In a curious turn of events, Iowa grants permits for blind people to carry guns in public.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Well, the sense I get from a lot of gun-related rhetoric and legislation is this:
"Buy guns, it's what we've been payed to ensure. Buy them. Be scared. Buy."
So this is actually very tame compared to the usual.

This is bloody ridiculous.

I'm generally in favor of arms ownership, but requiring that a potential owner be capable of actually safely using the things is not exactly an unreasonable thing to do.

Wait..What!?
What on Earth could be the reasoning behind this. Discrimination?

Well, not everyone who is legally blind is completely blind, and some of it can be fixed through glasses/contact lenses. In this case, it doesn't seem all that unusual, as I know at least one person who is capable of functioning normally legally blind and no one would know the difference between him and anyone else who is near-sighted (at least until he takes his glasses off).

On the other hand, giving a firearm to someone who is completely blind is just irresponsible. I understand that we're trying to limit discrimination against the blind, but this is one of those situations where, simply for safety reasons, it would be better to make an exception to that desire.

I read about(in Swedish) this yesterday and thought it was as amusing then as I do now. Don't get me wrong, I also think it is absolutely frightening that many US states are ready to hand out gun permits to anyone, regardless of if they are capable of handling them in a safe and responsible manner or not.

In the article there's also a related story about a judge in New Jersey who had ruled that the police were in the wrong when they revoked the gun permit of an alcoholic, blind man who had been involved in several firearm incidents previously, after he accidentally shot himself in the leg. According to the judge blindness and alcoholism were not enough reasons to deny the man his constitutional right to own a firearm.

I am crossing my fingers that some of our pro-gun users come in here and give their opinion on this. Should be interesting.

Well it worked for Han Solo in Return of the Jedi, right?

Just a little higher!

"Legally" blind people can still see. That I'm not too worried about.

Totally blind? I guess Iowa figured echolocation is a good enough stand in for actually seeing targets. Still a horrible idea though.

This must only concern people who are legally blind right? The alternative is just far too horrific.

Some of those comments in those articles were also pretty bad. There's a complete lack of common sense.

Heronblade:
This is bloody ridiculous.

I'm generally in favor of arms ownership, but requiring that a potential owner be capable of actually safely using the things is not exactly an unreasonable thing to do.

Why do you hate freedom?

nyysjan:

Heronblade:
This is bloody ridiculous.

I'm generally in favor of arms ownership, but requiring that a potential owner be capable of actually safely using the things is not exactly an unreasonable thing to do.

Why do you hate freedom?

During Attila the Huns reign, no blind US citizens had firearms. Also, during the reign of Genghis Khan.

I think the logic is they are US citizens who haven't done anything wrong so they're allowed the same rights as everyone else (even if I hope they never use said rights). If you can't see what you're shooting at you probably shouldn't be shooting.

nyysjan:

Heronblade:
This is bloody ridiculous.

I'm generally in favor of arms ownership, but requiring that a potential owner be capable of actually safely using the things is not exactly an unreasonable thing to do.

Why do you hate freedom?

I fail to see how being able to safely discharge a weapon is an unreasonable requirement when it comes to carrying in public. We also don't allow people who are felons to own guns, or the mentally unstable, or young children.

Lilani:

nyysjan:

Heronblade:
This is bloody ridiculous.

I'm generally in favor of arms ownership, but requiring that a potential owner be capable of actually safely using the things is not exactly an unreasonable thing to do.

Why do you hate freedom?

I fail to see how being able to safely discharge a weapon is an unreasonable requirement when it comes to carrying in public. We also don't allow people who are felons to own guns, or the mentally unstable, or young children.

Protip: poster you are quoting is joking
Though admittedly, there are enough people who would ask that question, and be serious, that i really should have put a disclaimer in it.
And that makes me want to weep for humanity. :(

Frission:
This must only concern people who are legally blind right? The alternative is just far too horrific.

Second article says that completely blind people get permits too.

Well... I used to say that things going full retard is rare, its usually just retard but... Iowa just went full Retard.

To this I ask: is it too hard to just have the minimum requirements for firearm ownership to be the same as getting one's driver's licence?

