> References: <00ec01d9b2ba$cc88f850$659ae8f0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EECEE99-75D7-48B4-8F06-155AD7790C8F@gmail.com> Hi Mr. John. Hope you are well. Welcome to the Blind Law group! That is great you are planning to take the LSAT. I think you mentioned that you are planning to take the exam on November, just make sure you register for the exam prior asking for the accommodation for it. Also, I assume you know about the LSAT writing. Prior taking the LSAT, since you are a first time LSAT test taker, you need to write a writing sample that is not graded, but it will be send to the law schools that you are planning to apply. I will be taking the LSAT for the first time this October. In regards of studying material, I purchase the 2023 PowerScore Bibles trilogy, which comes with the three Bibles and the three workbooks from the PowerScore site. It is study package that costs 250 dollars the entire set. PowerScore provide me the PDF versions of the books in accessible format, since I am totally blind. I did have to provide them the accommodation letter I received from LSAC for my LSAT, before they sent me me the PDF versions. If you wish, you can contact PowerScore for any questions you have regarding these materials. In addition, if I am not mistaken, I think there is some PowerScore Bibles in bookshare as well. For your information, there is the LSAC waver fee, which will pay for your Credential Assembly Services and your first Lsat exam and more. If you have any questions feel free to ask me. Thanks So much for reading! Helga Schreiber Email Address: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com Sent From my iPhone 11 Pro Max > On Jul 9, 2023, at 7:13 PM, John Vickers via BlindLaw wrote: > John Vickers > > 07/09/2023 > > Greetings > > My name is John Vickers, and I am new to the mailing list. I feel privileged > to have a group of competent and amazing individuals who I can call on for > support and guidance. I know that many of you attended the National > Federation of the Blind National Convention, and I hope you had a blast. For > me, one thing that I took home was that I would like to start attending law > school. Yes, that is right-after 6 days, I made the decision. > > I am currently a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for the state of > Texas-working for the Texas Workforce Commission. > > I would love to share my reasons behind my career change, and discuss in > greater detail if you are interested, or think you could provide some > additional guidance; however, I have a couple of questions that I am seeking > answers to first. > > While I have not registered for the LSAT exam at this point, I am planning > to take it in November of this year (2023). Does anyone know if there are > some resources that are available to help solidify some of the analytical > and logical reasoning concepts-that are specifically designed for those with > visual impairments in-mind? I am currently using a "ok," study guide, and > chat GPT to help evaluate my understanding of the information within the > chapters. > > I have recently emailed the LSAC accommodations team to see if it would be > appropriate for me to bring the following items with me on testing day: > > 1. A standard Perkins Brailler > 2. Draftsman Tactile Drawing Board from APH. > > I also think it would be wise to have a reader as compared to Jaws. > > I appreciate any feedback or thoughts. > > Cordially > > John Vickers > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/helga.schreiber26%40gmail.com From kaybaycar at gmail.com Mon Jul 10 13:19:28 2023 From: kaybaycar at gmail.com (Julie A. Orozco) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 09:19:28 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Sitting for the LSAT In-Reply-To: <8EECEE99-75D7-48B4-8F06-155AD7790C8F@gmail.com> References: <00ec01d9b2ba$cc88f850$659ae8f0$@gmail.com> <8EECEE99-75D7-48B4-8F06-155AD7790C8F@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi John, I also changed careers. Going to law school and being a lawyer weren't on my radar until about five years ago. As for the LSAT, I agree that Powerscore has some great books. If I'm being honest though, their suggestions for the logic games sections didn't really work for me. I did not choose to render the logic games visually but instead broght my Braille Note and came up with little codes during each games. I made lists to display the items in the games so I didn't have to memorize the prompts. Then I pictured the actual layout in my head if there was one. I will not pretend this works for everyone. I have heard of people using drawing boards and Braille writers with much success. Whatever you do, as long as you practice taking the test in the conditions you plan to take it in, you will do well. I chose to use Jaws and my Braille Note, so I practiced, taking lots of tests that way. I used Kahn Academy to get my practice tests, and it did a good job keeping me on schedule with my practicing. Hope this helps, Julie On 7/10/23, Helga Schreiber via BlindLaw wrote: > Hi Mr. John. Hope you are well. Welcome to the Blind Law group! That is > great you are planning to take the LSAT. I think you mentioned that you are > planning to take the exam on November, just make sure you register for the > exam prior asking for the accommodation for it. Also, I assume you know > about the LSAT writing. Prior taking the LSAT, since you are a first time > LSAT test taker, you need to write a writing sample that is not graded, but > it will be send to the law schools that you are planning to apply. I will be > taking the LSAT for the first time this October. In regards of studying > material, I purchase the 2023 PowerScore Bibles trilogy, which comes with > the three Bibles and the three workbooks from the PowerScore site. It is > study package that costs 250 dollars the entire set. PowerScore provide me > the PDF versions of the books in accessible format, since I am totally > blind. I did have to provide them the accommodation letter I received > from LSAC for my LSAT, before they sent me me the PDF versions. If you > wish, you can contact PowerScore for any questions you have regarding these > materials. In addition, if I am not mistaken, I think there is some > PowerScore Bibles in bookshare as well. For your information, there is the > LSAC waver fee, which will pay for your Credential Assembly Services and > your first Lsat exam and more. If you have any questions feel free to ask > me. Thanks So much for reading! > > Helga Schreiber > Email Address: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com > Sent From my iPhone 11 Pro Max > > > >> On Jul 9, 2023, at 7:13 PM, John Vickers via BlindLaw >> wrote: >> John Vickers >> >> 07/09/2023 >> >> Greetings >> >> My name is John Vickers, and I am new to the mailing list. I feel >> privileged >> to have a group of competent and amazing individuals who I can call on for >> support and guidance. I know that many of you attended the National >> Federation of the Blind National Convention, and I hope you had a blast. >> For >> me, one thing that I took home was that I would like to start attending >> law >> school. Yes, that is right-after 6 days, I made the decision. >> >> I am currently a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for the state of >> Texas-working for the Texas Workforce Commission. >> >> I would love to share my reasons behind my career change, and discuss in >> greater detail if you are interested, or think you could provide some >> additional guidance; however, I have a couple of questions that I am >> seeking >> answers to first. >> >> While I have not registered for the LSAT exam at this point, I am planning >> to take it in November of this year (2023). Does anyone know if there are >> some resources that are available to help solidify some of the analytical >> and logical reasoning concepts-that are specifically designed for those >> with >> visual impairments in-mind? I am currently using a "ok," study guide, and >> chat GPT to help evaluate my understanding of the information within the >> chapters. >> >> I have recently emailed the LSAC accommodations team to see if it would be >> appropriate for me to bring the following items with me on testing day: >> >> 1. A standard Perkins Brailler >> 2. Draftsman Tactile Drawing Board from APH. >> >> I also think it would be wise to have a reader as compared to Jaws. >> >> I appreciate any feedback or thoughts. >> >> Cordially >> >> John Vickers >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/helga.schreiber26%40gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/kaybaycar%40gmail.com > -- Julie A. Orozco MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of Law, JD Candidate 2023 From tim at timeldermusic.com Mon Jul 10 19:19:53 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 12:19:53 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <3E9B4EAA-1C15-42EC-B49F-13F04B326676@gmail.com> References: <3E9B4EAA-1C15-42EC-B49F-13F04B326676@gmail.com> Message-ID: <014001d9b363$814b7300$83e25900$@timeldermusic.com> Without commenting on the politics of gun control, I do think there is a case to be made for some states that impose restrictions on the basis of vision. It would be an interesting trial. -----Original Message----- From: Teresita Rios Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on blind gun handling. With much gratitude, Teresita Rios > On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw wrote: > > Saqallah From rothmanjd at gmail.com Tue Jul 11 00:24:21 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (Ronza Othman) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 20:24:21 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <014001d9b363$814b7300$83e25900$@timeldermusic.com> References: <014001d9b363$814b7300$83e25900$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> Suggest you reach out to Dick Davis who has a particular interest in this area and also takes blind people out and teaches them gun safety and how to shoot. He is in Minnesota now, but he previously lived in I believe Iowa New Mexico and some others. Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > > Without commenting on the politics of gun control, I do think there is a > case to be made for some states that impose restrictions on the basis of > vision. It would be an interesting trial. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teresita Rios > Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on > blind gun handling. > > With much gratitude, > Teresita Rios > > >>> On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw >> wrote: >> >> Saqallah > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 00:56:43 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 20:56:43 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> Message-ID: <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> As far as I know, distinctions based on disability are subject to rational basis review, whereas distinctions based on race are subject to strict scrutiny and those based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny. So, while every other group has a practically unfettered right to bear arms, we most likely do not. Though this has no effect on me personally, it doesn’t thrill me from a philosophical standpoint. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 10, 2023, at 8:25 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw wrote: > > Suggest you reach out to Dick Davis who has a particular interest in this area and also takes blind people out and teaches them gun safety and how to shoot. He is in Minnesota now, but he previously lived in I believe Iowa New Mexico and some others. > > Ronza Othman, President > National Federation of the Blind of Maryland > 443-426-4110 > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Without commenting on the politics of gun control, I do think there is a >> case to be made for some states that impose restrictions on the basis of >> vision. It would be an interesting trial. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Teresita Rios >> Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM >> To: Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on >> blind gun handling. >> >> With much gratitude, >> Teresita Rios >> >> >>>> On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw >>> wrote: >>> >>> Saqallah >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com From seifs at umich.edu Tue Jul 11 04:07:51 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:07:51 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> Message-ID: I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. Just my thoughts. From seifs at umich.edu Tue Jul 11 04:09:18 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 00:09:18 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> References: <014001d9b363$814b7300$83e25900$@timeldermusic.com> <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> Message-ID: Thank you, Ronza. Do you have a good email (or number if preferred) for Mr. Davis? Warmly, Seif From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 15:33:54 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:33:54 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <78F4E8C4-8D0A-4C96-A8D4-A8343D0F9405@aol.com> That would be true under the 14th Amendment, but I’d bring it as an ADA Title II case. Under the T2 regs, a public entity may not “administer a licensing or certification program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor … establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 130(b)(6). I would argue that a gun licensing program that excludes blind people violates that prohibition, and leave the constitutional arguments as a weak backup. I suspect there is actually a history and tradition of denying blind people the right to bear arms, given the history and tradition of denying blind people all sorts of rights. On 10 Jul 2023, at 20:56, James Fetter wrote: > As far as I know, distinctions based on disability are subject to rational basis review, whereas distinctions based on race are subject to strict scrutiny and those based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny. So, while every other group has a practically unfettered right to bear arms, we most likely do not. Though this has no effect on me personally, it doesn’t thrill me from a philosophical standpoint. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 10, 2023, at 8:25 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Suggest you reach out to Dick Davis who has a particular interest in this area and also takes blind people out and teaches them gun safety and how to shoot. He is in Minnesota now, but he previously lived in I believe Iowa New Mexico and some others. >> >> Ronza Othman, President >> National Federation of the Blind of Maryland >> 443-426-4110 >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: >>> >>> Without commenting on the politics of gun control, I do think there is a >>> case to be made for some states that impose restrictions on the basis of >>> vision. It would be an interesting trial. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Teresita Rios >>> Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM >>> To: Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>> >>> That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on >>> blind gun handling. >>> >>> With much gratitude, >>> Teresita Rios >>> >>> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Saqallah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com From seifs at umich.edu Tue Jul 11 15:58:32 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:58:32 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <78F4E8C4-8D0A-4C96-A8D4-A8343D0F9405@aol.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> <78F4E8C4-8D0A-4C96-A8D4-A8343D0F9405@aol.com> Message-ID: Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 16:12:14 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:12:14 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: > > Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 16:23:24 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:23:24 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17@aol.com> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: > Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. > I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >> >> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 16:43:11 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:43:11 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17@aol.com> References: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17@aol.com> Message-ID: <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462@yahoo.com> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>> >>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From seifs at umich.edu Tue Jul 11 17:08:01 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:08:01 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462@yahoo.com> References: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17@aol.com> <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Regarding convincing a fraction of the populus that blind firearms users are safe and compotent, I think Carry McWilliams has done some good in that field. My experience is that, once over the amazement/questioning threshhold, those who are proficient with guns can accept (not all) that blind people can be compotent; the difficulty lies with convincing those who do not have experience. Still, there is some validity here, as blind people can own a car but presumably not drive it on public roads. Firing improperly into a crowd is not a blind concern; it applies equally to sighted carriers as well. The question then becomes one of safety and competency (wielding reasonibley), which one can argue is met by successfull course-passage/certification. I disagree with the idea that licensure may mean the requirement of discharging only in the presence of a sighted person. (Indeed, there are stories of sighted people adiquatly firing where they could not see/rely on their sight.) I appreciate this informative and respectfull discussion; thank you, all. Sincerely, Seif From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 17:14:37 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:14:37 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462@yahoo.com> References: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17@aol.com> <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: > In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >> >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>> >>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 17:25:33 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:25:33 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> References: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> Message-ID: Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >> >> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 17:38:08 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:38:08 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> Message-ID: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: > Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. > I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 18:22:32 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:22:32 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> References: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> Message-ID: <5FA13837-2A4C-4A18-9B14-8EAF032528C8@yahoo.com> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. > > > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 18:35:53 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:35:53 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <5FA13837-2A4C-4A18-9B14-8EAF032528C8@yahoo.com> References: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> <5FA13837-2A4C-4A18-9B14-8EAF032528C8@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8A5F2D86-DA6E-4DAD-996F-5164B9B7AE5C@aol.com> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: > Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. > https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has >> been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a >> person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is >> ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court >>> is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify >>> its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in >>> our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws >>> that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and >>>> interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their >>>> implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, >>>> or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only >>>>> fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are >>>>> actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think >>>>> we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are >>>>> capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are >>>>> there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are >>>>>> talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted >>>>>> person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that >>>>>> would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart >>>>>> murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a >>>>>> license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they >>>>>> start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a >>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind >>>>>> person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner >>>>>> that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind >>>>>> person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the >>>>>> presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no >>>>>> bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side >>>>>>> would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise >>>>>>> the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds >>>>>>> and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that >>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be >>>>>>> somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given >>>>>>> its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms >>>>>>> across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I >>>>>>> would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this >>>>>>> might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit >>>>>>> whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions >>>>>>> based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 18:59:57 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:59:57 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <8A5F2D86-DA6E-4DAD-996F-5164B9B7AE5C@aol.com> References: <8A5F2D86-DA6E-4DAD-996F-5164B9B7AE5C@aol.com> Message-ID: <0CF5D609-21D1-40A6-8226-6BD68811FE26@yahoo.com> Why couldn’t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: > >  > Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. > From michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Tue Jul 11 19:24:18 2023 From: michael.mcglashon at comcast.net (Mike Mcglashon) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:24:18 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <0CF5D609-21D1-40A6-8226-6BD68811FE26@yahoo.com> References: <0CF5D609-21D1-40A6-8226-6BD68811FE26@yahoo.com> Message-ID: I know, I am only a lost student trying to pass the bar, but, That to me would be a non-justiciable argument. Because there would be no injury in fact. The injury would not have occurred until the applicant applies and is denied the license. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:02 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: > > Why couldn’t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >>  >> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. >> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >> > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 19:52:23 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:52:23 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hence the futile gesture exception. To use a classic example, a wheelchair user does not have to attempt to crawl up a flight of stairs, in order to sue a business for being inaccessible to him. He merely needs to indicate that he intends to enter the business and cannot do so, due to the accessibility barrier. Obviously, you would still need a blind person who lived in a state which prohibited blind people from obtaining licenses to carry concealed weapons and who wanted to obtain such a license. But you would not necessarily need the blind person to attempt to obtain a license and actually be refused based on the discriminatory law. Of course, it would be better if you could get that, but there is a colorable argument that it isn’t necessary. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Mike Mcglashon via BlindLaw wrote: > > I know, I am only a lost student trying to pass the bar, but, > That to me would be a non-justiciable argument. > Because there would be no injury in fact. > The injury would not have occurred until the applicant applies and is denied the license. > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:02 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Why couldn’t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>>  >>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. >>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 19:53:10 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:53:10 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: <8A5F2D86-DA6E-4DAD-996F-5164B9B7AE5C@aol.com> <0CF5D609-21D1-40A6-8226-6BD68811FE26@yahoo.com> Message-ID: I’m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative’s standing as well. > Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court > unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. > Focusing on preferred results, indeed. > > On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> Why couldn’t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >> preventing them from receiving one. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>>  >>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>> action. Different beast. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>> preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>> don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to >>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >> From jtfetter at yahoo.com Tue Jul 11 20:15:25 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:15:25 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You are probably right, particularly if the goal was to create a test case that would make it to the Supreme Court. The best thing to do would be to recruit someone in a state with discriminatory laws to attempt to obtain a license and get denied on the basis of vision, whereupon suit could be filed very quickly. Putting the gun issue to the side (personally, I could care less about it, except maybe as a vehicle for challenging rational basis review as the constitutional standard for distinctions based on disability) I think we need to be more proactive about recruiting and using testers to go after discriminatory laws and practices. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:53 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > I’m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. > > And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative’s standing as well. > >> Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court >> unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. >> Focusing on preferred results, indeed. >> >>> On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>> Why couldn’t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >>> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >>> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >>> preventing them from receiving one. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>>  >>>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>>> action. Different beast. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>>> preferred result. >>>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>>> don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to >>>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >>> From al.elia at aol.com Tue Jul 11 20:23:46 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:23:46 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A9BFC2A-FD3A-4D07-964C-2B59F16DF477@aol.com> This would not be a good case to change the rational basis review test, as there are sufficient statutory grounds for resolution to avoid the constitutional question. A court is only going to find a direct threat but nevertheless a constitutional right if they are trolling the supremes like the judge down in Mississippi that held the felon-in-possession law unconstitutional. On 11 Jul 2023, at 16:15, James Fetter wrote: > You are probably right, particularly if the goal was to create a test case that would make it to the Supreme Court. The best thing to do would be to recruit someone in a state with discriminatory laws to attempt to obtain a license and get denied on the basis of vision, whereupon suit could be filed very quickly. Putting the gun issue to the side (personally, I could care less about it, except maybe as a vehicle for challenging rational basis review as the constitutional standard for distinctions based on disability) I think we need to be more proactive about recruiting and using testers to go after discriminatory laws and practices. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:53 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> I’m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. >> >> And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative’s standing as well. >> >>> Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court >>> unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. >>> Focusing on preferred results, indeed. >>> >>>> On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>>> Why couldn’t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >>>> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >>>> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >>>> preventing them from receiving one. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>>  >>>>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>>>> action. Different beast. >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>>>> preferred result. >>>>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>>>> don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to >>>>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> BlindLaw mailing list >>>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> BlindLaw: >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >>>> From seifs at umich.edu Tue Jul 11 20:56:02 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:56:02 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <9A9BFC2A-FD3A-4D07-964C-2B59F16DF477@aol.com> References: <9A9BFC2A-FD3A-4D07-964C-2B59F16DF477@aol.com> Message-ID: Using DC as an example (I do not have access to Westlaw for the latest text), one of its application questions (under 15) asks if the applicant is legally blind: "Are you legally blind? (Legally blind means totally blind. Your vision is not impaired more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye, or your vision cannot be improved to be better than 20/200, or you do not have a loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree. If the Firearms Registration Section determines there are reasonable grounds to believe that the certification provided is not accurate, you may be required to obtain a certification from a licensed optometrist that you meet the vision requirements as stated above.)" (CCPL_FillablePDF.pdf https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/CCPL_FillablePDF.pdf) Statutorily, § 7–2502.03(a)(7) & (11) prevent those with a physical defect or who are blind. (7) Does not appear to suffer from a physical defect which would tend to indicate that the applicant would not be able to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly; [...] (11) Is not blind, as defined in D.C. Official Code § 7-1009(1) (See Chapter 25. Firearms Control. | D.C. Law Library § 7–2502.03. Qualifications for registration; information required for registration. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/7/chapters/25; this might not be the latest version, as it does not address Bruen's shall issue requirement.) Legally blind is defined as (1) The term “blind person” means, and the term “blind” refers to, a person who is totally blind, has impaired vision of not more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye and for whom vision cannot be improved to better than 20/200, or who has loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree. (See § 7–1009. Definitions. | D.C. Law Library https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-1009#(1).) I thought about living in, and being licensed in, DC. ... Peace, Seif From tim at timeldermusic.com Tue Jul 11 21:52:18 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:52:18 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. -----Original Message----- From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. Just my thoughts. From teresitarios22 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 11:22:06 2023 From: teresitarios22 at gmail.com (Teresita Rios) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:06 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: Tim, what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury Duty? Best, Teresita > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > > I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. > But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. > Just my thoughts. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com From badpenguin at hotmail.com Wed Jul 12 14:28:29 2023 From: badpenguin at hotmail.com (Bad Penguin) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:28:29 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I don’t know how serious you folks are about this issue and a potential test case, but I will share the following: I am personal friends with an individual who is totally blind since birth, has earned a P h D and two Masters degrees, and at one point in time possessed at least nine concealed carry permits, including Texas which at the time Texas had a very challenging live fire requirement. This individual had permits from Arizona, Florida, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Minnesota is a shall issue state. Pre-Bruen, in 2016 this individual was denied a permit by the sheriff of Ramsey County, Minnesota. The reason for their denial was not that this individual in and of themselves was blind, but rather that another blind individual (Carey McWilliams) had previously applied for a Minnesota permit (I think Clay county) and was denied due to his blindness. Thus, the Ramsey county sheriff denied this individual a permit because the I believe it was the Clay county sheriff denied Carey McWilliams a permit due to Carey’s blindness. All of this and the subsequent internal appeals within the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office were very well documented. Just F Y I. And for the record, Carey McWilliams now does possess a Minnesota carry permit, but that is a story for another day, as Minnesota is still very much against blind individuals being issued a carry permit. From: blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 8:02 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to blindlaw at nfbnet.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org You can reach the person managing the list at blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 2. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) 3. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 4. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 5. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 6. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) 7. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 8. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 9. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 10. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 11. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 12. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 13. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Mike Mcglashon) 14. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 15. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 16. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 17. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 18. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) 19. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (tim at timeldermusic.com) 20. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Teresita Rios) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:33:54 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <78F4E8C4-8D0A-4C96-A8D4-A8343D0F9405 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That would be true under the 14th Amendment, but I?d bring it as an ADA Title II case. Under the T2 regs, a public entity may not ?administer a licensing or certification program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor ? establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.? 28 C.F.R. ? 130(b)(6). I would argue that a gun licensing program that excludes blind people violates that prohibition, and leave the constitutional arguments as a weak backup. I suspect there is actually a history and tradition of denying blind people the right to bear arms, given the history and tradition of denying blind people all sorts of rights. On 10 Jul 2023, at 20:56, James Fetter wrote: > As far as I know, distinctions based on disability are subject to rational basis review, whereas distinctions based on race are subject to strict scrutiny and those based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny. So, while every other group has a practically unfettered right to bear arms, we most likely do not. Though this has no effect on me personally, it doesn?t thrill me from a philosophical standpoint. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 10, 2023, at 8:25 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> ?Suggest you reach out to Dick Davis who has a particular interest in this area and also takes blind people out and teaches them gun safety and how to shoot. He is in Minnesota now, but he previously lived in I believe Iowa New Mexico and some others. >> >> Ronza Othman, President >> National Federation of the Blind of Maryland >> 443-426-4110 >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: >>> >>> ?Without commenting on the politics of gun control, I do think there is a >>> case to be made for some states that impose restrictions on the basis of >>> vision. It would be an interesting trial. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Teresita Rios >>> Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM >>> To: Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>> >>> That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on >>> blind gun handling. >>> >>> With much gratitude, >>> Teresita Rios >>> >>> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Saqallah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:58:32 -0400 From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: James Fetter , Al Elia Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:12:14 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah Cc: Blind Law Mailing List , Al Elia Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: > > ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:23:24 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: > Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. > I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >> >> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:43:11 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462 at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>> >>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:08:01 -0400 From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah To: James Fetter Cc: Al Elia , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Regarding convincing a fraction of the populus that blind firearms users are safe and compotent, I think Carry McWilliams has done some good in that field. My experience is that, once over the amazement/questioning threshhold, those who are proficient with guns can accept (not all) that blind people can be compotent; the difficulty lies with convincing those who do not have experience. Still, there is some validity here, as blind people can own a car but presumably not drive it on public roads. Firing improperly into a crowd is not a blind concern; it applies equally to sighted carriers as well. The question then becomes one of safety and competency (wielding reasonibley), which one can argue is met by successfull course-passage/certification. I disagree with the idea that licensure may mean the requirement of discharging only in the presence of a sighted person. (Indeed, there are stories of sighted people adiquatly firing where they could not see/rely on their sight.) I appreciate this informative and respectfull discussion; thank you, all. Sincerely, Seif ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:14:37 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: > In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >> >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:25:33 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >> >> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:38:08 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: > Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. > I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:22:32 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <5FA13837-2A4C-4A18-9B14-8EAF032528C8 at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. > > > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:35:53 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <8A5F2D86-DA6E-4DAD-996F-5164B9B7AE5C at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: > Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. > https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has >> been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a >> person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is >> ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court >>> is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify >>> its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in >>> our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws >>> that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and >>>> interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their >>>> implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, >>>> or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only >>>>> fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are >>>>> actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think >>>>> we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are >>>>> capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are >>>>> there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are >>>>>> talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted >>>>>> person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that >>>>>> would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart >>>>>> murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a >>>>>> license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they >>>>>> start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a >>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind >>>>>> person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner >>>>>> that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind >>>>>> person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the >>>>>> presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no >>>>>> bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side >>>>>>> would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise >>>>>>> the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds >>>>>>> and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that >>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be >>>>>>> somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given >>>>>>> its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms >>>>>>> across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I >>>>>>> would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this >>>>>>> might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit >>>>>>> whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions >>>>>>> based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:59:57 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <0CF5D609-21D1-40A6-8226-6BD68811FE26 at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ? > Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. > ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:24:18 -0500 From: Mike Mcglashon To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I know, I am only a lost student trying to pass the bar, but, That to me would be a non-justiciable argument. Because there would be no injury in fact. The injury would not have occurred until the applicant applies and is denied the license. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:02 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: > > ?Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ? >> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. >> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >> > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:52:23 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hence the futile gesture exception. To use a classic example, a wheelchair user does not have to attempt to crawl up a flight of stairs, in order to sue a business for being inaccessible to him. He merely needs to indicate that he intends to enter the business and cannot do so, due to the accessibility barrier. Obviously, you would still need a blind person who lived in a state which prohibited blind people from obtaining licenses to carry concealed weapons and who wanted to obtain such a license. But you would not necessarily need the blind person to attempt to obtain a license and actually be refused based on the discriminatory law. Of course, it would be better if you could get that, but there is a colorable argument that it isn?t necessary. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Mike Mcglashon via BlindLaw wrote: > > ?I know, I am only a lost student trying to pass the bar, but, > That to me would be a non-justiciable argument. > Because there would be no injury in fact. > The injury would not have occurred until the applicant applies and is denied the license. > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:02 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> ?Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ? >>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. >>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:53:10 -0400 From: Al Elia To: Laura Slavis Cc: Blind Law Mailing List , James Fetter Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I?m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative?s standing as well. > Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court > unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. > Focusing on preferred results, indeed. > > On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >> preventing them from receiving one. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ? >>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>> action. Different beast. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>> preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>> don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to >>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >> ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:15:25 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Laura Slavis , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 You are probably right, particularly if the goal was to create a test case that would make it to the Supreme Court. The best thing to do would be to recruit someone in a state with discriminatory laws to attempt to obtain a license and get denied on the basis of vision, whereupon suit could be filed very quickly. Putting the gun issue to the side (personally, I could care less about it, except maybe as a vehicle for challenging rational basis review as the constitutional standard for distinctions based on disability) I think we need to be more proactive about recruiting and using testers to go after discriminatory laws and practices. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:53 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?I?m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. > > And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative?s standing as well. > >> Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court >> unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. >> Focusing on preferred results, indeed. >> >>> On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>> Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >>> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >>> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >>> preventing them from receiving one. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ? >>>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>>> action. Different beast. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>>> preferred result. >>>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>>> don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to >>>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >>> ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:23:46 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Laura Slavis , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <9A9BFC2A-FD3A-4D07-964C-2B59F16DF477 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This would not be a good case to change the rational basis review test, as there are sufficient statutory grounds for resolution to avoid the constitutional question. A court is only going to find a direct threat but nevertheless a constitutional right if they are trolling the supremes like the judge down in Mississippi that held the felon-in-possession law unconstitutional. On 11 Jul 2023, at 16:15, James Fetter wrote: > You are probably right, particularly if the goal was to create a test case that would make it to the Supreme Court. The best thing to do would be to recruit someone in a state with discriminatory laws to attempt to obtain a license and get denied on the basis of vision, whereupon suit could be filed very quickly. Putting the gun issue to the side (personally, I could care less about it, except maybe as a vehicle for challenging rational basis review as the constitutional standard for distinctions based on disability) I think we need to be more proactive about recruiting and using testers to go after discriminatory laws and practices. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:53 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?I?m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. >> >> And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative?s standing as well. >> >>> Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court >>> unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. >>> Focusing on preferred results, indeed. >>> >>>> On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>>> Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >>>> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >>>> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >>>> preventing them from receiving one. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>>>> action. Different beast. >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>>>> preferred result. >>>>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>>>> don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to >>>>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> BlindLaw mailing list >>>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> BlindLaw: >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >>>> ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:56:02 -0400 From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: James Fetter , Al Elia , Laura Slavis Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Using DC as an example (I do not have access to Westlaw for the latest text), one of its application questions (under 15) asks if the applicant is legally blind: "Are you legally blind? (Legally blind means totally blind. Your vision is not impaired more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye, or your vision cannot be improved to be better than 20/200, or you do not have a loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree. If the Firearms Registration Section determines there are reasonable grounds to believe that the certification provided is not accurate, you may be required to obtain a certification from a licensed optometrist that you meet the vision requirements as stated above.)" (CCPL_FillablePDF.pdf https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachments/CCPL_FillablePDF.pdf) Statutorily, ? 7?2502.03(a)(7) & (11) prevent those with a physical defect or who are blind. (7) Does not appear to suffer from a physical defect which would tend to indicate that the applicant would not be able to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly; [...] (11) Is not blind, as defined in D.C. Official Code ? 7-1009(1) (See Chapter 25. Firearms Control. | D.C. Law Library ? 7?2502.03. Qualifications for registration; information required for registration. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/7/chapters/25; this might not be the latest version, as it does not address Bruen's shall issue requirement.) Legally blind is defined as (1) The term ?blind person? means, and the term ?blind? refers to, a person who is totally blind, has impaired vision of not more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye and for whom vision cannot be improved to better than 20/200, or who has loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree. (See ? 7?1009. Definitions. | D.C. Law Library https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-1009#(1).) I thought about living in, and being licensed in, DC. ... Peace, Seif ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:52:18 -0700 From: To: "'Seif-Eldeen Saqallah'" , "'Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. -----Original Message----- From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. Just my thoughts. ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:06 -0500 From: Teresita Rios To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Tim, what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury Duty? Best, Teresita > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > > I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. > But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. > Just my thoughts. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org ------------------------------ End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 **************************************** From tim at timeldermusic.com Wed Jul 12 15:44:26 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:44:26 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <00a001d9b4d7$be4ac600$3ae05200$@timeldermusic.com> While the ADA wouldn't apply in federal court, there have been some cases dealing with blind people on state court juries. NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. -----Original Message----- From: Teresita Rios Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:22 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Tim, what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury Duty? Best, Teresita > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > > I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. > But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. > Just my thoughts. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail .com From tim at timeldermusic.com Wed Jul 12 15:57:34 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 08:57:34 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> References: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> Message-ID: <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. -----Original Message----- From: Al Elia Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: > Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. > I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From al.elia at aol.com Wed Jul 12 16:03:12 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:03:12 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> References: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <167E61B7-1895-4222-833D-6276EE7DBDD8@aol.com> Agreed, though that is an employment, not a licensing issue. If there are, in fact, still jurisdictions that disqualify disabled persons from jury service, that might bea good place to start. If there are licensing restrictions based on disability for things other than firearms and automobiles, I’d rather start there. I’m just saying that I’d consider a firearm case if one was brought to me. Since the DC law is a carry and use permit, rather than a purchase/ownership/carry license, I wouldn’t take a case there. On 12 Jul 2023, at 11:57, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: > I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Elia > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM > To: James Fetter > Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. > > > > > On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: > >> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. From jtfetter at yahoo.com Wed Jul 12 16:04:19 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:04:19 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> References: <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: > > I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Elia > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM > To: James Fetter > Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. > > > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. > > > From maurakutnyak at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 16:22:09 2023 From: maurakutnyak at gmail.com (Maura Kutnyak) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:22:09 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> References: <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> Message-ID: Thank you all very much for this entertaining and thought-provoking distraction from bar Exam preparation! Following this thread has led me to want some sort of monthly or by monthly informal virtual gathering where we could discuss such issues. Has that ever existed? Does it exist now and I’m just not in the know? Here I will emphasize Tim’s point about drivers license requirements being a more important issue. I have internally griped about them for a few decades as a Blind job seeker, but never felt so grouchy about it as I do now while applying for legal jobs. Many of the nonprofits and government entities to which I’ve applied both affirm their dedication to equity and inclusion, and require a valid drivers license. Does anyone have a useful stock phrase to address that type of requirement in interviews or other preliminary discussions? Thanks so much for everything over the years! Warmly, Maura Kutnyak, M.P.A., J.D. 716-563-9882 > On Jul 12, 2023, at 12:05 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: > > I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: >> >> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Al Elia >> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM >> To: James Fetter >> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com From michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Wed Jul 12 16:31:57 2023 From: michael.mcglashon at comcast.net (MIKE MCGLASHON) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:31:57 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8eed01d9b4de$64766380$2d632a80$@comcast.net> Hi Bad Penguin: I am quite serious regarding this matter; Please contact me via my info at the bottom of this email. Please advise as you like. Mike M. Mike mcglashon Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Ph: 618 783 9331 -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Bad Penguin via BlindLaw Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 9:28 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Bad Penguin Subject: Re: [blindLaw] BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 I don't know how serious you folks are about this issue and a potential test case, but I will share the following: I am personal friends with an individual who is totally blind since birth, has earned a P h D and two Masters degrees, and at one point in time possessed at least nine concealed carry permits, including Texas which at the time Texas had a very challenging live fire requirement. This individual had permits from Arizona, Florida, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and Virginia. Minnesota is a shall issue state. Pre-Bruen, in 2016 this individual was denied a permit by the sheriff of Ramsey County, Minnesota. The reason for their denial was not that this individual in and of themselves was blind, but rather that another blind individual (Carey McWilliams) had previously applied for a Minnesota permit (I think Clay county) and was denied due to his blindness. Thus, the Ramsey county sheriff denied this individual a permit because the I believe it was the Clay county sheriff denied Carey McWilliams a permit due to Carey's blindness. All of this and the subsequent internal appeals within the Ramsey County Sheriffs Office were very well documented. Just F Y I. And for the record, Carey McWilliams now does possess a Minnesota carry permit, but that is a story for another day, as Minnesota is still very much against blind individuals being issued a carry permit. From: blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 8:02 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Subject: BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 Send BlindLaw mailing list submissions to blindlaw at nfbnet.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org You can reach the person managing the list at blindlaw-owner at nfbnet.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of BlindLaw digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 2. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) 3. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 4. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 5. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 6. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) 7. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 8. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 9. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 10. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 11. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 12. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 13. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Mike Mcglashon) 14. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 15. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 16. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (James Fetter) 17. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Al Elia) 18. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) 19. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (tim at timeldermusic.com) 20. Re: Firearms and the Blind? (Teresita Rios) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:33:54 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <78F4E8C4-8D0A-4C96-A8D4-A8343D0F9405 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 That would be true under the 14th Amendment, but I?d bring it as an ADA Title II case. Under the T2 regs, a public entity may not ?administer a licensing or certification program in a manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor ? establish requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.? 28 C.F.R. ? 130(b)(6). I would argue that a gun licensing program that excludes blind people violates that prohibition, and leave the constitutional arguments as a weak backup. I suspect there is actually a history and tradition of denying blind people the right to bear arms, given the history and tradition of denying blind people all sorts of rights. On 10 Jul 2023, at 20:56, James Fetter wrote: > As far as I know, distinctions based on disability are subject to rational basis review, whereas distinctions based on race are subject to strict scrutiny and those based on gender are subject to intermediate scrutiny. So, while every other group has a practically unfettered right to bear arms, we most likely do not. Though this has no effect on me personally, it doesn?t thrill me from a philosophical standpoint. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 10, 2023, at 8:25 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> ?Suggest you reach out to Dick Davis who has a particular interest in this area and also takes blind people out and teaches them gun safety and how to shoot. He is in Minnesota now, but he previously lived in I believe Iowa New Mexico and some others. >> >> Ronza Othman, President >> National Federation of the Blind of Maryland >> 443-426-4110 >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 10, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: >>> >>> ?Without commenting on the politics of gun control, I do think there is a >>> case to be made for some states that impose restrictions on the basis of >>> vision. It would be an interesting trial. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Teresita Rios >>> Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM >>> To: Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>> >>> That is a good idea question. I am also looking for some information on >>> blind gun handling. >>> >>> With much gratitude, >>> Teresita Rios >>> >>> >>>>> On Jul 8, 2023, at 12:10 PM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah via BlindLaw >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Saqallah >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 11:58:32 -0400 From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: James Fetter , Al Elia Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:12:14 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah Cc: Blind Law Mailing List , Al Elia Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: > > ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:23:24 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <1873E0E1-ED31-4C17-9B89-7B06B0393A17 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: > Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. > I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >> >> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:43:11 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <8590C84F-C448-44A6-9029-677F745EF462 at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>> >>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 6 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:08:01 -0400 From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah To: James Fetter Cc: Al Elia , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Regarding convincing a fraction of the populus that blind firearms users are safe and compotent, I think Carry McWilliams has done some good in that field. My experience is that, once over the amazement/questioning threshhold, those who are proficient with guns can accept (not all) that blind people can be compotent; the difficulty lies with convincing those who do not have experience. Still, there is some validity here, as blind people can own a car but presumably not drive it on public roads. Firing improperly into a crowd is not a blind concern; it applies equally to sighted carriers as well. The question then becomes one of safety and competency (wielding reasonibley), which one can argue is met by successfull course-passage/certification. I disagree with the idea that licensure may mean the requirement of discharging only in the presence of a sighted person. (Indeed, there are stories of sighted people adiquatly firing where they could not see/rely on their sight.) I appreciate this informative and respectfull discussion; thank you, all. Sincerely, Seif ------------------------------ Message: 7 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:14:37 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: > In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >> >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>> >>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 8 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:25:33 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >> >> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 9 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:38:08 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: > Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. > I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 10 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:22:32 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <5FA13837-2A4C-4A18-9B14-8EAF032528C8 at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. > > > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 11 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:35:53 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <8A5F2D86-DA6E-4DAD-996F-5164B9B7AE5C at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: > Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. > https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has >> been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a >> person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is >> ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court >>> is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify >>> its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in >>> our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws >>> that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and >>>> interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their >>>> implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, >>>> or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only >>>>> fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are >>>>> actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think >>>>> we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are >>>>> capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are >>>>> there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are >>>>>> talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted >>>>>> person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that >>>>>> would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart >>>>>> murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a >>>>>> license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they >>>>>> start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a >>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind >>>>>> person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner >>>>>> that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind >>>>>> person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the >>>>>> presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no >>>>>> bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side >>>>>>> would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise >>>>>>> the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds >>>>>>> and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that >>>>>>> argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be >>>>>>> somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given >>>>>>> its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms >>>>>>> across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I >>>>>>> would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this >>>>>>> might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit >>>>>>> whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions >>>>>>> based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. ------------------------------ Message: 12 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:59:57 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <0CF5D609-21D1-40A6-8226-6BD68811FE26 at yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ? > Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. > ------------------------------ Message: 13 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:24:18 -0500 From: Mike Mcglashon To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 I know, I am only a lost student trying to pass the bar, but, That to me would be a non-justiciable argument. Because there would be no injury in fact. The injury would not have occurred until the applicant applies and is denied the license. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:02 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: > > ?Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ? >> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. >> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >> > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co mcast.net ------------------------------ Message: 14 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:52:23 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hence the futile gesture exception. To use a classic example, a wheelchair user does not have to attempt to crawl up a flight of stairs, in order to sue a business for being inaccessible to him. He merely needs to indicate that he intends to enter the business and cannot do so, due to the accessibility barrier. Obviously, you would still need a blind person who lived in a state which prohibited blind people from obtaining licenses to carry concealed weapons and who wanted to obtain such a license. But you would not necessarily need the blind person to attempt to obtain a license and actually be refused based on the discriminatory law. Of course, it would be better if you could get that, but there is a colorable argument that it isn?t necessary. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:26 PM, Mike Mcglashon via BlindLaw wrote: > > ?I know, I am only a lost student trying to pass the bar, but, > That to me would be a non-justiciable argument. > Because there would be no injury in fact. > The injury would not have occurred until the applicant applies and is denied the license. > > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:02 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> ?Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards preventing them from receiving one. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ? >>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement action. Different beast. >>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co mcast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/jtfetter%40yahoo.com ------------------------------ Message: 15 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 15:53:10 -0400 From: Al Elia To: Laura Slavis Cc: Blind Law Mailing List , James Fetter Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I?m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative?s standing as well. > Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court > unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. > Focusing on preferred results, indeed. > > On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >> preventing them from receiving one. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> ? >>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>> action. Different beast. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>> preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>> don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to >>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >> ------------------------------ Message: 16 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:15:25 -0400 From: James Fetter To: Al Elia Cc: Laura Slavis , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 You are probably right, particularly if the goal was to create a test case that would make it to the Supreme Court. The best thing to do would be to recruit someone in a state with discriminatory laws to attempt to obtain a license and get denied on the basis of vision, whereupon suit could be filed very quickly. Putting the gun issue to the side (personally, I could care less about it, except maybe as a vehicle for challenging rational basis review as the constitutional standard for distinctions based on disability) I think we need to be more proactive about recruiting and using testers to go after discriminatory laws and practices. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:53 PM, Al Elia wrote: > > ?I?m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. > > And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative?s standing as well. > >> Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court >> unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. >> Focusing on preferred results, indeed. >> >>> On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>> Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >>> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >>> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >>> preventing them from receiving one. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> ? >>>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>>> action. Different beast. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>>> preferred result. >>>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>>> don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to >>>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >>> ------------------------------ Message: 17 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:23:46 -0400 From: Al Elia To: James Fetter Cc: Laura Slavis , Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <9A9BFC2A-FD3A-4D07-964C-2B59F16DF477 at aol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This would not be a good case to change the rational basis review test, as there are sufficient statutory grounds for resolution to avoid the constitutional question. A court is only going to find a direct threat but nevertheless a constitutional right if they are trolling the supremes like the judge down in Mississippi that held the felon-in-possession law unconstitutional. On 11 Jul 2023, at 16:15, James Fetter wrote: > You are probably right, particularly if the goal was to create a test case that would make it to the Supreme Court. The best thing to do would be to recruit someone in a state with discriminatory laws to attempt to obtain a license and get denied on the basis of vision, whereupon suit could be filed very quickly. Putting the gun issue to the side (personally, I could care less about it, except maybe as a vehicle for challenging rational basis review as the constitutional standard for distinctions based on disability) I think we need to be more proactive about recruiting and using testers to go after discriminatory laws and practices. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 3:53 PM, Al Elia wrote: >> >> ?I?m not up to speed on the requirements for pre-enforcement declaratory relief, but I suspect it is not available where the plaintiff is placed in no different a position pre-and post-ripening, as would be the case where a blind person has no license before applying for one, and has no license after being denied one due to blindness. Now if persons were subject to a penalty upon being denied a license, that might allow for a pre-enforcement challenge. However, I suspect that is not the case. >> >> And much though I dislike the 303 Creative decision, I think that if I wanted Planned Parenthood to have standing to seek pre-enforcement challenges pre-Dobbs, then I have to accept 303 Creative?s standing as well. >> >>> Yeah so last year, except for the time days later the Supreme Court >>> unanimously held that student loan challengers lacked standing. >>> Focusing on preferred results, indeed. >>> >>>> On 7/11/23, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>>> Why couldn?t you raise a futile gesture argument? You may not need a blind >>>> person to be denied a license. You may only need someone who says they would >>>> apply for a license, but for the allegedly discriminatory standards >>>> preventing them from receiving one. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 2:35 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> ? >>>>> Yeah, but she was seeking a declaratory judgment in a pre-enforcement >>>>> action. Different beast. >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 14:22, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Ripeness is so last year, or so it seems. >>>>>> https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-cou ples >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:38 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been >>>>>> denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, >>>>>> there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would >>>>>> certainly consider bringing it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that >>>>>>> textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is >>>>>>> confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its >>>>>>> preferred result. >>>>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local >>>>>>> government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing >>>>>>> firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument >>>>>>> that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our >>>>>>> homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the >>>>>>> Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ?I?m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret >>>>>>>> statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts >>>>>>>> don?t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme >>>>>>>> Court suggested. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to >>>>>>>>> shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any >>>>>>>>> court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are >>>>>>>>> discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire >>>>>>>>> weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually >>>>>>>>> serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to >>>>>>>>> convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling >>>>>>>>> lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ?We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking >>>>>>>>>> about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does >>>>>>>>>> not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be >>>>>>>>>> reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I >>>>>>>>>> would argue that a license to carry is just that ? a license to >>>>>>>>>> carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on >>>>>>>>>> about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to >>>>>>>>>> wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the >>>>>>>>>> responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind >>>>>>>>>> person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge >>>>>>>>>> their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted >>>>>>>>>> assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would >>>>>>>>>>> beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the >>>>>>>>>>> specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things >>>>>>>>>>> like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat >>>>>>>>>>> sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its >>>>>>>>>>> solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the >>>>>>>>>>> board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously >>>>>>>>>>> argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good >>>>>>>>>>> vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis >>>>>>>>>>> is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> BlindLaw mailing list >>>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>>> BlindLaw: >>>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/laura.wolk%40gmail.com >>>> ------------------------------ Message: 18 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 16:56:02 -0400 From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: James Fetter , Al Elia , Laura Slavis Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Using DC as an example (I do not have access to Westlaw for the latest text), one of its application questions (under 15) asks if the applicant is legally blind: "Are you legally blind? (Legally blind means totally blind. Your vision is not impaired more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye, or your vision cannot be improved to be better than 20/200, or you do not have a loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree. If the Firearms Registration Section determines there are reasonable grounds to believe that the certification provided is not accurate, you may be required to obtain a certification from a licensed optometrist that you meet the vision requirements as stated above.)" (CCPL_FillablePDF.pdf https://mpdc.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/mpdc/publication/attachment s/CCPL_FillablePDF.pdf) Statutorily, ? 7?2502.03(a)(7) & (11) prevent those with a physical defect or who are blind. (7) Does not appear to suffer from a physical defect which would tend to indicate that the applicant would not be able to possess and use a firearm safely and responsibly; [...] (11) Is not blind, as defined in D.C. Official Code ? 7-1009(1) (See Chapter 25. Firearms Control. | D.C. Law Library ? 7?2502.03. Qualifications for registration; information required for registration. https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/titles/7/chapters/25; this might not be the latest version, as it does not address Bruen's shall issue requirement.) Legally blind is defined as (1) The term ?blind person? means, and the term ?blind? refers to, a person who is totally blind, has impaired vision of not more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye and for whom vision cannot be improved to better than 20/200, or who has loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree. (See ? 7?1009. Definitions. | D.C. Law Library https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/7-1009#(1).) I thought about living in, and being licensed in, DC. ... Peace, Seif ------------------------------ Message: 19 Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:52:18 -0700 From: To: "'Seif-Eldeen Saqallah'" , "'Blind Law Mailing List'" Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. -----Original Message----- From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. Just my thoughts. ------------------------------ Message: 20 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 06:22:06 -0500 From: Teresita Rios To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah , tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Tim, what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury Duty? Best, Teresita > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > > I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. > But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. > Just my thoughts. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail .com ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org ------------------------------ End of BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 **************************************** _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co mcast.net From michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Wed Jul 12 16:34:27 2023 From: michael.mcglashon at comcast.net (MIKE MCGLASHON) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:34:27 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <00a001d9b4d7$be4ac600$3ae05200$@timeldermusic.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> <00a001d9b4d7$be4ac600$3ae05200$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: <8f0a01d9b4de$bcabdee0$36039ca0$@comcast.net> Quoting: NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. End quote: Do you happen to have the cite on such case? Is it new enough to have audio argument? Please advise as you like. Mike M. Mike mcglashon Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Ph: 618 783 9331 -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Tim Elder via BlindLaw Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:44 AM To: 'Teresita Rios' ; 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? While the ADA wouldn't apply in federal court, there have been some cases dealing with blind people on state court juries. NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. -----Original Message----- From: Teresita Rios Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:22 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Tim, what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury Duty? Best, Teresita > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > > I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. > But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. > Just my thoughts. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail .com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co mcast.net From michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Wed Jul 12 16:38:54 2023 From: michael.mcglashon at comcast.net (MIKE MCGLASHON) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:38:54 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> References: <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8f1e01d9b4df$5ccb3bf0$1661b3d0$@comcast.net> Quoting: I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. End quote: Wow!!! I learn something new every day; I did not know that blind or not, the right to bear arms written in stone in our Constitution is nonsense. However, like I said, we learn something new every day. Please advise as you like. Mike M. Mike mcglashon Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Ph: 618 783 9331 -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of James Fetter via BlindLaw Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:04 AM To: tim at timeldermusic.com Cc: James Fetter ; Al Elia ; Blind Law Mailing List Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: > > I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Al Elia > Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM > To: James Fetter > Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. > > > > >> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >> >> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>> >>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. > > > _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net From al.elia at aol.com Wed Jul 12 16:48:31 2023 From: al.elia at aol.com (Al Elia) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:48:31 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <58AA08B6-F24D-4D36-B9A7-0837BD647A20@aol.com> MAura – I just provide them with a copy of my state ID, or my passport if they prefer. I’ve only ever been asked for a driver license once, and I simply reminded them that I was blind and that they probably didn’t want me to have a driver license given that fact. On 12 Jul 2023, at 12:22, Maura Kutnyak wrote: > Thank you all very much for this entertaining and thought-provoking distraction from bar Exam preparation! Following this thread has led me to want some sort of monthly or by monthly informal virtual gathering where we could discuss such issues. Has that ever existed? Does it exist now and I’m just not in the know? > > Here I will emphasize Tim’s point about drivers license requirements being a more important issue. I have internally griped about them for a few decades as a Blind job seeker, but never felt so grouchy about it as I do now while applying for legal jobs. Many of the nonprofits and government entities to which I’ve applied both affirm their dedication to equity and inclusion, and require a valid drivers license. Does anyone have a useful stock phrase to address that type of requirement in interviews or other preliminary discussions? > > Thanks so much for everything over the years! > > Warmly, > > Maura Kutnyak, M.P.A., J.D. > 716-563-9882 > >> On Jul 12, 2023, at 12:05 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: >>> >>> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Al Elia >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM >>> To: James Fetter >>> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>> >>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com From dmanners at jd16.law.harvard.edu Wed Jul 12 16:49:46 2023 From: dmanners at jd16.law.harvard.edu (Derek Manners) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 12:49:46 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <8f1e01d9b4df$5ccb3bf0$1661b3d0$@comcast.net> References: <8f1e01d9b4df$5ccb3bf0$1661b3d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <679E888E-5B64-4F46-86EA-5AE3663E29F7@jd16.law.harvard.edu> Hi Mike, As someone who is pro-Second Amendment, I understand your conviction. I think most people’s point here though is that nobody is living in poverty because they can’t get a conceal carry permit, but they are because of massive employment discrimination, for example. So while we all have our own differing political opinions about guns more broadly, I think we can all agree that blind people shouldn’t be relegated to poverty because of employment discrimination. There are a number of constitutional amendments that we do not fully enjoy, as well as numerous other basic civil liberties that others take for granted, and we have to prioritize our limited resources where it will alleviate the most direct harm we face because of discrimination. Best regards Derek Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 12, 2023, at 12:41 PM, MIKE MCGLASHON via BlindLaw wrote: > > Quoting: > I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. > End quote: > Wow!!! I learn something new every day; > I did not know that blind or not, the right to bear arms written in stone in our Constitution is nonsense. > However, like I said, we learn something new every day. > > > Please advise as you like. > > Mike M. > > Mike mcglashon > Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net > Ph: 618 783 9331 > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of James Fetter via BlindLaw > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:04 AM > To: tim at timeldermusic.com > Cc: James Fetter ; Al Elia ; Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: >> >> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Al Elia >> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM >> To: James Fetter >> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dmanners%40jd16.law.harvard.edu From wmodnl at hotmail.com Wed Jul 12 16:50:16 2023 From: wmodnl at hotmail.com (wmodnl wmodnl) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:50:16 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <8f1e01d9b4df$5ccb3bf0$1661b3d0$@comcast.net> References: <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> <8f1e01d9b4df$5ccb3bf0$1661b3d0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. > On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:41, MIKE MCGLASHON via BlindLaw wrote: > > Quoting: > I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. > End quote: > Wow!!! I learn something new every day; > I did not know that blind or not, the right to bear arms written in stone in our Constitution is nonsense. > However, like I said, we learn something new every day. > > > Please advise as you like. > > Mike M. > > Mike mcglashon > Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net > Ph: 618 783 9331 > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of James Fetter via BlindLaw > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:04 AM > To: tim at timeldermusic.com > Cc: James Fetter ; Al Elia ; Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: >> >> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Al Elia >> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM >> To: James Fetter >> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >> >> >> >> >>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>> >>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>> >>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/wmodnl%40hotmail.com From wmodnl at hotmail.com Wed Jul 12 16:53:43 2023 From: wmodnl at hotmail.com (wmodnl wmodnl) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:53:43 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <58AA08B6-F24D-4D36-B9A7-0837BD647A20@aol.com> References: <58AA08B6-F24D-4D36-B9A7-0837BD647A20@aol.com> Message-ID: Upload your official photo ID for motor vehicle they except it because it has the valid identification number that a drivers license would have. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:49, Al Elia via BlindLaw wrote: > > MAura – I just provide them with a copy of my state ID, or my passport if they prefer. I’ve only ever been asked for a driver license once, and I simply reminded them that I was blind and that they probably didn’t want me to have a driver license given that fact. > >> On 12 Jul 2023, at 12:22, Maura Kutnyak wrote: >> >> Thank you all very much for this entertaining and thought-provoking distraction from bar Exam preparation! Following this thread has led me to want some sort of monthly or by monthly informal virtual gathering where we could discuss such issues. Has that ever existed? Does it exist now and I’m just not in the know? >> >> Here I will emphasize Tim’s point about drivers license requirements being a more important issue. I have internally griped about them for a few decades as a Blind job seeker, but never felt so grouchy about it as I do now while applying for legal jobs. Many of the nonprofits and government entities to which I’ve applied both affirm their dedication to equity and inclusion, and require a valid drivers license. Does anyone have a useful stock phrase to address that type of requirement in interviews or other preliminary discussions? >> >> Thanks so much for everything over the years! >> >> Warmly, >> >> Maura Kutnyak, M.P.A., J.D. >> 716-563-9882 >> >>>> On Jul 12, 2023, at 12:05 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >>> >>> I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>>> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: >>>> >>>> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Al Elia >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM >>>> To: James Fetter >>>> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List >>>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>>> >>>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/wmodnl%40hotmail.com From kaybaycar at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 17:12:12 2023 From: kaybaycar at gmail.com (Julie A. Orozco) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:12:12 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Questions about law school clinic requirements Message-ID: Hi everyone, I am taking a civil advocacy clinic this fall in my last semester of law school. The professor and I have begun a dialogue, and I thought I would reach out to ask the first of probably many questions. First, how is Legal Server these days. I had to use it a couple years ago when working for another clinic, and it was horrible. I had to use a really old version of IE to make it work. Since IE isn't even supported anymore, I'm sincerely hoping there is an alternative. Second, in clinic we work with partners. We will be expected to share our screens to file things with the court. I understand that if my partner shares their screen with me, I will have no idea what's happening. If I share my screen with them, they may not be able to follow what I'm doing since navigating with a screen reader doesn't always make sense to sighted people. My solution would be to get on Team Viewer and share control of the same screen so we could both participate in the process. I was also thinking I would give my partner a crash course in how a screen reader works. Are there better solutions for this? I am excited about clinic but not excited to get in the "real" inaccessible world of law practice. Thanks, Julie -- Julie A. Orozco MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of Law, JD Candidate 2023 From sanho817 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 17:21:40 2023 From: sanho817 at gmail.com (Sanho Steele-Louchart) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 13:21:40 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Questions about law school clinic requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Julie, I've used Legal Server for the past four years and it's 100% accessible using Edge, Google Chrome, NVDA, and JAWS. Agree with your Teamviewer suggestion or something similar. Warmth, Sanho On 7/12/23, Julie A. Orozco via BlindLaw wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am taking a civil advocacy clinic this fall in my last semester of > law school. The professor and I have begun a dialogue, and I thought I > would reach out to ask the first of probably many questions. > > First, how is Legal Server these days. I had to use it a couple years > ago when working for another clinic, and it was horrible. I had to use > a really old version of IE to make it work. Since IE isn't even > supported anymore, I'm sincerely hoping there is an alternative. > > Second, in clinic we work with partners. We will be expected to share > our screens to file things with the court. I understand that if my > partner shares their screen with me, I will have no idea what's > happening. If I share my screen with them, they may not be able to > follow what I'm doing since navigating with a screen reader doesn't > always make sense to sighted people. My solution would be to get on > Team Viewer and share control of the same screen so we could both > participate in the process. I was also thinking I would give my > partner a crash course in how a screen reader works. Are there better > solutions for this? > > I am excited about clinic but not excited to get in the "real" > inaccessible world of law practice. > > Thanks, > > Julie > > -- > Julie A. Orozco > MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of > Law, JD Candidate 2023 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com > -- He/Him From kaybaycar at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 18:33:59 2023 From: kaybaycar at gmail.com (Julie A. Orozco) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:33:59 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Questions about law school clinic requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Sanho, Thank you. I believe you worked on this with me last time. You were the expert. I had this weird lagging issue with my Legal Server that was infuriating. Have you seen that anymore? I have a completely different computer now, so I'm hoping this won't be an issue. Julie On 7/12/23, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: > Julie, > > I've used Legal Server for the past four years and it's 100% > accessible using Edge, Google Chrome, NVDA, and JAWS. > > Agree with your Teamviewer suggestion or something similar. > > Warmth, > Sanho > > On 7/12/23, Julie A. Orozco via BlindLaw wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I am taking a civil advocacy clinic this fall in my last semester of >> law school. The professor and I have begun a dialogue, and I thought I >> would reach out to ask the first of probably many questions. >> >> First, how is Legal Server these days. I had to use it a couple years >> ago when working for another clinic, and it was horrible. I had to use >> a really old version of IE to make it work. Since IE isn't even >> supported anymore, I'm sincerely hoping there is an alternative. >> >> Second, in clinic we work with partners. We will be expected to share >> our screens to file things with the court. I understand that if my >> partner shares their screen with me, I will have no idea what's >> happening. If I share my screen with them, they may not be able to >> follow what I'm doing since navigating with a screen reader doesn't >> always make sense to sighted people. My solution would be to get on >> Team Viewer and share control of the same screen so we could both >> participate in the process. I was also thinking I would give my >> partner a crash course in how a screen reader works. Are there better >> solutions for this? >> >> I am excited about clinic but not excited to get in the "real" >> inaccessible world of law practice. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Julie >> >> -- >> Julie A. Orozco >> MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of >> Law, JD Candidate 2023 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com >> > > > -- > He/Him > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/kaybaycar%40gmail.com > -- Julie A. Orozco MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of Law, JD Candidate 2023 From tim at timeldermusic.com Wed Jul 12 18:50:35 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:50:35 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <58AA08B6-F24D-4D36-B9A7-0837BD647A20@aol.com> References: <5ACFDFCD-7400-4CA8-99B8-BAD3EFF4491D@yahoo.com> <58AA08B6-F24D-4D36-B9A7-0837BD647A20@aol.com> Message-ID: <010501d9b4f1$bec99420$3c5cbc60$@timeldermusic.com> FWIW: I've never seen it as a strict requirement in a legal job. It is much more common in social work and education/childcare positions. -----Original Message----- From: Al Elia Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 9:49 AM To: Maura Kutnyak Cc: Blind Law Mailing List ; tim at timeldermusic.com; James Fetter Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? MAura – I just provide them with a copy of my state ID, or my passport if they prefer. I’ve only ever been asked for a driver license once, and I simply reminded them that I was blind and that they probably didn’t want me to have a driver license given that fact. On 12 Jul 2023, at 12:22, Maura Kutnyak wrote: > Thank you all very much for this entertaining and thought-provoking distraction from bar Exam preparation! Following this thread has led me to want some sort of monthly or by monthly informal virtual gathering where we could discuss such issues. Has that ever existed? Does it exist now and I’m just not in the know? > > Here I will emphasize Tim’s point about drivers license requirements being a more important issue. I have internally griped about them for a few decades as a Blind job seeker, but never felt so grouchy about it as I do now while applying for legal jobs. Many of the nonprofits and government entities to which I’ve applied both affirm their dedication to equity and inclusion, and require a valid drivers license. Does anyone have a useful stock phrase to address that type of requirement in interviews or other preliminary discussions? > > Thanks so much for everything over the years! > > Warmly, > > Maura Kutnyak, M.P.A., J.D. > 716-563-9882 > >> On Jul 12, 2023, at 12:05 PM, James Fetter via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> I couldn’t agree more. Let’s kick down every single barrier to full employment of the blind, before we worry about this nonsense. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jul 12, 2023, at 11:57 AM, tim at timeldermusic.com wrote: >>> >>> I think the right case is out there based on existing state laws. Alas, we have only so much time in this world. I can probably name 25 other governmental licensing or eligibility criteria that I'd want to challenge before tackling the gun issue in a small state. The number of government jobs that require a driver's license without driving as an essential function come to mind. >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Al Elia >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM >>> To: James Fetter >>> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>> >>> So far as I am aware, we do not yet have a blind person who has been denied a gun license on account of blindness. Until such a person exists, there is no ripe case to be brought. Once that case is ripe, I would certainly consider bringing it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 13:25, James Fetter wrote: >>>> >>>> Then bring the litigation and see what happens. I suspect that textualism will conveniently Fade into the background, if the Court is confronted with a scenario in which textualism does not justify its preferred result. >>>> I think we would be in a much better position, if a State or local government imposed an outright ban on us possessing or purchasing firearms in any context. I think we could make a convincing argument that we have a constitutional right to self-defense, especially in our homes. This is now a well-worn path for invalidating gun laws that the Supreme Court sees as overly restrictive. >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 1:14 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I’m sorry, I thought courts were supposed to read and interpret statutes based on their actual words, not their implications. Courts don’t do panumbras and emanations anymore, or so I thought the Supreme Court suggested. >>>>> >>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:43, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> In what world does a license to carry a gun not imply a license to shoot it under certain circumstances? Do you really think that any court would buy the argument that licensure requirements are discriminatory, because blind people would, on their honor, only fire weapons in the presence of sighted assistants? If we are actually serious about bringing litigation in this space, I think we need to convince some fraction of the public that we are capable of handling lethal weapons safely. I do not think we are there yet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, Al Elia wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are not talking about a license to shoot a gun, wee are talking about a license to carry a gun. I dare say that a sighted person does not have a right to fire a gun into a crowd, as that would be reckless and, if death resulted, would be depraved-heart murder. I would argue that a license to carry is just that – a license to carry, and thus cannot exclude a blind person. If they start going on about firing, I would argue that a licensee has a responsibility to wield their gun reasonably, and that a blind person thus has the responsibility to wield their gun in a manner that a reasonable blind person would. That may mean that a blind person can never discharge their weapon other than when in the presence of a competent sighted assistant, but that has no bearing on their license to carry it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 11 Jul 2023, at 12:12, James Fetter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Title II May well be a stronger argument, but the other side would beat the direct threat drum very loudly. They would raise the specter of people, dare I say, firing blindly into crowds and things like that. And most judges would probably buy that argument. >>>>>>>> I actually think that the current Supreme Court might be somewhat sympathetic to the constitutional argument here, given its solicitude to litigation expanding the right to bear arms across the board. If I were bringing this sort of litigation, I would obviously argue both in the alternative. Who knows, this might even be a good vehicle to get the Supreme Court to revisit whether rational basis is the correct standard for distinctions based on disability. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 11:58 AM, Seif-Eldeen Saqallah wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com From tim at timeldermusic.com Wed Jul 12 18:56:08 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 11:56:08 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <8f0a01d9b4de$bcabdee0$36039ca0$@comcast.net> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> <00a001d9b4d7$be4ac600$3ae05200$@timeldermusic.com> <8f0a01d9b4de$bcabdee0$36039ca0$@comcast.net> Message-ID: <013701d9b4f2$84c41ab0$8e4c5010$@timeldermusic.com> It is posted on NFB's searchable website. It was in Massachusetts if my memory is correct. -----Original Message----- From: MIKE MCGLASHON Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 9:34 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Quoting: NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. End quote: Do you happen to have the cite on such case? Is it new enough to have audio argument? Please advise as you like. Mike M. Mike mcglashon Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Ph: 618 783 9331 -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Tim Elder via BlindLaw Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:44 AM To: 'Teresita Rios' ; 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? While the ADA wouldn't apply in federal court, there have been some cases dealing with blind people on state court juries. NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. -----Original Message----- From: Teresita Rios Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:22 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; tim at timeldermusic.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? Tim, what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury Duty? Best, Teresita > On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw > wrote: > > I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to state and local gun ownership policies. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, > given SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the right to keep and bare arms. > But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. > Just my thoughts. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail .com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co mcast.net From sanho817 at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 19:05:45 2023 From: sanho817 at gmail.com (Sanho Steele-Louchart) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:05:45 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Questions about law school clinic requirements In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Julie, Not at all. Would be happy to troubleshoot with you over the phone again if that would be helpful. Warmth, Sanho On 7/12/23, Julie A. Orozco via BlindLaw wrote: > Hi Sanho, > > Thank you. I believe you worked on this with me last time. You were > the expert. I had this weird lagging issue with my Legal Server that > was infuriating. Have you seen that anymore? I have a completely > different computer now, so I'm hoping this won't be an issue. > > Julie > > > On 7/12/23, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: >> Julie, >> >> I've used Legal Server for the past four years and it's 100% >> accessible using Edge, Google Chrome, NVDA, and JAWS. >> >> Agree with your Teamviewer suggestion or something similar. >> >> Warmth, >> Sanho >> >> On 7/12/23, Julie A. Orozco via BlindLaw wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I am taking a civil advocacy clinic this fall in my last semester of >>> law school. The professor and I have begun a dialogue, and I thought I >>> would reach out to ask the first of probably many questions. >>> >>> First, how is Legal Server these days. I had to use it a couple years >>> ago when working for another clinic, and it was horrible. I had to use >>> a really old version of IE to make it work. Since IE isn't even >>> supported anymore, I'm sincerely hoping there is an alternative. >>> >>> Second, in clinic we work with partners. We will be expected to share >>> our screens to file things with the court. I understand that if my >>> partner shares their screen with me, I will have no idea what's >>> happening. If I share my screen with them, they may not be able to >>> follow what I'm doing since navigating with a screen reader doesn't >>> always make sense to sighted people. My solution would be to get on >>> Team Viewer and share control of the same screen so we could both >>> participate in the process. I was also thinking I would give my >>> partner a crash course in how a screen reader works. Are there better >>> solutions for this? >>> >>> I am excited about clinic but not excited to get in the "real" >>> inaccessible world of law practice. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Julie >>> >>> -- >>> Julie A. Orozco >>> MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of >>> Law, JD Candidate 2023 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com >>> >> >> >> -- >> He/Him >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/kaybaycar%40gmail.com >> > > > -- > Julie A. Orozco > MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of > Law, JD Candidate 2023 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com > -- He/Him From kaybaycar at gmail.com Wed Jul 12 19:10:01 2023 From: kaybaycar at gmail.com (Julie A. Orozco) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 15:10:01 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <013701d9b4f2$84c41ab0$8e4c5010$@timeldermusic.com> References: <2C862933-14B1-451A-91B0-A1F0AD919851@gmail.com> <11C46635-877A-4899-A9DC-4FA29C7B0CFF@yahoo.com> <033d01d9b441$f7d95670$e78c0350$@timeldermusic.com> <00a001d9b4d7$be4ac600$3ae05200$@timeldermusic.com> <8f0a01d9b4de$bcabdee0$36039ca0$@comcast.net> <013701d9b4f2$84c41ab0$8e4c5010$@timeldermusic.com> Message-ID: Here it is: https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm19/bm1909/bm190912.htm Julie On 7/12/23, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: > It is posted on NFB's searchable website. It was in Massachusetts if my > memory is correct. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: MIKE MCGLASHON > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 9:34 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > Quoting: > NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the > fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was > upheld. > End quote: > Do you happen to have the cite on such case? > Is it new enough to have audio argument? > > > Please advise as you like. > > Mike M. > > Mike mcglashon > Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net > Ph: 618 783 9331 > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Tim Elder via > BlindLaw > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:44 AM > To: 'Teresita Rios' ; 'Blind Law Mailing List' > > Cc: tim at timeldermusic.com > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > While the ADA wouldn't apply in federal court, there have been some cases > dealing with blind people on state court juries. NFB did an amicus on a > case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person > was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Teresita Rios > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:22 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; tim at timeldermusic.com > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? > > Tim, > what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury > Duty? > > Best, > Teresita > > >> On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw >> > wrote: >> >> I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to > state and local gun ownership policies. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM >> To: Blind Law Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, >> given > SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment > treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the > people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not > apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the > right > to keep and bare arms. >> But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not > intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. >> Just my thoughts. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: >> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail > .com > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co > mcast.net > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/kaybaycar%40gmail.com > -- Julie A. Orozco MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of Law, JD Candidate 2023 From michael.mcglashon at comcast.net Wed Jul 12 19:13:44 2023 From: michael.mcglashon at comcast.net (Mike Mcglashon) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 14:13:44 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <673EA66F-44B6-425D-94F5-4B40AF799BDC@comcast.net> Disregard the previous post. I didn’t see this email until after I replied to the other one I apologize. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 12, 2023, at 2:11 PM, Julie A. Orozco via BlindLaw wrote: > > Here it is: > > https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm19/bm1909/bm190912.htm > > Julie > >> On 7/12/23, Tim Elder via BlindLaw wrote: >> It is posted on NFB's searchable website. It was in Massachusetts if my >> memory is correct. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: MIKE MCGLASHON >> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 9:34 AM >> To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> Quoting: >> NFB did an amicus on a case where the convicted defendant challenged the >> fact that a blind person was on the jury. I believe the conviction was >> upheld. >> End quote: >> Do you happen to have the cite on such case? >> Is it new enough to have audio argument? >> >> >> Please advise as you like. >> >> Mike M. >> >> Mike mcglashon >> Email: Michael.mcglashon at comcast.net >> Ph: 618 783 9331 >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Tim Elder via >> BlindLaw >> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:44 AM >> To: 'Teresita Rios' ; 'Blind Law Mailing List' >> >> Cc: tim at timeldermusic.com >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> While the ADA wouldn't apply in federal court, there have been some cases >> dealing with blind people on state court juries. NFB did an amicus on a >> case where the convicted defendant challenged the fact that a blind person >> was on the jury. I believe the conviction was upheld. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Teresita Rios >> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:22 AM >> To: Blind Law Mailing List >> Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah ; tim at timeldermusic.com >> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >> >> Tim, >> what about a challenge to the exclution of disable persons to serve in Jury >> Duty? >> >> Best, >> Teresita >> >> >>> On Jul 11, 2023, at 4:52 PM, Tim Elder via BlindLaw >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> I was mostly referring to the ADA and related state laws as applied to >> state and local gun ownership policies. >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah >>> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM >>> To: Blind Law Mailing List >>> Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? >>> >>> I was thinking that too, except I wonder if that analysis changed, >>> given >> SCOTUS's 2022 Bruen case and its emphasis on not having the 2nd Amendment >> treated as possessing second-class citizen rights. I also think that 'the >> people' includes blind people and that rational basis review would not >> apply, since strict scrutiny was held to be the wrong analysis for the >> right >> to keep and bare arms. >>> But there could be a weak argument against saying that this was not >> intended by its text and history, with which i would disagree. >>> Just my thoughts. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >>> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail >> .com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40co >> mcast.net >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/kaybaycar%40gmail.com >> > > > -- > Julie A. Orozco > MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of > Law, JD Candidate 2023 > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/michael.mcglashon%40comcast.net From seifs at umich.edu Wed Jul 12 20:09:23 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:09:23 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6 In-Reply-To: <8eed01d9b4de$64766380$2d632a80$@comcast.net> References: <8eed01d9b4de$64766380$2d632a80$@comcast.net> Message-ID: Thank you, Bad Penguin. I am also concerned about this issue. Happy to discuss/help and learn more. Sincerely, Seif From seifs at umich.edu Wed Jul 12 20:15:09 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2023 16:15:09 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <167E61B7-1895-4222-833D-6276EE7DBDD8@aol.com> References: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> <167E61B7-1895-4222-833D-6276EE7DBDD8@aol.com> Message-ID: I am unsure if DC is only a carry/use jurisdiction; it seems that, to register a firearm, one cannot be legally blind, as the registration requirements to register (and thus purchase/use?) a firearm, regardless of concealed-carry, also seem to require no blindness: "Individuals wishing to register a firearm in the District of Columbia must complete a Firearms Statement of Eligiblity Form. This statement of eligibility verifies the following requirements: [...] Not legally blind." (See 'Eligibility Requirements to Register a Firearm | mpdc ' at https://mpdc.dc.gov/node/1286876.) I really wish I had access to my own westlaw now. I agree that all barriers should be removed, with resources allocated by priority (importance) and preference (rights/opportunities worth defending by those wishing to defend). I do not think this is nonsense, but do understand that other things are [more/also] important. Luckily, I have had decent jury duty experience: I was called for jury duty twice: once where I served - Federal (and made sure to mention that visual evidence is not a deterrent when verbally described), and another time where I did not serve - state (I think the prosecutor did not want a legally-minded juror). Both times, I was somewhat offiliated with the court in question, which is a strange coincidence. I also encountered drivers' license requests: I often provide my state id, note that I am blind, and ask them to let me know if it is insufficient. There were some jobs where driving was nonessential and accommodations made; and others where driving was intigral without support and I did not feel like a good fit; and others where I might have been rejected because I could not legally drive. Warmly, Seif From jtfetter at yahoo.com Fri Jul 14 22:54:21 2023 From: jtfetter at yahoo.com (James Fetter) Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:54:21 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] JLE Symposium on Disability in Legal Education and the Legal Profession References: Message-ID: Hi all, I thought many of you would find this issue of the Journal of Legal Education of interest. It explores in depth the difficulties faced by disabled law students and attorneys, and it also explores various solutions. It came out a couple of weeks ago, despite the stated publication date of Fall 2021. I wrote one of the articles, also attached here for your convenience. Needless to say, employment discrimination remains far and away the most significant barrier to entry into, and upward mobility within, the legal profession for blind law students and attorneys. Perhaps publications such as this can slightly increase the glacial pace of change in reducing this and other artificial barriers. Best, James -- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: The Sisyphean Struggle for Secure Employment.