PDA

View Full Version : blind guy gets guns back in NJ


vantec08
05-12-2012, 11:48 AM
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/05/12/blind-nj-man-gets-guns-back-years-after-police-confiscated-them/

lilro
05-12-2012, 12:09 PM
Sweet. How much would it suck to be blind and own an Ed Brown and they give you a RIA in return.

jimx
05-12-2012, 12:11 PM
In a statement, the Morris County prosecutor said “From the outset, there was concern as to whether Mr. Hopler was suitable to possess firearms…

That is one slippery slope I do not want to go down!

njineermike
05-12-2012, 12:20 PM
"Suitable to possess firearms" is a slippery slope we've already gone over. We now have several types identified as legally "unsuitable". Convicted felons, even if violence wasn't the reason for the felony, dishonorable discharged military, those "involuntarily admitted " to psychiatric facilities, and if NJ had it's way, the disabled. NONE of these people should be barred from possessing firearms if it means anyone else has the possibility of being barred as well.

Harrison_Bergeron
05-12-2012, 1:15 PM
I can see both sides of this one. The degrees of blindness makes it not clear cut.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a person who only sees black could ever safely discharge a firearm, but someone whose vision is just too bad even for corrective lenses can still make out bodies and shapes while being considered legally blind. I could see the second person using a gun for self defense with relative safety, but the first one would never be able to fully know what they were shooting at, it would be purely based on faith.

I agree thought that the proper course is just for the gov to stay out of it.

Southwest Chuck
05-12-2012, 1:49 PM
I can see both sides of this one. The degrees of blindness makes it not clear cut.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a person who only sees black could ever safely discharge a firearm, but someone whose vision is just too bad even for corrective lenses can still make out bodies and shapes while being considered legally blind. I could see the second person using a gun for self defense with relative safety, but the first one would never be able to fully know what they were shooting at, it would be purely based on faith.

I agree thought that the proper course is just for the gov to stay out of it.

Sightless people compensate for lack of sight by using their other senses. The sense of touch is one, so I'll respectfully take exception to your statement above. It's obvious that part of your statement is true, as he obviously couldn't take aim. But if someone was on top of him beating him savagely, sightless or not, he could/would have the ability, if he feared for his life, to pull his concealed weapon, shove it in the perps gut and pull the trigger would he not? (I can assure you he knows where that bullet's going). Would you deprive him of his fundamental right of self defense due to his handy-cap? If someone recklessly discharges a firearm, they must suffer the consequences. Would his actions in this scenario be reckless? Let a Judge or jury decide after they've been presented with the facts of the case. Don't preemptively deny him his rights just because he "could" act recklessly. Doing so is too Brady-esk, IMO.

Maestro Pistolero
05-12-2012, 1:57 PM
But if someone was on top of him beating him savagely, sightless or not, he could/would have the ability, if he feared for his life, to pull his concealed weapon, shove it in the perps gut and pull the trigger would he not?This. And nothing in the amendment says the right to keep and bear means you'll ever have to discharge the thing at all. You still have a right to it until your BEHAVIOR prohibits you.

Southwest Chuck
05-12-2012, 2:00 PM
This. And nothing in the amendment says the right to keep and bear means you'll ever have to discharge the thing at all. You still have a righty to it until your BEHAVIOR prohibits you.

Exactly ! :thumbsup:

morfeeis
05-12-2012, 2:01 PM
I can see both sides of this one. The degrees of blindness makes it not clear cut.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a person who only sees black could ever safely discharge a firearm, but someone whose vision is just too bad even for corrective lenses can still make out bodies and shapes while being considered legally blind. I could see the second person using a gun for self defense with relative safety, but the first one would never be able to fully know what they were shooting at, it would be purely based on faith.

I agree thought that the proper course is just for the gov to stay out of it.
Haven't you ever seen blind fury.

My vision is down right horrid and I still shoot, I use optics to overcome my bad eyesight. I will say even if I ever go completely blind I'll keep my fire arms. If someone is beating me a well placed shoot will still save my life. You don't have to see your attacker to defend yourself....


But hey what do I know.

Xingu
05-12-2012, 3:08 PM
This. And nothing in the amendment says the right to keep and bear means you'll ever have to discharge the thing at all. You still have a right to it until your BEHAVIOR prohibits you.

I can see both sides of this one. The degrees of blindness makes it not clear cut.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a person who only sees black could ever safely discharge a firearm, but someone whose vision is just too bad even for corrective lenses can still make out bodies and shapes while being considered legally blind. I could see the second person using a gun for self defense with relative safety, but the first one would never be able to fully know what they were shooting at, it would be purely based on faith.

I agree thought that the proper course is just for the gov to stay out of it.

No sight needed to own

unusedusername
05-12-2012, 3:32 PM
Who says you need to shoot them to own them?

I once knew a completely blind woman with the most awesome stamp collection. She knew the history of every stamp even though she could not see any of them.

ElvenSoul
05-12-2012, 3:41 PM
He goes to the range. Shot himself in the leg. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

jimx
05-13-2012, 10:08 AM
"Suitable to possess firearms" is a slippery slope we've already gone over. We now have several types identified as legally "unsuitable". Convicted felons, even if violence wasn't the reason for the felony, dishonorable discharged military, those "involuntarily admitted " to psychiatric facilities,

Different slope. The groups you listed have lost their rights and even freedom that go way bound the 2nd A.

mud99
05-13-2012, 10:17 AM
New Jersey was playing with fire on this one.

As any judge knows, you can't violate the constitutional rights of one individual, only the rights of every person in the entire state. </sarcasm>

Didn't the judge just acknowlege a "right to bear arms" which they pretend doesn't exist?

Funtimes
05-13-2012, 9:57 PM
I can see both sides of this one. The degrees of blindness makes it not clear cut.

I don't see how anyone could argue that a person who only sees black could ever safely discharge a firearm, but someone whose vision is just too bad even for corrective lenses can still make out bodies and shapes while being considered legally blind. I could see the second person using a gun for self defense with relative safety, but the first one would never be able to fully know what they were shooting at, it would be purely based on faith.

I agree thought that the proper course is just for the gov to stay out of it.

There are blind people with 'blind vision' and possess the ability to navigate around objects while walking etc without assistance. The mind and body can do amazing things when it needs to compensate for failed functions.