The Gentleman:
To this I ask: is it too hard to just have the minimum requirements for firearm ownership to be the same as getting one's driver's licence?

To be fair, there is a difference between owning a car, and being licensed to use that car in public, as there is a difference between owning a gun, and being licensed to use that gun in public. I have no problem with blind people being allowed the former, it's the fact that they're allowing the latter that's worrisome.

What idiot thought this was a good idea? I understand second amendment rights but come on! I think the owner should at least be able to see where the fuck he's firing!

Isn't the 2nd amendment designed to ensure a civilian militia can function? What militia is going to be recruiting blind guys? I'm sorry to say, if that's the only guys left to fight then maybe it's time to throw in the towel.

Wow. First day back and this is what I see.

Why are y'all reacting like this? Being legally blind is not the same as being blind. A friend of mine is legally blind (industrial accident) and he still goes to 1,000 yard competitions. I first met him at Camp Perry back in 2009 I think. He was a competitor before the accident and he was a competitor afterwards. He just had to adjust. The same way I did after my knee injury. Try shooting the kneeling position with a fucked up knee.

As for totally blind, according to ADA you are not allowed to discriminate against someone based on physical impairment. Now, will many blind people buy guns? No. This is a minor issue and I have no idea why people suddenly care about it.

Also, in case y'all do not understand what a 1,000 yard competition entails-

If he can hit that then don't you think his "legal blindness" is a moot point?

The Gentleman:
To this I ask: is it too hard to just have the minimum requirements for firearm ownership to be the same as getting one's driver's licence?

They already are. If I wanted to I could drive drunk all across my property all day long and the police can't do anything about it. I could take a car without a license plate, without an inspection sticker, that is missing all of its lights, that has a blown out windshield, and transport it across this entire country and no one can stop me as long as I do not drive it.

In other words, the only time I have to fulfill the vehicle requirements is when I have USING the vehicle on public property. Firearms are almost exclusively used on private property. When they are not, we have CHLs (and similar).

Karma168:
Isn't the 2nd amendment designed to ensure a civilian militia can function? What militia is going to be recruiting blind guys? I'm sorry to say, if that's the only guys left to fight then maybe it's time to throw in the towel.

Basically, if we are going by the true spirit of the 2nd Amendment, it stated that in order for a populous to protect itself from tyranny by its government, it must be free to not only arm and defend itself from it, but overthrow it if necessary. In short, we have already had our 2nd Amendment rights taken away from us, as we no longer have the right to do any of these things, and we are left with only the very strict literal interpretation that "people have a right to own guns for the sake of owning guns".

Haha, I'm sure this can't possibly end badly. Score another point for the crazies I guess.

farson135:

The Gentleman:
To this I ask: is it too hard to just have the minimum requirements for firearm ownership to be the same as getting one's driver's licence?

They already are. If I wanted to I could drive drunk all across my property all day long and the police can't do anything about it. I could take a car without a license plate, without an inspection sticker, that is missing all of its lights, that has a blown out windshield, and transport it across this entire country and no one can stop me as long as I do not drive it.

In other words, the only time I have to fulfill the vehicle requirements is when I have USING the vehicle on public property. Firearms are almost exclusively used on private property. When they are not, we have CHLs (and similar).

The law appears to allow blind people to get permits to carry firearms in public. The legally blind are not allowed to get driver's licenses.

And I tend to be of the opinion that, outside of controlled situations like firing ranges, there rarely is such a thing as a fully private use of a firearm. Sure, some people live in the middle of nowhere, but most people don't, and the range of any shot they fire will be quite likely to go beyond the boundaries of their property. Collecting, sure, but using, no. That should require a permit no matter what.

Revnak:
The law appears to allow blind people to get permits to carry firearms in public. The legally blind are not allowed to get driver's licenses.

Which makes it easier to transport them and also acquire them.

And I tend to be of the opinion that, outside of controlled situations like firing ranges, there rarely is such a thing as a fully private use of a firearm. Sure, some people live in the middle of nowhere, but most people don't, and the range of any shot they fire will be quite likely to go beyond the boundaries of their property. Collecting, sure, but using, no. That should require a permit no matter what.

