[blindLaw] Firearms and the Blind?

[Al Elia]

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
>>