[blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?

[Al Elia]

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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 
>>>>>>>>> <seifs at umich.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you.