Which is why there are laws dealing with firing a firearm in a public way (like in a home).

farson135:

Revnak:
The law appears to allow blind people to get permits to carry firearms in public. The legally blind are not allowed to get driver's licenses.

Which makes it easier to transport them and also acquire them.

If that is all, then that seems somewhat reasonable. However, if the specifics of the law allow for the legally blind to use their firearms in public then it certainly is crossing the line.

And I tend to be of the opinion that, outside of controlled situations like firing ranges, there rarely is such a thing as a fully private use of a firearm. Sure, some people live in the middle of nowhere, but most people don't, and the range of any shot they fire will be quite likely to go beyond the boundaries of their property. Collecting, sure, but using, no. That should require a permit no matter what.

Which is why there are laws dealing with firing a firearm in a public way (like in a home).

I didn't know that. I guess that's fair. I hope such laws are actually enforced and are reasonably restrictive.

Revnak:

farson135:

Revnak:
The law appears to allow blind people to get permits to carry firearms in public. The legally blind are not allowed to get driver's licenses.

Which makes it easier to transport them and also acquire them.

If that is all, then that seems somewhat reasonable. However, if the specifics of the law allow for the legally blind to use their firearms in public then it certainly is crossing the line.

Don't let him fool you, concealed carry permits have absolutely nothing to do with transporting and acquiring firearms, just like driver's licenses have nothing to do with acquiring vehicles. The only purpose of a concealed carry permit is to allow people to carry a loaded firearm with them in public for the explicit use of self-defense or defense of another. You can just as easily acquire and transport a firearm without a concealed carry permit, so long as said firearm is secured and unloaded while being transported, which there is no reason for it not to be unless you want to be able to discharge it if you feel it necessary to do so, and that is what a concealed carry permit allows you to do under specific circumstances that you otherwise could not without it.

Revnak:
If that is all, then that seems somewhat reasonable. However, if the specifics of the law allow for the legally blind to use their firearms in public then it certainly is crossing the line.

It does allow that but a CHL has many alternate uses. For example, in the state of Texas if you have a CHL you have already undergone a background check that certifies you are not a felon, you are an American citizen, etc. So, I do not have to go through a background check when I buy a firearm because I have already had one. Also, some employers accept CHLs as proof of a background check. Also, there are all kinds of laws dealing with the transportation of firearms. Some of them are ambiguous. A CHL clears all of it up.

I didn't know that. I guess that's fair. I hope such laws are actually enforced and are reasonably restrictive.

They are enforced within reason. Obviously someone has to report the incident.

Zeconte:
Don't let him fool you, concealed carry permits have absolutely nothing to do with transporting and acquiring firearms

Then why does the state of Texas exempt CHL's from the background check when purchasing a firearm? And why do CHL law clear up the ambiguity that comes from transporting a firearm in your vehicle?

The only purpose of a concealed carry permit is to allow people to carry a loaded firearm with them in public for the explicit use of self-defense or defense of another.

Then why is a CHL accepted by some employers as a background check?

farson135:

Revnak:
If that is all, then that seems somewhat reasonable. However, if the specifics of the law allow for the legally blind to use their firearms in public then it certainly is crossing the line.

It does allow that but a CHL has many alternate uses. For example, in the state of Texas if you have a CHL you have already undergone a background check that certifies you are not a felon, you are an American citizen, etc. So, I do not have to go through a background check when I buy a firearm because I have already had one. Also, some employers accept CHLs as proof of a background check. Also, there are all kinds of laws dealing with the transportation of firearms. Some of them are ambiguous. A CHL clears all of it up.

I didn't know that. I guess that's fair. I hope such laws are actually enforced and are reasonably restrictive.

They are enforced within reason. Obviously someone has to report the incident.

Zeconte:
Don't let him fool you, concealed carry permits have absolutely nothing to do with transporting and acquiring firearms

Then why does the state of Texas exempt CHL's from the background check when purchasing a firearm? And why do CHL law clear up the ambiguity that comes from transporting a firearm in your vehicle?

The only purpose of a concealed carry permit is to allow people to carry a loaded firearm with them in public for the explicit use of self-defense or defense of another.

