Iowa grants gun permits to the blind

Iowa grants gun permits to the blind

There are 24 comments on the Courier-Post story from Sep 8, 2013, titled Iowa grants gun permits to the blind. In it, Courier-Post reports that:

No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical ability.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Courier-Post.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
JackUSMC

Picayune, MS

#1 Sep 8, 2013
I live in Mississippi and I want to apply for CWP I have a severe disability and confined to a wheelchair I am range certified in both hand gun and long gun is there any reason that I should be denied my permit?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#2 Sep 9, 2013
Is Iowa going to give them driver's licenses, too?
FormerParatroope r

United States

#3 Sep 9, 2013
Blindness does not make one incapable of self defense. People without cognitive issues should be allowed the right of defense since criminals tend to prey on who they perceive as weak and incapable of defense.

JackUSMC unless you otherwise disqualified to bear arms, there is no reason you should be denied.

ArmedVeteran, probably not.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#4 Sep 9, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Is Iowa going to give them driver's licenses, too?
Is there a Constitutional right to drive of which we're unaware?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#5 Sep 10, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there a Constitutional right to drive of which we're unaware?
I KNEW someone would chime in with this.

Is it physically possible for a blind man to obtain a correct sight picture and use the firearm as to NOT endanger everyone else around him? I am as PRO-2nd Amendment as you can get, but this has nothing to do with his constitutional rights. It has everything to do with common f-ing sense.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#6 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>I KNEW someone would chime in with this.

Is it physically possible for a blind man to obtain a correct sight picture and use the firearm as to NOT endanger everyone else around him? I am as PRO-2nd Amendment as you can get, but this has nothing to do with his constitutional rights. It has everything to do with common f-ing sense.
There are degrees of blindness. Legally blind isn't the same as totally blind.

Blind persons participate in many activities (golf, tennis, and even driving) under controlled circumstances.

Denying an entire group of persons, any group, of a Constitutional right without due process is wrong.

It is illegal for any person, sighted or unsighted, to endanger the life of another by using a firearm in an unsafe manner - such as firing blindly. You can't strip someone of a right because they MIGHT do that.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#7 Sep 10, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
There are degrees of blindness. Legally blind isn't the same as totally blind.
Blind persons participate in many activities (golf, tennis, and even driving) under controlled circumstances.
Denying an entire group of persons, any group, of a Constitutional right without due process is wrong.
It is illegal for any person, sighted or unsighted, to endanger the life of another by using a firearm in an unsafe manner - such as firing blindly. You can't strip someone of a right because they MIGHT do that.
I am not talking about those with partial sight that can see there target, albeit blurry. I am referring to those with no sight. It would be IMPOSSIBLE for them to not endanger everyone on their vacinity. And instances where people are forced to protect themsleves with a firearm are anything BUT "controlled circumstances".

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#8 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
I KNEW someone would chime in with this.
Is it physically possible for a blind man to obtain a correct sight picture and use the firearm as to NOT endanger everyone else around him? I am as PRO-2nd Amendment as you can get, but this has nothing to do with his constitutional rights. It has everything to do with common f-ing sense.
You sound just like an antigun hoplophobe because you are one.

Most likely you are blind as a bat or blinder than a blind person. Anyone knows blind people can sense the presence of others.

If an antigun pos like you were in my completely dark room I could still smell your ugly body from thirty feet and then quickly neutralize you.

Every antigun communist will tell you they support the 2nd amendment.

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#9 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
Is Iowa going to give them driver's licenses, too?
Why would they do that ? Cars are much more deadly than are guns.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#10 Sep 10, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>You sound just like an antigun hoplophobe because you are one.
Most likely you are blind as a bat or blinder than a blind person. Anyone knows blind people can sense the presence of others.
If an antigun pos like you were in my completely dark room I could still smell your ugly body from thirty feet and then quickly neutralize you.
Every antigun communist will tell you they support the 2nd amendment.
Troy the ninja. LOL
And why are you checking out my body, Noid? Sorry, I don't swing that way.

Now go take your meds and STFU.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11 Sep 10, 2013
"Tory"

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#12 Sep 10, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>Why would they do that ? Cars are much more deadly than are guns.
If they are willing to put a deadly weapon in the hands of blind people, why not cars, too? Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest.
FormerParatroope r

United States

#13 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
If they are willing to put a deadly weapon in the hands of blind people, why not cars, too? Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest.
I differ here with you. A blind person who is traveling a known route does not always have a sighted person with them. Their service dogs ate generally non aggressive and there are some who will prey on them. How many of our brothers and sisters who have returned from the GWOT and other battles and have lost their sight? How many blind people are victims of crime?

Blind people are not going to be shooting beyond their ability to know where the threat is. I do think they should take a course tailored for their limitation so they can safely and confidently protect themselves. There are courses available, unfortunately not many. I do see the possibility of some going to Iowa after this law.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#14 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>If they are willing to put a deadly weapon in the hands of blind people, why not cars, too? Stupid is as stupid does, Forrest.
There are lots of deadly weapons -- almost any object from a screwdriver to a lace pillow is potentially a deadly object.

More people are killed with fists and feet than by firearms so, with the exception of quadriplegics, we are all walking around with deadly weapons at all times.

What makes a firearm go from a tool to a deadly weapon is the intent of the user.

There is no evidence to support the idea that the blind are more inclined to use a firearm as a deadly weapon. Evidence would suggest the opposite (far less violent crime is committed by the blind than the sighted)

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#15 Sep 10, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
There are lots of deadly weapons -- almost any object from a screwdriver to a lace pillow is potentially a deadly object.
More people are killed with fists and feet than by firearms so, with the exception of quadriplegics, we are all walking around with deadly weapons at all times.
What makes a firearm go from a tool to a deadly weapon is the intent of the user.
There is no evidence to support the idea that the blind are more inclined to use a firearm as a deadly weapon. Evidence would suggest the opposite (far less violent crime is committed by the blind than the sighted)
Your stats are a little off. According to the FBI Table 20 (Murders), of the 12,664 murders committed in 2011, 728 of them were committed using hands, feet ,fists, etc. 8,583 murders were committed using a firearm.

And I am not talking about criminal use of a firearm by the blind. I am talking about collateral damage because they lack the ability to physically see their intended target.

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#16 Sep 10, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>

And I am not talking about criminal use of a firearm by the blind. I am talking about collateral damage because they lack the ability to physically see their intended target.
I have lived in many countries over my life. In most, people's rights are subject to the whims of leaders and the fads of politics.

In our country it assumed the no person can be denied their Constitutionally protected rights without due process. The idea that someone MIGHT do something dangerous by accident isn't, in our country, a valid reason to strip them of guaranteed rights.

I'm afraid there is much more at stake here than the potential for an accident. The idea that we (anyone) could lose their rights based on an emotional political fad is much more dangerous

“Constitutionist/ SAF”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#17 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Your stats are a little off. According to the FBI Table 20 (Murders), of the 12,664 murders committed in 2011, 728 of them were committed using hands, feet ,fists, etc. 8,583 murders were committed using a firearm.
And I am not talking about criminal use of a firearm by the blind. I am talking about collateral damage because they lack the ability to physically see their intended target.
Take a hike, you communist pos.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#18 Sep 11, 2013
Tory II wrote:
<quoted text>Take a hike, you communist pos.
Go F**k Yourself, you paranoid schizo.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#19 Sep 11, 2013
Rick Moss wrote:
<quoted text>
I have lived in many countries over my life. In most, people's rights are subject to the whims of leaders and the fads of politics.
In our country it assumed the no person can be denied their Constitutionally protected rights without due process. The idea that someone MIGHT do something dangerous by accident isn't, in our country, a valid reason to strip them of guaranteed rights.
I'm afraid there is much more at stake here than the potential for an accident. The idea that we (anyone) could lose their rights based on an emotional political fad is much more dangerous
Blindness is an "emotional political fad"???

“Act Interdimensional ly”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#20 Sep 11, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>Blindness is an "emotional political fad"???
No, the desire to strip Americans of their 2nd Amendment rights is an emotional political fad.

But you already knew that before you posted your comment and this is just a pathetic attempt at obfuscation.

I guess that sort of thing is inevitable after you've run out of logical arguments.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Employment / Labor Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News What to wear for an interview Apr 20 Fatso Fife 3
News Clarksville's Bridgestone Metalpha U.S.A. Award... Apr 20 Jerry 1
News HemetHEMET: Food market's ex-owner convicted of... (Oct '14) Apr 19 American 24
News Ex-town supervisor in Rochester area convicted ... Apr 5 MrsRachelGaddy 2
News Supreme Court rules for car dealerships in over... Apr 3 BHM5267 5
News Democrats tell embattled congresswoman to quit;... Apr 1 Go Trump 4
News Whistleblowers Win in Fight With IRS Mar 31 Christsharia sLaw 3