[blindLaw] BlindLaw Digest, Vol 230, Issue 6
Bad Penguin
badpenguin at hotmail.com
Wed Jul 12 14:28:29 UTC 2023
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<mailto:blindlaw-request at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 8:02 AM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org<mailto: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 <al.elia at aol.com>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <teresitarios22 at gmail.com>
>>> Sent: Saturday, July 8, 2023 11:43 AM
>>> To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
>>> 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
>>>> <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <seifs at umich.edu>
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>, Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID:
<CA+3kOQfTzj1RZuGW9Wvn=utrj3c8Wf7=f97eoYr8pwaqPU9Ezg at mail.gmail.com>
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 <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>
Cc: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>, Al Elia
<al.elia at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <B62F44B3-136D-4C66-AF43-64CB93AB8CE6 at yahoo.com>
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 <seifs at umich.edu> wrote:
>
> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:23:24 -0400
From: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <seifs at umich.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ?Enlightening; I like that argument - thank you.
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 12:43:11 -0400
From: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <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.
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:08:01 -0400
From: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID:
<CA+3kOQdJJcz5biPGwUOT60tdJuPvgYhWfHfXRVKEg1UgGD9OYg at mail.gmail.com>
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 <al.elia at aol.com>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <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.
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:25:33 -0400
From: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <AD3EFA55-CB8C-41E3-96C1-78BFAF174083 at yahoo.com>
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 <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.
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:38:08 -0400
From: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <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.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:22:32 -0400
From: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <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.
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:35:53 -0400
From: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <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.
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:59:57 -0400
From: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <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.
>
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2023 14:24:18 -0500
From: Mike Mcglashon <michael.mcglashon at comcast.net>
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <D817A24B-1D56-4B0C-9ED2-095EDB2D4E54 at comcast.net>
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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <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.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <CF7D285C-DDB1-4A4A-A47D-4A20ED0FEB0D at yahoo.com>
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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <al.elia at aol.com>
To: Laura Slavis <slavis.laura at gmail.com>
Cc: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>, James Fetter
<jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <CD4E20D9-AAB8-4E98-A60F-32025178E646 at aol.com>
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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <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.
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
To: Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>
Cc: Laura Slavis <slavis.laura at gmail.com>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <F96B7E90-20D8-4A03-B273-B0434478E412 at yahoo.com>
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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <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.
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 <al.elia at aol.com>
To: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>
Cc: Laura Slavis <slavis.laura at gmail.com>, Blind Law Mailing List
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <al.elia at aol.com> 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 <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.
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <seifs at umich.edu>
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>, Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>,
Laura Slavis <slavis.laura at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID:
<CA+3kOQckWfQpRkZfAzPGGnAw+umcX4aHgoqh-t8ZGTkpyrR_rg at mail.gmail.com>
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: <tim at timeldermusic.com>
To: "'Seif-Eldeen Saqallah'" <seifs at umich.edu>, "'Blind Law Mailing
List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <seifs at umich.edu>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <teresitarios22 at gmail.com>
To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Cc: Seif-Eldeen Saqallah <seifs at umich.edu>, tim at timeldermusic.com
Subject: Re: [blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?
Message-ID: <D70F1045-AF1C-4B5C-8A11-07E2349998D6 at gmail.com>
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 <blindlaw at nfbnet.org> 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 <seifs at umich.edu>
> Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 9:08 PM
> To: Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
> 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
****************************************
More information about the BlindLaw
mailing list