Then why is a CHL accepted by some employers as a background check?

You state these facts like any of them couldn't be achieved in other ways without also allowing one to carry a loaded gun on them at all times, or that they are a primary purpose of a concealed carry permit, as opposed to added benefits unique to the state of Texas.

Zeconte:
You state these facts like any of them couldn't be achieved in other ways without also allowing one to carry a loaded gun on them at all times,

Given the current laws, they can't. There is no substitute for a background check in a gun purchase other than a CHL. Also, without a CHL you are subject to the ambiguity of the laws dealing with the transportation of firearms.

or that they are a primary purpose of a concealed carry permit

The primary purpose of anything is dictated by the owner. I know plenty of people with driver's licenses who never drive. For them a driver's license is just an ID.

as opposed to added benefits unique to the state of Texas.

These benefits are common throughout the US.

farson135:

Zeconte:
You state these facts like any of them couldn't be achieved in other ways without also allowing one to carry a loaded gun on them at all times,

Given the current laws, they can't. There is no substitute for a background check in a gun purchase other than a CHL. Also, without a CHL you are subject to the ambiguity of the laws dealing with the transportation of firearms.

Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

The primary purpose of anything is dictated by the owner. I know plenty of people with driver's licenses who never drive. For them a driver's license is just an ID.

My wife has an ID, but isn't licensed to drive. Strange how that works, isn't it? Two different things that serve the same purpose, but one giving an extra benefit that requires more responsibility and extra certification and requirements. But no, for some reason, that just wouldn't work in the case of gun permits, it's either get a concealed carry, or just be shit out of luck in regards to all those other benefits that do not require a concealed carry permit. And before you try to bring up "current law" again, I'm not talking about current law, I'm talking about more sensible alternatives to current law and how it would take very little effort to alter current law into something more sensible.

These benefits are common throughout the US.

I can't seem to find any confirmation of this beyond one site stating that "several states" wave the background check in order to purchase firearms, which, again, is a fairly negligible benefit considering how few legal circumstances there are where one simply cannot wait a day or two to get their hands on a new gun. Not to mention that it doesn't actually make it any easier to acquire a gun, as you claimed, it simply speeds up the process.

As for the claims on ambiguous transport laws, if they really are as ambiguous as you claim in the state of Texas, perhaps someone should work on altering them to be less so? In the state of Wisconsin, for example, it is legal to transport a firearm so long as 1) it is unloaded, stored in a case and out of reach, 2) it is in plain view to casual observation, in which case, it can even be loaded, or 3) one has a permit to conceal a loaded gun. Seems pretty unambiguous to me. Perhaps Texas should adopt something similar?

Unless you're talking about interstate transport, in which case, a concealed carry wouldn't help you much unless you got certified in every single state you travel through.

Zeconte:
Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

How about the fact that most normal people do not have a gun shop 10 feet away from them. In fact, to go to a gun shop usually requires quite a bit of effort. Combined with the fact that most of us have jobs, we are usually in a time crunch. Finally, doing a background check over and over is a pointless waste of resources when you can just get a background check once every 5 years.

Plus, there is the basic fact that many of my friends keep getting flagged during the background check process because they share a name with a felon. That is not a few days, that a few months to work it out (the first time at least).

Also, I am guessing you are not a competitive shooter. I have had parts break on my firearms and I had to rush around trying to find a replacement. Do you know how hard it is to find a firing pin for a k31? You have to buy a new rifle because no one here has spare k31 firing pins. After all, that is not a part that breaks every day. We have had to purchase firearms in order to get some spare parts. Hell, a friend of mine had to buy a whole new rifle because the TSA agents broke the stock on his firearm (and the case along with it). Would you like to find a stock for an Anschutz rifle in Georgia, 12 hours before a competition?

So in other words, it is the difference between being efficient and your pointless bureaucracy.

My wife has an ID, but isn't licensed to drive. Strange how that works, isn't it?

In other words, you prefer to have many separate items rather than have one thing that serves multiple purposes. That is not efficient. If you want to be like that, go for it. Do not attack people for trying to be more efficient.

