[blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?

[MIKE MCGLASHON]

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 <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of James Fetter via BlindLaw
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2023 11:04 AM
To: tim at timeldermusic.com
Cc: James Fetter <jtfetter at yahoo.com>; Al Elia <al.elia at aol.com>; Blind Law Mailing List <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
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 <al.elia at aol.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:38 AM
> 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?
> 
> 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