[blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?

[MIKE MCGLASHON]

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 <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Tim Elder via
BlindLaw
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 10:44 AM
To: 'Teresita Rios' <teresitarios22 at gmail.com>; 'Blind Law Mailing List'
<blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <teresitarios22 at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 4:22 AM
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?

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



_______________________________________________
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