And before you try to bring up "current law" again, I'm not talking about current law, I'm talking about more sensible alternatives to current law and how it would take very little effort to alter current law into something more sensible.

Then alter it. But do not attack people for working inside of the current laws. If you do not like how it is then fix it but stop attacking people.

I can't seem to find any confirmation of this beyond one site stating that "several states" wave the background check in order to purchase firearms, which, again, is a fairly negligible benefit considering how few legal circumstances there are where one simply cannot wait a day or two to get their hands on a new gun.

Except for the fact that some of us are busy and do not have time to waste on your point bureaucracy.

And it is a very valuable benefit. Not wasting an hour to several months of my life is always valuable. You may be wealthy enough to sit on your ass but most of us have shit we need to get done.

Not to mention that it doesn't actually make it any easier to acquire a gun, as you claimed, it simply speeds up the process.

Actually it does make it much easier. Wait time goes down from about an hour to about 10 minutes at a gun shop. Also, I do not need to worry about being mistaken for a felon due to similar names. I do not need to worry about the lines being over used and therefore my gun shop has to wait in line. And on and on.

All of these things make the process much easier.

As for the claims on ambiguous transport laws, if they really are as ambiguous as you claim in the state of Texas, perhaps someone should work on altering them to be less so?

These laws exist all over the country. The problem comes from transporting firearms into other states. Luckily Texas has reciprocity with the states I usually go to. See-

The only real problem is when I go to Ohio. That is the only state I regularly go to that is a problem.

In the state of Wisconsin, for example, it is legal to transport a firearm so long as 1) it is unloaded, stored in a case and out of reach, 2) it is in plain view to casual observation, in which case, it can even be loaded, or 3) one has a permit to conceal a loaded gun. Seems pretty unambiguous to me.

Actually that law is very problematic. Especially when you are traveling across state lines. Once again, with my CHL all of those problems disappear.

Plus you have the basic fact that LEOs do not know their own laws. Having redundant protection is always an advantage.

farson135:

Zeconte:
Yes, so it's useful if you need a new gun RIGHT NOW, and just can't wait a day or two for a background check. Which raises the question, why the need for new weapons so quickly?

How about the fact that most normal people do not have a gun shop 10 feet away from them. In fact, to go to a gun shop usually requires quite a bit of effort. Combined with the fact that most of us have jobs, we are usually in a time crunch. Finally, doing a background check over and over is a pointless waste of resources when you can just get a background check once every 5 years.

Plus, there is the basic fact that many of my friends keep getting flagged during the background check process because they share a name with a felon. That is not a few days, that a few months to work it out (the first time at least).

Also, I am guessing you are not a competitive shooter. I have had parts break on my firearms and I had to rush around trying to find a replacement. Do you know how hard it is to find a firing pin for a k31? You have to buy a new rifle because no one here has spare k31 firing pins. After all, that is not a part that breaks every day. We have had to purchase firearms in order to get some spare parts. Hell, a friend of mine had to buy a whole new rifle because the TSA agents broke the stock on his firearm (and the case along with it). Would you like to find a stock for an Anschutz rifle in Georgia, 12 hours before a competition?

So in other words, it is the difference between being efficient and your pointless bureaucracy.

Which, yet again, still fails to justify why all this can't be handled without also not giving certain people the right to conceal carry.

In other words, you prefer to have many separate items rather than have one thing that serves multiple purposes. That is not efficient. If you want to be like that, go for it. Do not attack people for trying to be more efficient.

... Persecution complex much? How exactly is pointing out that none of these other benefits explicitly require a concealed carry permit when another type of permit can be offered that serves all the same purposes sans concealed carry, allowing stricter requirements to be enforced in order to be approved for a concealed carry license without denying all those other benefits to people who do not want to go through that extra process considered attacking people? The only one being aggressively defensive here is you.

If you haven't noticed, this is a discussion on whether or not a blind person should be allowed a permit to carry concealed weapons, you then injected all these other wonderful benefits that a concealed carry permit allows, and I pointed out that it's perfectly feasible to allow all those other benefits without also allowing concealed carry. So what exactly is there to get so defensive about?

Then alter it. But do not attack people for working inside of the current laws. If you do not like how it is then fix it but stop attacking people.