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 81360 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rahul.bajaj1038 at gmail.com Mon Jul 17 11:54:53 2023 From: rahul.bajaj1038 at gmail.com (Rahul Bajaj) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 11:54:53 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] My conversation with judge ronald gould Message-ID: Join us in the 2nd part of the conversation, where Rahul and Husain talk to Judge Ronald M. Gould, a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. Judge Gould is affected by multiple sclerosis. As his disability has progressed over the years, so has his resilience and determination to not let his disability adversely affect his productivity and performance. In this conversation, Judge Gould talks to us about his journey to the bench, the strategies he has adopted to counteract the effects of his disability and his vision for a more disabled friendly justice system. https://open.spotify.com/episode/7grJQwYUb1n3ZcYDz6y0Ac Sent from Outlook for iOS From laurenbishop96 at icloud.com Tue Jul 18 01:36:09 2023 From: laurenbishop96 at icloud.com (Lauren Bishop) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 21:36:09 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Accommodations For Prosecution Clinic Message-ID: Hello All, I was accepted to my school’s prosecution clinic. I am planning to request the following accommodations: a reader to describe visual evidence and to assist in the courtroom with any last-minute print documents, a laptop with JAWS and a Braille display. This is only a start, and I am reaching out to my professor to learn a little bit more about the clinic, and potentially anything else I would need. What are some accommodations that you guys have found helpful working for a state attorneys office? Thanks, Lauren Sent from my iPhone From sai at fiatfiendum.org Tue Jul 18 03:02:56 2023 From: sai at fiatfiendum.org (Sai) Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2023 21:02:56 -0600 Subject: [blindLaw] Accommodations For Prosecution Clinic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Will you be doing court presentation, or just document review, research, prep, etc out of court? If in court, I'd suggest you try just sitting in on a couple random criminal cases to imagine what it would be like, what things are going on that you're not tracking (and would need some strategy for), how you'd structure notes etc so that you'd be able to be as good or better (extemporaneously), how to get a mental map of the courtroom that's as good as your map of home so you can concentrate on presentation rather than O&M, etc. If out of court, do that anyway, but think more about what things the presenting attorney would need to have immediately available to hand. Boring suggestion I know, but in my experience (not as a lawyer representing others), a few random real life examples are often more beneficial than a priori plans. And if you've been accepted to the clinic, hopefully you have access to interview the prosecutor afterwards to find out how they did something or other, so you can then think through how you would do it with more info than you'd get from just observing the performance. There's always more behind the scenes. One specific comment: visual evidence can be extremely difficult (or impossible) to adequately describe in full. Even knowing what's relevant may require a lot of expertise and context that a general reader cannot be expected to have. In court someone may refer to some details that a reader won't have thought to tell you about (or even noticed). I don't have any suggestions for how to address that other than just trusting your sighted experts, but I've no experience having to do that kind of thing fully blind. Hopefully others can give better advice. Sincerely, Sai President, Fiat Fiendum, Inc., a 501(c)(3) Sent from my mobile phone; please excuse the concision, typos, and autocorrect errors. On Mon, 17 Jul 2023, 19:37 Lauren Bishop via BlindLaw, wrote: > Hello All, > I was accepted to my school’s prosecution clinic. I am planning to request > the following accommodations: a reader to describe visual evidence and to > assist in the courtroom with any last-minute print documents, a laptop with > JAWS and a Braille display. This is only a start, and I am reaching out to > my professor to learn a little bit more about the clinic, and potentially > anything else I would need. What are some accommodations that you guys have > found helpful working for a state attorneys office? > Thanks, > Lauren > > Sent from my iPhone > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sai%40fiatfiendum.org > From donaldpfield at gmail.com Tue Jul 18 14:36:23 2023 From: donaldpfield at gmail.com (Donald Porterfield) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 07:36:23 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Accommodations For Prosecution Clinic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <29E0D924-3BC8-406D-9BCF-6DC9E6CEC539@gmail.com> Hi, I am a prosecutor in Arizona and would be more than happy to discuss the tools and strategies that I use in trial. Please feel free to contact me off the list at 520-850-2180. if and when I get some time, I will try to write everything out and put it on the list, but in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. Donald Porterfield, Nfb.ezell.presidentgmail.com 520-850-2180 Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 17, 2023, at 6:36 PM, Lauren Bishop wrote: > > Hello All, > I was accepted to my school’s prosecution clinic. I am planning to request the following accommodations: a reader to describe visual evidence and to assist in the courtroom with any last-minute print documents, a laptop with JAWS and a Braille display. This is only a start, and I am reaching out to my professor to learn a little bit more about the clinic, and potentially anything else I would need. What are some accommodations that you guys have found helpful working for a state attorneys office? > Thanks, > Lauren > > Sent from my iPhone > From kaybaycar at gmail.com Tue Jul 18 14:54:01 2023 From: kaybaycar at gmail.com (Julie A. Orozco) Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 10:54:01 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Accommodations For Prosecution Clinic In-Reply-To: <29E0D924-3BC8-406D-9BCF-6DC9E6CEC539@gmail.com> References: <29E0D924-3BC8-406D-9BCF-6DC9E6CEC539@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Lauren, Fellow clinic student here. I'll be working in my school's civil advocacy clinic though. One thing I am asking about is the software my clinic uses to track and monitor cases. I wanted to know if the software they use would be accessible with Jaws. You may also want to know if there are other assignments that might involve inaccessible applications. For example, we apparently have to video record our interviews with clients and then cut parts of the videos to show the class. Hope this helps, Julie On 7/18/23, Donald Porterfield via BlindLaw wrote: > Hi, > > I am a prosecutor in Arizona and would be more than happy to discuss the > tools and strategies that I use in trial. Please feel free to contact me off > the list at 520-850-2180. > > if and when I get some time, I will try to write everything out and put it > on the list, but in the meantime, please feel free to contact me. > > Donald Porterfield, > Nfb.ezell.presidentgmail.com > 520-850-2180 > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Jul 17, 2023, at 6:36 PM, Lauren Bishop >> wrote: >> >> Hello All, >> I was accepted to my school’s prosecution clinic. I am planning to request >> the following accommodations: a reader to describe visual evidence and to >> assist in the courtroom with any last-minute print documents, a laptop >> with JAWS and a Braille display. This is only a start, and I am reaching >> out to my professor to learn a little bit more about the clinic, and >> potentially anything else I would need. What are some accommodations that >> you guys have found helpful working for a state attorneys office? >> Thanks, >> Lauren >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/kaybaycar%40gmail.com > -- Julie A. Orozco MM Vocal Performance, 2015; American University Washington College of Law, JD Candidate 2023 From rothmanjd at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 16:53:16 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 12:53:16 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern Message-ID: <0f4801d9ba61$83fbc690$8bf353b0$@gmail.com> Hi All, The National Association of Blind Lawyers is holding an open house for current and prospective law students via Zoom on Wednesday, July 26, 2023 (Happy Birthday, ADA) from 8:00PM - 9:00PM Eastern. All are welcome. This will be an informal conversation among those who are current law students and those who are prospective law students along with those who wish to come to share advice and guidance. Members of the NABL Board will facilitate the discussion. This conversation springs from our segment at our Annual Meeting earlier this month where we heard from current law students and recent graduates. Come to get your questions answered, to network with others who are considering or attending law school, and share strategies for taking the LSAT, applying to law school, and attending law student as a blind or low vision student. All are welcome. Zoom information is below: Ronza Othman is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Current and Prospective Law Students Open House Time: Jul 26, 2023 08:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://nfb-org.zoom.us/j/96943638202 Meeting ID: 969 4363 8202 --- One tap mobile +13017158592,,96943638202# US (Washington DC) +16468769923,,96943638202# US (New York) Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want; blindness is not what holds you back From rothmanjd at gmail.com Wed Jul 19 16:55:39 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2023 12:55:39 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Current and Prospective Law Students Open House Message-ID: <0f9c01d9ba61$d8e1c8d0$8aa55a70$@gmail.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/calendar Size: 12533 bytes Desc: not available URL: From maurakutnyak at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 12:46:42 2023 From: maurakutnyak at gmail.com (Maura Kutnyak) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 08:46:42 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS Message-ID: <9D00E904-D219-4936-B68F-016683560127@gmail.com> Hi folks, Has anyone else encountered a lag in spellcheck when using jaws? I find that the editor pain is generally a bit finicky but recently, it’s gotten infuriatingly slow. This is especially upsetting for me with the bar exam next week. Does anyone know of a software fix that won’t interfere with my ability to use the materials provided by the New York board? Everything they’re giving me is formatted in word. But perhaps there is a different text editing program I could use for composing answers and editing, where the spellcheck feature is much more simple? I’m not happy to be thinking about these issues right now. I in advertently fell down this rabbit hole when my husband performed some updates that Dell proposed on my laptop, which essentially broke it. So now I’ve had to transfer to a different device where the lag actually crashed jaws once. Now, a brief rant, why exactly do blind people have to source their own helpdesk/assemble a ragtag team of IT experts, to troubleshoot these types of things? Shouldn’t the assistive tech be carefully designed so that it works with ubiquitous software such as the office sweet? Or is it the hardware that I should be railing against? Finally, I’ve already tinkered with NVDA a bit, and it seems to lag less, but it still does slow down over time. Thanks very much for any time or brain Power you have to share. Warmly, Maura From sanho817 at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 15:57:23 2023 From: sanho817 at gmail.com (Sanho Steele-Louchart) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 11:57:23 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Message-ID: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> Dear bar exam test takers: It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, Sanho From teresitarios22 at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 17:57:23 2023 From: teresitarios22 at gmail.com (Teresita Rios) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 12:57:23 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> References: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> Message-ID: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. Warmly, Teresita. > On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: > > Dear bar exam test takers: > > It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) > > I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. > > I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. > > Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, > Sanho > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com From graham.hardy at gmail.com Sat Jul 22 18:23:51 2023 From: graham.hardy at gmail.com (graham.hardy at gmail.com) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 11:23:51 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS In-Reply-To: <9D00E904-D219-4936-B68F-016683560127@gmail.com> References: <9D00E904-D219-4936-B68F-016683560127@gmail.com> Message-ID: <027901d9bcc9$aaae0540$000a0fc0$@gmail.com> I do find that in recent versions of Word the traditional spell checker, normally accessed with F7, has become incredibly inefficient for everyday use. I haven't tried it recently, so I'm not sure if that is the use case you're referring to when you say there is a lag. There are a few alternatives. One is that, in JAWS, with the navigation quick key layer enabled with JAWSKey+Z, you can press M and Shift+M to move among the spelling errors in your document. I will say that, in large documents, I've known this command to take a few seconds to find the next or previous error, which I also find irritating. Again, you might be referring to this when you say there is a lag. When you use that command to find a spelling error, the cursor is positioned at the beginning of the word detected as an error and you can usually get spelling suggestions by pressing the Applications key. The last is a word shortcut, Alt+F7. I tend to like this as it is the quickest at finding the next error. When you use this method, you will land on a menu of suggestions with various other options. Again, this is similar to but less cluttered than the user interface in the F7 editor. The nice thing is that you can press Escape once you land on an error, whereupon you are back in the main document window with the text of the error selected. I haven't investigated other word processors but you could try LibreOffice and see how that is. By way of encouragement, shortly before writing the bar exam, I installed a JAWS update which caused JAWS to stop reading in Word except with a limited set of editing keys. I had not saved the installer for the previous build and couldn't get technical support to agree to give me access to an earlier version, so I, too, had to install and use LibreOffice. Needless to say I can understand the stress of that inefficiency in the process! Graham -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 5:47 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Maura Kutnyak Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS Hi folks, Has anyone else encountered a lag in spellcheck when using jaws? I find that the editor pain is generally a bit finicky but recently, it’s gotten infuriatingly slow. This is especially upsetting for me with the bar exam next week. Does anyone know of a software fix that won’t interfere with my ability to use the materials provided by the New York board? Everything they’re giving me is formatted in word. But perhaps there is a different text editing program I could use for composing answers and editing, where the spellcheck feature is much more simple? I’m not happy to be thinking about these issues right now. I in advertently fell down this rabbit hole when my husband performed some updates that Dell proposed on my laptop, which essentially broke it. So now I’ve had to transfer to a different device where the lag actually crashed jaws once. Now, a brief rant, why exactly do blind people have to source their own helpdesk/assemble a ragtag team of IT experts, to troubleshoot these types of things? Shouldn’t the assistive tech be carefully designed so that it works with ubiquitous software such as the office sweet? Or is it the hardware that I should be railing against? Finally, I’ve already tinkered with NVDA a bit, and it seems to lag less, but it still does slow down over time. Thanks very much for any time or brain Power you have to share. Warmly, Maura _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/graham.hardy%40gmail.com From BrianUnitt at holsteinlaw.com Sat Jul 22 21:36:14 2023 From: BrianUnitt at holsteinlaw.com (Brian Unitt) Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2023 21:36:14 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS In-Reply-To: <027901d9bcc9$aaae0540$000a0fc0$@gmail.com> References: <9D00E904-D219-4936-B68F-016683560127@gmail.com> <027901d9bcc9$aaae0540$000a0fc0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: I just tested my system and don't get any lag. I also tried Graham's alternatives which I didn't know about, and they work great as well. You probably know already that it is very important to be using the 365 version of Word to get best results with JAWS. Best of luck. Brian C. Unitt Certified Specialist in Appellate Law By the State Bar of California Law Office of Brian C. Unitt 6185 Magnolia Ave, PMB 40 Riverside, CA 92506 P: 951-682-7030 E: brianunitt at holsteinlaw.com NOTICE:  This communication is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain attorney/client information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply email or by telephone and immediately delete this communication and all its attachments. Confidentiality Disclaimer This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Graham Hardy via BlindLaw Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:24 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: graham.hardy at gmail.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS I do find that in recent versions of Word the traditional spell checker, normally accessed with F7, has become incredibly inefficient for everyday use. I haven't tried it recently, so I'm not sure if that is the use case you're referring to when you say there is a lag. There are a few alternatives. One is that, in JAWS, with the navigation quick key layer enabled with JAWSKey+Z, you can press M and Shift+M to move among the spelling errors in your document. I will say that, in large documents, I've known this command to take a few seconds to find the next or previous error, which I also find irritating. Again, you might be referring to this when you say there is a lag. When you use that command to find a spelling error, the cursor is positioned at the beginning of the word detected as an error and you can usually get spelling suggestions by pressing the Applications key. The last is a word shortcut, Alt+F7. I tend to like this as it is the quickest at finding the next error. When you use this method, you will land on a menu of suggestions with various other options. Again, this is similar to but less cluttered than the user interface in the F7 editor. The nice thing is that you can press Escape once you land on an error, whereupon you are back in the main document window with the text of the error selected. I haven't investigated other word processors but you could try LibreOffice and see how that is. By way of encouragement, shortly before writing the bar exam, I installed a JAWS update which caused JAWS to stop reading in Word except with a limited set of editing keys. I had not saved the installer for the previous build and couldn't get technical support to agree to give me access to an earlier version, so I, too, had to install and use LibreOffice. Needless to say I can understand the stress of that inefficiency in the process! Graham -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 5:47 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Maura Kutnyak Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS Hi folks, Has anyone else encountered a lag in spellcheck when using jaws? I find that the editor pain is generally a bit finicky but recently, it’s gotten infuriatingly slow. This is especially upsetting for me with the bar exam next week. Does anyone know of a software fix that won’t interfere with my ability to use the materials provided by the New York board? Everything they’re giving me is formatted in word. But perhaps there is a different text editing program I could use for composing answers and editing, where the spellcheck feature is much more simple? I’m not happy to be thinking about these issues right now. I in advertently fell down this rabbit hole when my husband performed some updates that Dell proposed on my laptop, which essentially broke it. So now I’ve had to transfer to a different device where the lag actually crashed jaws once. Now, a brief rant, why exactly do blind people have to source their own helpdesk/assemble a ragtag team of IT experts, to troubleshoot these types of things? Shouldn’t the assistive tech be carefully designed so that it works with ubiquitous software such as the office sweet? Or is it the hardware that I should be railing against? Finally, I’ve already tinkered with NVDA a bit, and it seems to lag less, but it still does slow down over time. Thanks very much for any time or brain Power you have to share. Warmly, Maura _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/graham.hardy%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/brianunitt%40holsteinlaw.com From maurakutnyak at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 12:25:56 2023 From: maurakutnyak at gmail.com (Maura Kutnyak) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 08:25:56 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4F68BA5A-3676-4C33-AE9B-DE906A6DC4A3@gmail.com> Thanks Brian and Graham! I think alt-f7 will work well. I will likely turn grammar check off for more efficiency. Warmly, Maura > On Jul 22, 2023, at 5:37 PM, Brian Unitt via BlindLaw wrote: > > I just tested my system and don't get any lag. I also tried Graham's alternatives which I didn't know about, and they work great as well. You probably know already that it is very important to be using the 365 version of Word to get best results with JAWS. Best of luck. > > Brian C. Unitt > Certified Specialist in Appellate Law > By the State Bar of California > > Law Office of Brian C. Unitt > 6185 Magnolia Ave, PMB 40 > Riverside, CA 92506 > P: 951-682-7030 > E: brianunitt at holsteinlaw.com > > NOTICE: This communication is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain attorney/client information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this communication is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by reply email or by telephone and immediately delete this communication and all its attachments. > > Confidentiality Disclaimer > This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. > If you are not the author's intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please delete all copies, both electronic and printed, and contact the author immediately > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Graham Hardy via BlindLaw > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:24 AM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Cc: graham.hardy at gmail.com > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS > > I do find that in recent versions of Word the traditional spell checker, normally accessed with F7, has become incredibly inefficient for everyday use. I haven't tried it recently, so I'm not sure if that is the use case you're referring to when you say there is a lag. There are a few alternatives. One is that, in JAWS, with the navigation quick key layer enabled with JAWSKey+Z, you can press M and Shift+M to move among the spelling errors in your document. I will say that, in large documents, I've known this command to take a few seconds to find the next or previous error, which I also find irritating. Again, you might be referring to this when you say there is a lag. When you use that command to find a spelling error, the cursor is positioned at the beginning of the word detected as an error and you can usually get spelling suggestions by pressing the Applications key. The last is a word shortcut, Alt+F7. I tend to like this as it is the quickest at finding the next error. When you use this method, you will land on a menu of suggestions with various other options. Again, this is similar to but less cluttered than the user interface in the F7 editor. The nice thing is that you can press Escape once you land on an error, whereupon you are back in the main document window with the text of the error selected. > > I haven't investigated other word processors but you could try LibreOffice and see how that is. > > By way of encouragement, shortly before writing the bar exam, I installed a JAWS update which caused JAWS to stop reading in Word except with a limited set of editing keys. I had not saved the installer for the previous build and couldn't get technical support to agree to give me access to an earlier version, so I, too, had to install and use LibreOffice. Needless to say I can understand the stress of that inefficiency in the process! > > Graham > > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 5:47 AM > To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org > Cc: Maura Kutnyak > Subject: [blindLaw] Terrible lag when using spellcheck in word with JAWS > > Hi folks, > > Has anyone else encountered a lag in spellcheck when using jaws? I find that the editor pain is generally a bit finicky but recently, it’s gotten infuriatingly slow. This is especially upsetting for me with the bar exam next week. > > Does anyone know of a software fix that won’t interfere with my ability to use the materials provided by the New York board? Everything they’re giving me is formatted in word. But perhaps there is a different text editing program I could use for composing answers and editing, where the spellcheck feature is much more simple? > > I’m not happy to be thinking about these issues right now. I in advertently fell down this rabbit hole when my husband performed some updates that Dell proposed on my laptop, which essentially broke it. So now I’ve had to transfer to a different device where the lag actually crashed jaws once. > > Now, a brief rant, why exactly do blind people have to source their own helpdesk/assemble a ragtag team of IT experts, to troubleshoot these types of things? Shouldn’t the assistive tech be carefully designed so that it works with ubiquitous software such as the office sweet? Or is it the hardware that I should be railing against? > > Finally, I’ve already tinkered with NVDA a bit, and it seems to lag less, but it still does slow down over time. > > Thanks very much for any time or brain Power you have to share. > > Warmly, > > Maura > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/graham.hardy%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/brianunitt%40holsteinlaw.com > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com From maurakutnyak at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 13:19:29 2023 From: maurakutnyak at gmail.com (Maura Kutnyak) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 09:19:29 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> References: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> Message-ID: <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> Yes, thank you Sanho for being there. I wish you endurance, satisfaction, and success Teresita! I’m with you in spirit > On Jul 22, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Teresita Rios via BlindLaw wrote: > > Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 > > Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. > > Warmly, > Teresita. > >> On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Dear bar exam test takers: >> >> It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) >> >> I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. >> >> I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. >> >> Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, >> Sanho >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com From lmendez716 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 16:06:58 2023 From: lmendez716 at gmail.com (lmendez716 at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:06:58 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> References: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <013d01d9bd7f$b620a7f0$2261f7d0$@gmail.com> Good afternoon to all, but especially to those of you who are scheduled to take the bar exam in the coming weeks: I wish you all the best and to each of you a passing grade. I took my exam 41 years ago this week. The test and its aftermath remain as vivid a memory today as if I had taken it last week. Embrace the experience as the challenge that it is and regardless of the outcome take pride and joy in all that you have accomplished. To my friend and co-worker from Buffalo, You've got this! Luis -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:19 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Maura Kutnyak Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Yes, thank you Sanho for being there. I wish you endurance, satisfaction, and success Teresita! I’m with you in spirit > On Jul 22, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Teresita Rios via BlindLaw wrote: > > Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 > > Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. > > Warmly, > Teresita. > >> On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Dear bar exam test takers: >> >> It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) >> >> I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. >> >> I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. >> >> Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, >> Sanho >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com From lmendez716 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 16:08:17 2023 From: lmendez716 at gmail.com (lmendez716 at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:08:17 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> References: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <013e01d9bd7f$e50e0da0$af2a28e0$@gmail.com> Good afternoon to all, but especially to those of you who are scheduled to take the bar exam in the coming weeks: I wish you all the best and to each of you a passing grade. I took my exam 41 years ago this week. The test and its aftermath remain as vivid a memory today as if I had taken it last week. Embrace the experience as the challenge that it is and regardless of the outcome take pride and joy in all that you have accomplished. To my friend and co-worker from Buffalo, You've got this! Luis -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:19 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Maura Kutnyak Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Yes, thank you Sanho for being there. I wish you endurance, satisfaction, and success Teresita! I’m with you in spirit > On Jul 22, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Teresita Rios via BlindLaw wrote: > > Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 > > Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. > > Warmly, > Teresita. > >> On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Dear bar exam test takers: >> >> It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) >> >> I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. >> >> I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. >> >> Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, >> Sanho >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com From rthomas48 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 19:08:22 2023 From: rthomas48 at gmail.com (Roderick Thomas) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 15:08:22 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> References: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> Message-ID: <75FDBCE3-266C-493D-BA36-0D1D97E14CF3@gmail.com> Thank you very much for your kind and wonderful post. It was very encouraging. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 22, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: > > Dear bar exam test takers: > > It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) > > I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. > > I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. > > Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, > Sanho > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas48%40gmail.com From davant1958 at gmail.com Sun Jul 23 21:30:27 2023 From: davant1958 at gmail.com (davant1958 at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 16:30:27 -0500 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <013e01d9bd7f$e50e0da0$af2a28e0$@gmail.com> References: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> <013e01d9bd7f$e50e0da0$af2a28e0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <008001d9bdac$e6a41d80$b3ec5880$@gmail.com> Sanho, His is a very thoughtful message to our future colleagues. I wish someone would have had the same message for me all those many years ago. Good luck to everyone taking the bar this week. Once it is over, you can relax, and of course once you pass, you can celebrate. -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Luis A. Mendez via BlindLaw Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 11:08 AM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Cc: lmendez716 at gmail.com Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Good afternoon to all, but especially to those of you who are scheduled to take the bar exam in the coming weeks: I wish you all the best and to each of you a passing grade. I took my exam 41 years ago this week. The test and its aftermath remain as vivid a memory today as if I had taken it last week. Embrace the experience as the challenge that it is and regardless of the outcome take pride and joy in all that you have accomplished. To my friend and co-worker from Buffalo, You've got this! Luis -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:19 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Maura Kutnyak Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Yes, thank you Sanho for being there. I wish you endurance, satisfaction, and success Teresita! I’m with you in spirit > On Jul 22, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Teresita Rios via BlindLaw wrote: > > Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 > > Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. > > Warmly, > Teresita. > >> On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Dear bar exam test takers: >> >> It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) >> >> I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. >> >> I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. >> >> Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, >> Sanho >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/lmendez716%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/davant1958%40gmail.com From rothmanjd at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 00:51:53 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:51:53 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <75FDBCE3-266C-493D-BA36-0D1D97E14CF3@gmail.com> References: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> <75FDBCE3-266C-493D-BA36-0D1D97E14CF3@gmail.com> Message-ID: <01f001d9bdc9$0a5689e0$1f039da0$@gmail.com> Break a leg - you'll do great! Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Roderick Thomas via BlindLaw Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 3:08 PM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org; Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Roderick Thomas Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Thank you very much for your kind and wonderful post. It was very encouraging. Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 22, 2023, at 11:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: > > Dear bar exam test takers: > > It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) > > I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. > > I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. > > Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, > Sanho > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rthomas48%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com From rothmanjd at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 00:53:46 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:53:46 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> References: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> Message-ID: <025401d9bdc9$4dc67c30$e9537490$@gmail.com> I have faith in you - be sure to eat, sleep, and trust yourself. Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Teresita Rios via BlindLaw Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 1:57 PM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Teresita Rios Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. Warmly, Teresita. > On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: > > Dear bar exam test takers: > > It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) > > I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. > > I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. > > Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, > Sanho > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com From rothmanjd at gmail.com Mon Jul 24 00:55:41 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2023 20:55:41 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> References: <6CCC9221-FDCD-44A7-8CF1-BFDC06E22056@gmail.com> Message-ID: <026301d9bdc9$92007540$b6015fc0$@gmail.com> I want to echo Sanho's sentiments. You've been preparing for this for years, and you're so much more ready than you think you are. Please lean on us if you need a shoulder or an ear - you got this! Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:57 AM To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org Cc: Sanho Steele-Louchart Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Dear bar exam test takers: It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, Sanho _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/rothmanjd%40gmail.com From marshall at blindlawyers.org Mon Jul 24 12:31:28 2023 From: marshall at blindlawyers.org (Scott Marshall) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 12:31:28 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> References: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> Message-ID: Congratulations to all those sitting for the bar exam. Sanho's experience was mine as well. In 1977, when I took the N.Y. bar exam, I was convinced that I failed it. Fortunately, I passed it the first time around. The unspoken condition of my employment with a large Buffalo firm was that passing the bar exam was a requirement. I don't know how the bar provides results nowadays, but back then well before the Internet,, you needed to have a friend in New York City who would review the early, late night edition of the New York Times each day in December until the list of those who passed the bar exam was published. So much fun! Good luck everyone! Sorry I won't be on the NABL call on the 26th for new or potential law students, since I have a prior commitment to do a 33rd anniversary ADA commemoration at the same time. Best: Scott -----Original Message----- From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via BlindLaw Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:19 AM To: Blind Law Mailing List Cc: Maura Kutnyak Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers Yes, thank you Sanho for being there. I wish you endurance, satisfaction, and success Teresita! I’m with you in spirit > On Jul 22, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Teresita Rios via BlindLaw wrote: > > Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 > > Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my all. See you on the other side. > > Warmly, > Teresita. > >> On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw wrote: >> >> Dear bar exam test takers: >> >> It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) >> >> I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the country. >> >> I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is 918-800-9997. >> >> Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, >> Sanho >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com _______________________________________________ BlindLaw mailing list BlindLaw at nfbnet.org http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for BlindLaw: http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/marshall%40blindlawyers.org From seifs at umich.edu Mon Jul 24 14:47:46 2023 From: seifs at umich.edu (Seif-Eldeen Saqallah) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:47:46 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind? In-Reply-To: <167E61B7-1895-4222-833D-6276EE7DBDD8@aol.com> References: <425F8C73-51F1-405B-898B-06FDF6B93230@aol.com> <7122776C-86E9-4CE4-941D-DA2F4CDBDBE7@aol.com> <00a201d9b4d9$93015020$b903f060$@timeldermusic.com> <167E61B7-1895-4222-833D-6276EE7DBDD8@aol.com> Message-ID: I emailed mpd at dc.gov; I guess I found a denying jurisdiction, for both registration and carrying, from a DC Police Lieutenant (See below redacted email). Good skill and strength to all bar takers. Message: [...] Date: Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 9:25 AM [...] Seif Saqallah, The District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department is required to enforce all of the qualifications for firearm registration, which include finding that a person “[i]s not blind, as defined in § 7-1009(1),” under D.C. Code § 7-2502.03(a)(11). Concealed pistol license (CPL) applicants must meet all of the firearm registration requirements, register a handgun in DC, and meet the standard of suitability to be issued a DC CPL. The following regulations provide additional information regarding the vision criteria: 24 DCMR § 2310.4: “To establish that the applicant complies with the vision requirements of § 203(a)(11) of the Act, the applicant shall certify in writing, on a form provided by the Firearms Registration Section, that the applicant's vision is not impaired more than 20/200 visual acuity in the better eye and for whom vision cannot be improved to better than 20/200, or who has loss of vision due wholly or in part to impairment of field of vision or to other factors which affect the usefulness of vision to a like degree.” 24 DCMR § 2310.5: “If the Firearms Registration Section determines there are reasonable grounds to believe that the certification provided in § 2310.4 is not accurate, the Firearms Registration Section may require the applicant to obtain a certification from a licensed optometrist that the applicant meets the vision requirement of § 203(a)(11) of the Act.” V/R, [...] Lieutenant, Records Division Metropolitan Police Department [...] On 7/12/23, Al Elia wrote: > Agreed, though that is an employment, not a licensing issue. If there are, > in fact, still jurisdictions that disqualify disabled persons from jury > service, that might bea good place to start. If there are licensing > restrictions based on disability for things other than firearms and > automobiles, I’d rather start there. I’m just saying that I’d consider a > firearm case if one was brought to me. Since the DC law is a carry and use > permit, rather than a purchase/ownership/carry license, I wouldn’t take a > case there. From tim at timeldermusic.com Mon Jul 24 16:35:35 2023 From: tim at timeldermusic.com (tim at timeldermusic.com) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 09:35:35 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] FW: CA State Bar to Consider Partly Reviving Remote Exam for Non-TA Applicants Only? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <043f01d9be4c$e0bd6200$a2382600$@timeldermusic.com> Folks planning to take the California bar exam or who have a connection to the jurisdiction might consider offering supporting comments to the below. I find it troubling that blind applicants who need testing accommodations wouldn’t be able to get the same remote access to the bar exam as others. I haven’t done a deep dive into the below to understand the scope of the proposed restrictions. From: Benjamin Kohn Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 5:14 PM To: Timothy Elder Subject: Re: CA State Bar to Consider Partly Reviving Remote Exam for Non-TA Applicants Only? Hi again, An update: 1. The State Bar's deadline for written public comment on the sufficiency of the amendments made to the original TA rules revision proposal we mustered overwhelming comments opposing in January is now imminent and due on 7/31. To increase the burden of making comment and recruiting a coalition, and to make it more difficult for masses to sign onto templates from other peoples' comment, the State Bar also required that each component of the proposal be addressed in separate letters, separately uploaded with the right file names, with a distinct questionnaire on the submission. I can't stress strongly enough how bad the optics are going to be if after the showing we mustered last time If I'm nearly the only one still is commenting that the amendments made still do not remedy most (or the worst) of the discriminatory aspects of the State Bar's system, or that the Working Group's reasons for rejecting our last round of comments doesn't stand up to scrutiny. That all but guarantees the CBE and Board will let staff proceed on only those amendments, and spin the PR as if they voluntarily resolved all the problems we've been complaining about. If you can, please try to submit a comment before 7/31? Drafts of what I plan to submit are at: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/12WjU7Qll7Pl5ywIf7Qmqmdq6dHCFwg2E?usp=share_link 2. The State Bar has opened, with the same 7/31 deadline, a separate webform to collect public comments on their plan. to cut costs, including by returning permanently to remote testing for the essay parts of the exam, but continuing the same Forced In-Person Policy for TA applicants to deprive them of the standard benefits nondisabled applicants get from remote, as they did during Covid (submission instructions in the same drive). Please try to comment on tha too if you can. Thanks, Benjamin Kohn On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:56 AM Benjamin Kohn > wrote: They are proposing at least one "cost cutting" option that would make remote testing a standard condition again for the parts of the exam not involving the NCBE. When they had remote testing as a standard condition (if for the whole exam) during the October 2020-July 2021 exams, they had a similar policy and practice to the one you mentioned in New York, which I was among the victims of. The implication would be that if they made remote testing standard, they would reimpose that same policy and practice of requiring disabled applicants whose accommodations would be more inconvenient to securely provide remotely to test in-person, even though they could have been accommodated remotely with slightly more burdensome alternative exam security methods. The MBE would still be in-person for everyone, and the whole thing would be for some disabled applicants. The change would be permanent, not an emergency mitigation. They make the in-person MBE (and in-person essays for those who they won't accommodate remote) even more disproportionately burdensome on ALL disabled applicants receiving testing accommodations, though, by adding the modification that only ONE testing accommodations site will be offered at the State Bar's office (the one they choose). ALL TA applicants then would have to travel to the location of that office from everywhere in the State, which for some will be hundreds of miles (depending how close they happen to live to the State Bar's chosen office), to take the exam with accommodations. In contrast, nondisabled applicants will continue to be offered multiple test site options at registration, including options in both Northern and Southern California, another facially discriminatory situation that's brand new and was not at issue in 2020-2021. No, the written comment opportunity in my other email relates to the notice-and-comment rulemaking they're doing on the procedural rules governing administrative adjudication of TA requests and the substantive criteria for what should be granted, many of which violate Title II. This is a separate "cost-cutting" initiative agendized for discussion today and decision on 6/28. It doesn't have to go through rule making procedures. That said, public comment can be made for the meeting on Wednesday on the remote issue. You would need to email CBE at calbar.ca.gov by the end of Monday to submit it in writing, or you could do so via Zoom around noon on 6/28. Thanks, Benjamin Kohn On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 9:15 AM Timothy Elder > wrote: They are offering remote access to others while requiring in person for all accommodated examinees? This came up in New York during the pandemic and was easily resolved. Does the written comment opportunity that you linked to address this recent remote access issue? Timothy Elder Attorney TRE Legal Practice 1155 Market Street, Tenth Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 873-9199 Fax: (415) 952-9898 E-mail: telder at trelegal.com www.trelegal.com Twitter: @trelegal Please consider the environment before printing this email. Confidentiality Notice This e-mail may contain confidential information that may also be legally privileged and that is intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient or an authorized agent of the recipient, please be advised that any dissemination or copying of this e-mail, or taking of any action in reliance on the information contained herein, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by use of the Reply button, and then delete the e-mail from your system. Thank you! From: Benjamin Kohn > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2023 11:18 AM Subject: CA State Bar to Consider Partly Reviving Remote Exam for Non-TA Applicants Only? Hello, The CA State Bar posted this presentation for discussion at tomorrow's CBE meeting pertaining to cost-cutting initiatives for the California Bar Exam starting 2/2024: https://board.calbar.ca.gov/docs/agendaItem/Public/agendaitem1000031115.pdf It appears to me that they're proposing permanently changing the essay portions of the exam not licensed from the NCBE to be remote as a standard condition. They also, in the same slide, suggest that Testing Accommodation applicants will be assigned to a single in-person site (seemingly for both essay and MBE), which they propose should change from hotels to one of the State Bar's offices. In 2020-2021, when remote exams were also standard conditions for nondisabled applicants, the State Bar required many of the TA applicants to test in-person, because certain accommodations would have required nonstandard examination security methods (and thus slightly higher financial/staff resources) to provide them the same levels of assurances against opportunity to cheat. It appears to me they would like to resume the practice, permanently this time, but even worse, increase the added burden of in-person testing by making only one site available statewide for applicants with accommodations instead of the many hotel options in each region currently offered. This would mean that most disabled applicants would have to not only test in-person the whole time when more than half would be at-home for everyone else, but also that many would have to travel much larger distances (for some, the opposite end of the State) to take the exam if they didn't happen to live near whichever of the State Bar's offices it selected to host TA applicants. This proposal will be introduced at the 6/23 CBE meeting and next steps for action will be discussed and deliberated at another CBE meeting 6/28. Public comment can be made via Zoom at either or both: 6/23/2023 CBE Meeting (9 am PT): https://calbar.zoom.us/j/97196353546 6/28/2023 CBE Meeting (12 pm PT): https://calbar.zoom.us/j/92765434604 I'd also like to remind everyone that public comment is again being solicited regarding the State Bar's TA Rules Revision. Even those who submitted public comment December 2022-January 2023 should update and resubmit. Otherwise, State Bar Staff will say their first round of amendments adequately addressed the concerns raised in the overwhelming public comments we mustered last December-January, when those amendments (while better than the last proposal) did not fix the worst aspect of their discriminatory procedural rules. We need to make clear that the same overwhelming coalition still feels unsatisfied by the revised proposal in the second public comment period, and any more that follow as they make incremental amendments to see how little they can get away with, and forestall them completing on the current proposal and then claiming they addressed all the problems people have been having in their PR messaging and litigation responses. In particular, 2 weeks initial petition decision turnaround is needed instead of 60+ days even if the other reforms fail to free up enough staff capacity to do so without hiring more staff, and so shouldn’t be delayed years for that proposed experiment; applicants should get at least 30 days to appeal if they petition at least 2 months before the exam; no accommodation requests should categorically be “not offered” for individualized consideration or require attestation of “exceptional need” rather than what best ensures a level playing field, unless the State Bar has demonstrated such accommodations to constitute fundamental alteration or undue burden; applicants should have the right to a hearing on denied requests if they appeal and that appeal can’t be granted on the papers, just like applicants who they’re considering denying a moral character finding on, because it implicates the liberty interest in pursuing a chosen profession just as much as that does for disabled applicants; etc. Please submit at: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/About-Us/Our-Mission/Protecting-the-Public/Public-Comment/Public-Comment-Archives/2023-Public-Comment/Revised-Proposed-Amendments-to-the-Rules-of-the-State-Bar-Pertaining-to-Testing-Accommodations Thanks, Benjamin Kohn DONATE: The DRBA is a valuable resource to its members with related expenses for management, web and listserv services. PLEASE DONATE TODAY. Send a check payable to “Burton Blatt Institute” to: Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University c/o William Sparkes, 950 Irving Avenue Dineen Hall Suite 446, Syracuse, New York 13244-2130 and indicate “DRBA” on the memo line. REMINDER: The DRBA listserv is intended to facilitate open discussion and sharing of ideas. Members need to feel confident that their discussions will not be distributed beyond the group unnecessarily. PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE SENDER(S) BEFORE FORWARDING ANY LISTSERV DISCUSSIONS BEYOND THE DRBA GROUP. From sofiagallo13 at gmail.com Wed Jul 26 05:35:23 2023 From: sofiagallo13 at gmail.com (Sofia Gallo) Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2023 22:35:23 -0700 Subject: [blindLaw] Do you work for a law firm or corporation and use a screen reader? Message-ID: Hi All, Thanks for letting me join this list! As a quick introduction, I studied politics in college and now work as a researcher in tech. I'm reaching out because I'm currently exploring next steps in my career. If you've ever worked for a corporation or law firm, would you be willing to do a quick informational interview with me? This would be especially helpful if you use a screen reader as well (as opposed to just magnification). Your time would be very much appreciated. Thank you so much for considering! Sofia Sofia Gallo 917-767-4528 LinkedIn From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Jul 26 15:18:10 2023 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 15:18:10 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] ADA Title III Website, Mobile App, and Kiosk Litigation: A Legal Update from the Judicial Battlefront In-Reply-To: References: <20230725155954.6612.209906322.swift@lawpracticecle.activehosted.com> Message-ID: Thought this might be of interest -----Original Message----- From: lawpracticecle.activehosted.com at s9.csa1.acemsa5.com On Behalf Of LawPracticeCLE Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 8:24 AM Subject: ADA Title III Website, Mobile App, and Kiosk Litigation: A Legal Update from the Judicial Battlefront Register Now for Live or On-Demand! ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ ‌ LP365 Unlimited Live Webinars On-Demand Courses ADA Title III Website, Mobile App, and Kiosk Litigation: A Legal Update from the Judicial Battlefront August 14, 2023 2:00 pm – 3:00 pm Eastern 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm Central 12:00 pm – 1:00 pm Mountain 11:00 am – 12:00 pm Pacific Register Now Course Description Websites, mobile apps, and self-service kiosks are everywhere, but many of them cannot be independently used by people with disabilities, especially the blind. This has led to a tsunami of lawsuits under Title III of the ADA and state laws such as the Unruh Act. This course will explain the fundamentals of accessible digital technology and address the legal obligations of businesses to provide accessible public facing technology under Title III of the ADA and similar statutes. As those legal obligations are constantly evolving with new court decisions and pronouncements by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), this course will discuss the current state of the law as well as the DOJ’s enforcement activities. Syllabus 1. Websites and Mobile Apps - The regulatory landscape - The Legal Landscape - Defense/Risk Mitigation Strategies 2. Self-service kiosks - The regulatory landscape - The Legal Landscape - Defense/Risk Mitigation Strategies 1 General CLE Credit Instructor: Minh N. Vu, Esq. Minh is a partner in the Washington D.C. office of Seyfarth Shaw LLP and the leader of the firm's ADA Title III Specialty Team. Her nationwide practice focuses exclusively on matters arising under the ADA, the Fair Housing Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and similar federal and state laws that prohibit discrimination by public accommodations and housing providers against people with disabilities. Minh is ADA counsel for the American Hotel & Lodging Association as well as many of the country's top hospitality, banking, higher education, health care, and retail businesses. Minh has extensive experience in representing businesses under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and state agencies. She has also handled many hundreds of disability access single plaintiff and class action lawsuits concerning every conceivable aspect of the ADA, including websites, mobile apps, kiosks, physical facilities, service animals, effective communication, and other operational issues. Minh is the primary author and editor for the ADA Title III News and Insights blog and is the author of the "ADA Guide for Lodging Owners and Operators" published by the AH&LA in 2012. Unable to attend live? If you are unavailable to view the course at the scheduled time, you can participate in the Self-Study Course through our On-Demand System. The Self-Study Course is available 48 hours after the original live webinar. Live Webinars On-Demand Courses *Disclaimer: LawPracticeCLE LLC offers Continuing Legal Education (CLE) courses nationwide. While we endeavor to seek course accreditation, it is the individual attorney's ultimate responsibility to determine CLE credit eligibility. Please note that certain states may have exclusions or limitations on CLE credit applicability. We urge attorneys to review their state's rules and regulations for CLE credits and regularly consult their state bar association for updates. For further details and access to our state rules map, visit: https://lawpracticecle.com/current-state-rules/ . LawPracticeCLE 11161 E State Road 70 #110-213 Lakewood Ranch, Florida 34202 United States Unsubscribe From Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov Wed Jul 26 19:20:21 2023 From: Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov (Nightingale, Noel) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 19:20:21 +0000 Subject: [blindLaw] Updated EEOC Resource About the ADA and Individuals with Visual Disabilities at Work In-Reply-To: <16817006.246679@updates.eeoc.gov> References: <16817006.246679@updates.eeoc.gov> Message-ID: This may be of interest to some of you. From: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 12:02 PM Subject: Updated EEOC Resource About the ADA and Individuals with Visual Disabilities at Work Having trouble viewing this email? View it as a Web page. [eeoc banner] July 26, 2023 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Updated EEOC Resource About the ADA and Individuals with Visual Disabilities at Work WASHINGTON – The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today released an updated technical assistance document, “Visual Disabilities in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act,” explaining how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to job applicants and employees with visual disabilities. The document outlines when an employer may ask an applicant or employee questions about their vision, how an employer should treat voluntary disclosures about visual disabilities, and what types of reasonable accommodations those with visual disabilities may need in the workplace. The updated document highlights new technologies for reasonable accommodation, many of which are free or low-cost, and describes how using artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms to make employment decisions can impact individuals with visual disabilities. The document addresses how an employer should handle safety concerns about applicants and employees with visual disabilities and how an employer can ensure that no employee is harassed because of a visual disability. “The ADA became law 33 years ago today and continues to provide vital protections for workers, including those with visual disabilities,” said EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows. “Providing reasonable accommodations is an employer’s responsibility. Workers who have vision impairments, including limited or low vision, should be provided the resources needed to succeed. This document will provide employers the guidance to do so.” Many individuals who are blind, visually impaired, or have other vision-related conditions can perform successfully on the job and should not be denied opportunities because of stereotypical and generalized negative assumptions. The document also discusses harassment and retaliation. Recent EEOC news releases about individuals who are blind or have vision impairments or other vision-related conditions and sought reasonable accommodations as applicants or employees are available in the EEOC’s newsroom. More information about disability discrimination is available on EEOC’s disability discrimination landing page: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources. For a resource on workplace accommodations, visit https://askjan.org/. The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at www.eeoc.gov. Stay connected with the latest EEOC news by subscribing to our email updates. ### ________________________________ ________________________________ [EEOC website] U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 131 M St. NE, Washington, D.C. 20507 www.eeoc.gov | info at eeoc.gov 800-669-4000 | 844-234-5122 (ASL Videophone) [Facebook] [Twitter] [LinkedIn] [Youtube] [Instagram] [RSS Feed] [Govdelivery] ________________________________ Subscriber Services: Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe All | Help ________________________________ This email was sent to NOEL.NIGHTINGALE at ED.GOV using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · 131 M Street, NE · Washington, DC 20507 [GovDelivery logo] From rothmanjd at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 00:06:22 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:06:22 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern In-Reply-To: <0f4801d9ba61$83fbc690$8bf353b0$@gmail.com> References: <0f4801d9ba61$83fbc690$8bf353b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: <04ef01d9c01e$2d86c860$88945920$@gmail.com> Reminder about this Open House tonight at 8PM Eastern. Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers From: rothmanjd at gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 12:53 PM To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' Subject: Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern Hi All, The National Association of Blind Lawyers is holding an open house for current and prospective law students via Zoom on Wednesday, July 26, 2023 (Happy Birthday, ADA) from 8:00PM - 9:00PM Eastern. All are welcome. This will be an informal conversation among those who are current law students and those who are prospective law students along with those who wish to come to share advice and guidance. Members of the NABL Board will facilitate the discussion. This conversation springs from our segment at our Annual Meeting earlier this month where we heard from current law students and recent graduates. Come to get your questions answered, to network with others who are considering or attending law school, and share strategies for taking the LSAT, applying to law school, and attending law student as a blind or low vision student. All are welcome. Zoom information is below: Ronza Othman is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Current and Prospective Law Students Open House Time: Jul 26, 2023 08:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://nfb-org.zoom.us/j/96943638202 Meeting ID: 969 4363 8202 --- One tap mobile +13017158592,,96943638202# US (Washington DC) +16468769923,,96943638202# US (New York) Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want; blindness is not what holds you back From rothmanjd at gmail.com Thu Jul 27 01:14:39 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (rothmanjd at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2023 21:14:39 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Testing for Garret Mooney Only Message-ID: <075801d9c027$b7a76a00$26f63e00$@gmail.com> All, I am testing this to troubleshoot for Garret Mooney's email account. The code phrase is upside down ice cream. Please no one else respond. Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Pronouns: she, her, hers The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland knows that blindness is not the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want; blindness is not what holds you back From ces2266 at columbia.edu Fri Jul 28 04:49:17 2023 From: ces2266 at columbia.edu (Caleb E. Smith) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 00:49:17 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern In-Reply-To: <04ef01d9c01e$2d86c860$88945920$@gmail.com> References: <0f4801d9ba61$83fbc690$8bf353b0$@gmail.com> <04ef01d9c01e$2d86c860$88945920$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hey. It was so good to see you in my first ever NFB convention. I’m sure you’re getting this a lot. but I am happy to mentor incoming current or aspiring law students. I graduated from law school last May and I’ve been working at a firm here in New York since. Caleb On Wed, Jul 26, 2023 at 8:07 PM Ronza Othman via BlindLaw < blindlaw at nfbnet.org> wrote: > Reminder about this Open House tonight at 8PM Eastern. > > > > Ronza Othman, President > > National Federation of the Blind of Maryland > > 443-426-4110 > > Pronouns: she, her, hers > > > > From: rothmanjd at gmail.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 12:53 PM > To: 'Blind Law Mailing List' > Subject: Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 > 8PM Eastern > > > > Hi All, > > The National Association of Blind Lawyers is holding an open house for > current and prospective law students via Zoom on Wednesday, July 26, 2023 > (Happy Birthday, ADA) from 8:00PM - 9:00PM Eastern. All are welcome. This > will be an informal conversation among those who are current law students > and those who are prospective law students along with those who wish to > come > to share advice and guidance. Members of the NABL Board will facilitate > the > discussion. This conversation springs from our segment at our Annual > Meeting earlier this month where we heard from current law students and > recent graduates. Come to get your questions answered, to network with > others who are considering or attending law school, and share strategies > for > taking the LSAT, applying to law school, and attending law student as a > blind or low vision student. All are welcome. > > > > > > Zoom information is below: > > > > Ronza Othman is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. > > > > Topic: Current and Prospective Law Students Open House > > Time: Jul 26, 2023 08:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) > > > > Join Zoom Meeting > > https://nfb-org.zoom.us/j/96943638202 > > > > Meeting ID: 969 4363 8202 > > > > --- > > > > One tap mobile > > +13017158592,,96943638202# US (Washington DC) > > +16468769923,,96943638202# US (New York) > > > > > > > > Ronza Othman, President > > National Federation of the Blind of Maryland > > 443-426-4110 > > Pronouns: she, her, hers > > > > The National Federation of the Blind of Maryland knows that blindness is > not > the characteristic that defines you or your future. Every day we raise the > expectations of blind people, because low expectations create obstacles > between blind people and our dreams. You can live the life you want; > blindness is not what holds you back > > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ces2266%40columbia.edu > From helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 18:00:15 2023 From: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com (Helga Schreiber) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 14:00:15 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern In-Reply-To: <04ef01d9c01e$2d86c860$88945920$@gmail.com> References: <04ef01d9c01e$2d86c860$88945920$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello all! I missed the open house this wednesday. I wasn’t aware that day there waas one. I just saw this email. I will apply to law school this year and I wil be taking the LSAT this year as well. Is there going to be another one? Thanks so much for reading! Helga Schreiber Email Address: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com Sent From my iPhone 11 Pro Max > On Jul 26, 2023, at 8:07 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw wrote: > > .com From sanho817 at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 19:25:02 2023 From: sanho817 at gmail.com (Sanho Steele-Louchart) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:25:02 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern In-Reply-To: References: <04ef01d9c01e$2d86c860$88945920$@gmail.com> Message-ID: Helga, We'll have similar events on a regular basis. Regardless of topic, please feel free to reach out to me anytime. I'm the new secretary of the NABL and the Legal Program Coordinator for the NFB. You can call or text at 918-800-9997. Warmth, Sanho On 7/28/23, Helga Schreiber via BlindLaw wrote: > Hello all! I missed the open house this wednesday. I wasn’t aware that day > there waas one. I just saw this email. I will apply to law school this year > and I wil be taking the LSAT this year as well. Is there going to be > another one? Thanks so much for reading! > > Helga Schreiber > Email Address: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com > Sent From my iPhone 11 Pro Max > > > >> On Jul 26, 2023, at 8:07 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw >> wrote: >> >> .com > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com > -- He/Him From sanho817 at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 19:26:30 2023 From: sanho817 at gmail.com (Sanho Steele-Louchart) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:26:30 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers In-Reply-To: References: <354AE802-687C-4C1E-8442-265764E14073@gmail.com> <886AF154-F40F-4FDA-A8C8-671BE59099F5@gmail.com> Message-ID: All, I wanted to give you a day to rest before sending you a quick note, but congratulations! You made it! Please spend some time taking care of yourselves. You've earned it. Warmth, Sanho On 7/24/23, Scott Marshall via BlindLaw wrote: > Congratulations to all those sitting for the bar exam. Sanho's experience > was mine as well. In 1977, when I took the N.Y. bar exam, I was convinced > that I failed it. Fortunately, I passed it the first time around. The > unspoken condition of my employment with a large Buffalo firm was that > passing the bar exam was a requirement. I don't know how the bar provides > results nowadays, but back then well before the Internet,, you needed to > have a friend in New York City who would review the early, late night > edition of the New York Times each day in December until the list of those > who passed the bar exam was published. So much fun! > Good luck everyone! > > Sorry I won't be on the NABL call on the 26th for new or potential law > students, since I have a prior commitment to do a 33rd anniversary ADA > commemoration at the same time. > > Best: > Scott > -----Original Message----- > From: BlindLaw On Behalf Of Maura Kutnyak via > BlindLaw > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:19 AM > To: Blind Law Mailing List > Cc: Maura Kutnyak > Subject: Re: [blindLaw] A Note to Bar Exam Test Takers > > Yes, thank you Sanho for being there. > > I wish you endurance, satisfaction, and success Teresita! I’m with you in > spirit > >> On Jul 22, 2023, at 1:58 PM, Teresita Rios via BlindLaw >> wrote: >> >> Thank you so much Sanho. 😭 >> >> Prayers are highly needed. Practice exams are not looking good. Puting my >> all. See you on the other side. >> >> Warmly, >> Teresita. >> >>> On Jul 22, 2023, at 10:57 AM, Sanho Steele-Louchart via BlindLaw >>> wrote: >>> >>> Dear bar exam test takers: >>> >>> It's nearly upon us. I'm sorry for the terrible, dirty rotten, no good >>> hellscape in which you find yourself. Please know that as stressful and >>> brain-frying as this experience is, we've all been where you are. Please >>> try to take care of yourself leading up to and especially during the exam >>> days. Soon the test will be a distant memory (nightmare? Fever dream?) >>> >>> I've shared with several of you privately that how you feel after the >>> exam has nothing to do with how you score on it. I knew in my bones I'd >>> failed. I felt a little better about the multiple choice, but was certain >>> I'd missed most of the essays by a country mile. I even went so far as to >>> draft a letter to the board of bar examiners inquiring as to the process >>> for requesting accommodations for February. So imagine my utter shock >>> when scores were realeased a few hours llater and a colleague walked into >>> my office with a quiet, "Congratulations, Counselor." It turned out that >>> not only had I passed, but I'd passed in every UBE jurisdiction in the >>> country. >>> >>> I wish all of you the very best with the exam. I invite you to breathe, >>> take it one question at a time, and stay gentle with yourself. Perhaps >>> you think you could've studied more or differently. That's true for many >>> of us. Perhaps you wish you'd taken more time to rest. Now is an >>> opportunity to do just that. No matter what your brain is screaming at >>> you this week, please know you're not alone. I encourage you to reach >>> out if you have any questions or need a listening ear. My cell phone is >>> 918-800-9997. >>> >>> Warmth, solidarity, and good luck, >>> Sanho >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> BlindLaw mailing list >>> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >>> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >>> BlindLaw: >>> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/teresitarios22%40gmail.com >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> BlindLaw mailing list >> BlindLaw at nfbnet.org >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for >> BlindLaw: >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/maurakutnyak%40gmail.com > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/marshall%40blindlawyers.org > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com > -- He/Him From rothmanjd at gmail.com Fri Jul 28 20:21:45 2023 From: rothmanjd at gmail.com (Ronza Othman) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:21:45 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Open House: Current and Prospective Law Students - July 26, 2023 8PM Eastern In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3E294675-AF80-408D-9F0E-CF0478FAF1D2@gmail.com> We plan to have a quarterly gathering of some kind for current and perspective law students. Stay tuned on this list. Ronza Othman, President National Federation of the Blind of Maryland 443-426-4110 Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 28, 2023, at 2:00 PM, Helga Schreiber wrote: > > Hello all! I missed the open house this wednesday. I wasn’t aware that day there waas one. I just saw this email. I will apply to law school this year and I wil be taking the LSAT this year as well. Is there going to be another one? Thanks so much for reading! > > Helga Schreiber > Email Address: helga.schreiber26 at gmail.com > Sent From my iPhone 11 Pro Max > > > >>> On Jul 26, 2023, at 8:07 PM, Ronza Othman via BlindLaw wrote: >>> >> .com From syedrizvinfb at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 20:07:32 2023 From: syedrizvinfb at gmail.com (Syed Rizvi) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:07:32 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Barriers in taking MPRE Message-ID: <403E43C9-9086-4138-A9D9-D1AE0E307555@gmail.com> Hello, I was registered to take my MPRE this August. MCBE outsources their test administration to Pierson. Today, they said they are not prepared to accommodate me for the August exam. I submitted my request for accommodations far in advance. MCBE says they cannot do anything to help as Pierson is the responsible party. Does the NFB have any contacts within MCBE or Pierson? This is an incredibly frustrating situation. -Syed From sanho817 at gmail.com Mon Jul 31 20:13:54 2023 From: sanho817 at gmail.com (Sanho Steele-Louchart) Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 16:13:54 -0400 Subject: [blindLaw] Barriers in taking MPRE In-Reply-To: <403E43C9-9086-4138-A9D9-D1AE0E307555@gmail.com> References: <403E43C9-9086-4138-A9D9-D1AE0E307555@gmail.com> Message-ID: Syed, I do. Connect with me off-list if you don't mind my taking a look at this in my staff role. Warmth, Sanho On 7/31/23, Syed Rizvi via BlindLaw wrote: > Hello, > > I was registered to take my MPRE this August. MCBE outsources their test > administration to Pierson. Today, they said they are not prepared to > accommodate me for the August exam. I submitted my request for > accommodations far in advance. MCBE says they cannot do anything to help as > Pierson is the responsible party. > > Does the NFB have any contacts within MCBE or Pierson? This is an incredibly > frustrating situation. > > -Syed > > > _______________________________________________ > BlindLaw mailing list > BlindLaw at nfbnet.org > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for > BlindLaw: > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/sanho817%40gmail.com > -- He/Him