Why would I bother trying to fix the problems you have with current gun laws? I'm suggesting ways the problems I see with current gun laws could be fixed, and it doesn't even involve altering your precious concealed carry permits in any way whatsoever, simply placing a few more reasonable restrictions on who can get them while offering another permit that streamlines the process of buying and transporting a gun just as effectively without the extra benefit of carrying a loaded gun on your person at all times and the extra requirements I feel should be required to be approved to do so.

So, sorry for stating my opinion on the topic, I guess, but it's not my problem that you, for whatever bizarre reason, have decided to insinuate a personal attack upon yourself and others who have a concealed carry permit where there is none.

Except for the fact that some of us are busy and do not have time to waste on your point bureaucracy.

And it is a very valuable benefit. Not wasting an hour to several months of my life is always valuable. You may be wealthy enough to sit on your ass but most of us have shit we need to get done.

Then here's an idea, don't spend all your time sitting around in a gun shop while waiting on the background check. Go out and do things and come back later. Novel idea, I know, but spending every hour of a several months long process doing nothing but waiting around a gun shop sounds like an easily avoidable problem, considering I highly doubt anyone expects you to do nothing but wait patiently in said gun shop, and would just kick you out at closing time anyways if you tried.

And in case you missed it, this is an absurdly ridiculous reply to your absurdly ridiculous complaint.

Actually it does make it much easier. Wait time goes down from about an hour to about 10 minutes at a gun shop. Also, I do not need to worry about being mistaken for a felon due to similar names. I do not need to worry about the lines being over used and therefore my gun shop has to wait in line. And on and on.

All of these things make the process much easier.

Yeah, once again, everything you listed speeds up the process, which amounts to quicker access to guns, not easier access to them, and again, this only works in the handful of states that wave the process, and also isn't an argument as to why certain people who cannot safely use a firearm unassisted (such as the completely blind), should be allowed concealed carry permits when another kind of permit could be made available to such people that give all the benefits of a concealed carry permit without the ability to conceal carry, just like a government issued ID gives all the benefits of a driver's license without the ability to drive.

These laws exist all over the country. The problem comes from transporting firearms into other states.

Actually that law is very problematic. Especially when you are traveling across state lines. Once again, with my CHL all of those problems disappear.

Plus you have the basic fact that LEOs do not know their own laws. Having redundant protection is always an advantage.

In other words, your problem isn't with laws being ambiguous, your problem is that they vary from state to state, something that would be fairly easily solved with federal regulations defining such interstate transport requirements for all states. But no, obviously the solution is for as many people as possible to get a concealed carry permit that is honored by a large number, but not all, other states, and then hope you don't have to travel to a state that doesn't and have to deal with the hassle.

You see, the problem I have with your argument is not that a concealed carry permit gives you such benefits, but your argument that because concealed carry permits currently give people such benefits in certain states, it is the only option people have to get these benefits (assuming they live in and only travel to the states that grant such benefits), and therefore, there is no reason to deny certain people, such as the completely blind, from getting one, especially considering how offended you've chosen to get for me suggesting viable alternatives to allowing such people a concealed carry permit.

Zeconte:
Which, yet again, still fails to justify why all this can't be handled without also not giving certain people the right to conceal carry.

Because what you are asking for does not exist. Since it does not exist people get what they can. You are whining about people working in the system they have.

If you haven't noticed, this is a discussion on whether or not a blind person should be allowed a permit to carry concealed weapons, you then injected all these other wonderful benefits that a concealed carry permit allows, and I pointed out that it's perfectly feasible to allow all those other benefits without also allowing concealed carry. So what exactly is there to get so defensive about?

You tell me. You are the one getting all bent out of shape over a permit that is multi-use. I suppose in your world people would have to carry around dozens of ID in order to get into air ports, drive a car, etc.

What you are telling us to do does not exist. You are the one saying that people should not get a CHL to get these benefits. Instead they have to sit around waiting for some other theoretical license to come into existence that does the same thing that the CHL already does.

I'm suggesting ways the problems I see with current gun laws could be fixed, and it doesn't even involve altering your precious concealed carry permits in any way whatsoever, simply placing a few more reasonable restrictions on who can get them while offering another permit that streamlines the process of buying and transporting a gun just as effectively without the extra benefit of carrying a loaded gun on your purpose at all times and the extra requirements to be approved to do so.

You say that you do not plant to change my CHL but then you say you want to put restrictions on who can get one. My friend (the 1,000 yard competitive shooter I mentioned in my first post) has a CHL. What right have you to tell him he is not allowed to have a CHL simply because he cannot see without corrective eyewear?

So, sorry for stating my opinion on the topic, I guess, but it's not my problem that you, for whatever bizarre reason, have decided to insinuate a personal attack upon yourself and others who have a concealed carry permit where there is none.

You are the one telling me that we are in the wrong for working in the current system.

Then here's an idea, don't spend all your time sitting around in a gun shop while waiting on the background check. Go out and do things and come back later. Novel idea, I know, but spending every hour of a several months long process doing nothing but waiting around a gun shop sounds like an easily avoidable problem, considering I highly doubt anyone expects you to do nothing but wait patiently in said gun shop, and would just kick you out at closing time anyways if you tried.

So you want me to waste gas wandering around waiting for the check to go through. The best gun shop close to my home is about 30 miles away. What exactly do you want me to do? There is nothing in that town except a gun shop, a bank (not my branch), and a couple of bars. There's an idea. Get drunk waiting for my background check to pass. Then drive home. Of course, I avoid all of this by simply showing my CHL. Once again, if you do not care about efficiency you are free to wait behind me.

Yeah, once again, everything you listed speeds up the process, which amounts to quicker access to guns, not easier access to them

Quicker access is easier access. Plus, (more and more you are convincing me that you are not a gun owner) without a background check I do not have to pay a transfer fee. Or at least a reduced one in many places.

and again, this only works in the handful of states that wave the process

Your point is irrelevant. CHLs get lots of exemptions in all states. Here in Texas (and also in California) you can bypass the metal detectors in the Capital Building if you have a CHL. Ha, no TSA bullshit to get into my capital building.

Just because the rights differ does not make them irrelevant.

and also isn't an argument as to why certain people who cannot safely use a firearm unassisted (such as the completely blind), should be allowed concealed carry permits when another kind of permit could be made available to such people that give all the benefits of a concealed carry permit without the ability to conceal carry, just like a government issued ID gives all the benefits of a driver's license without the ability to drive.

How about because you are not allowed to discriminate against a person based on their disability. Once again, do not attack people who work with the system they have.

In other words, your problem isn't with laws being ambiguous, your problem is that they vary from state to state

No, it is that they are ambiguous when traveling from state to state and even within a state. For example in Washington D.C. I am protected when transporting a firearm to a legally allowed location. But what if I stop somewhere? What if I stop at a 7/11 on my way to a range? Am I doing something illegal? The answer, maybe.

something that would be fairly easily solved with federal regulations defining such interstate transport requirements for all states. But no, obviously the solution is for as many people as possible to get a concealed carry permit that is honored by a large number, but not all, other states, and then hope you don't have to travel to a state that doesn't and deal with the hassle.

There are federal regulations. That did not stop- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Aitken

Because the laws are ambiguous.

You see, the problem I have with your argument is not that a concealed carry permit gives you such benefits, but your argument that because concealed carry permits currently give people such benefits in certain states, it is the only option people have to get these benefits (assuming they live in and only travel to the states that grant such benefits), and therefore, there is no reason to deny certain people, such as the completely blind, from getting one, especially considering how offended you've chosen to get for me suggesting viable alternatives to allowing such people a concealed carry permit.

It is the only option.

You may want some theoretical law to be passed but it does not exist. People are working within the parameters of the current laws. My problem with you is that you are unwilling to accept that fact. Instead you continue to harp on theoretical licenses and insist that CHLs must be denied to people (contrary to Federal Law) for no other reason than because of this theoretical license.

If the laws permit people of good standing and sane mind to bear guns then they should be permitted to do so, even if blind.

What I do, however, expect is that the blind should not be permitted to fire those guns except in stringently controlled situations.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked