Iowa issues CCW permits to the legally blind

[Totem Polar]

OK, first off: I'm still a way new guy here, so mods and whomever feel free to move, jettison, or otherwise act as needed with this post. Won't hurt my feelings any.

Now then, a quick search did not reveal any discussion on this topic, and I am genuinely curious as to opinions here.

The story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/08/iowa-blind-gun-licenses-carry-in-public_n_3890291.html

snip: <In a move sure to leave gun safety advocates scratching their heads, Iowa is issuing gun permits to the blind. The permits allow legally blind applicants to purchase weapons and carry them in public. Per state law, any attempt to deny an Iowan these rights based on physical ability would be illegal, reports the Des Moines Register.>

I have to confess to some degree of internal conflict on this one. As a die-hard 2A'er, I am forever espousing the value of Samuel's equalizer, and I bet that I am not the only one here who would champion the rights of the elderly, the infirm, the petite––and any others who otherwise would be at great disadvantage against career predation––to acquire and bear the means to defend their very lives. As well, I am very aware that most civvy gunfights occur within the length of an SUV, in poor light, etc. I also think it unrealistic to expect someone who is visually disabled (and may have other concomitant disablities, or issues with regards to peak fitness) to just stick with clinch picks, or whatever; or to give up on the idea of powerful defensive options altogether when the rest of the US (for the most part) has the option as a right.

This is, of course, balanced against a fierce knee-jerk reaction along the lines of "Are those guys stark F***ing nuts in corn land?!?". I mean, I'd have to see a strong argument from a visually disabled proponent, along with one *amazing* service dog.

http://www.outofregs.com/postImages/1298868961.jpg

So I really am asking, especially from folks who may be close to the visually disabled, or who may have been involved in the training of same. Feasible? At what point does "legally blind" cross the line into "can't do it"? Thoughts and options/alternatives? Solutions?

Discuss; TIA.

[littlejerry]

I had a roommate in college whose uncorrected vision was categorized as legally blind. With glasses he can see fine and drive.

Carrying a weapon is not a crime. Assaulting someone with one is.

[EMC]

Is blind shooting the same as point shooting? :)

[LOKNLOD]

What does legally blind, mean exactly?

From a quick wiki search:

In 1934, the American Medical Association adopted the following definition of blindness:
"Central visual acuity of 20/200 or less in the better eye with corrective glasses or central visual acuity of more than 20/200 if there is a visual field defect in which the peripheral field is contracted to such an extent that the widest diameter of the visual field subtends an angular distance no greater than 20 degrees in the better eye."[8]

Legally blind does not necessarily mean full-on Ray Charles sunglasses/cane/dog kind of blind. While I don't think we want any 20/200 corrected folks on our personal hostage rescue team, I don't see a reason they should be exempt from being able to defend themselves in public, either. 20/200 correct is certainly very bad, kind of like shooting at a 65 yard target but finding out its only at 7 yards. But at close distances, these folks can probably assess and shoot at a violent threat that presents itself, say, at an ATM or in an alley (I almost said at the gas pump...but I suppose we hope these folks aren't driving much!)


I'm sitting here now with a -10.5 contact in my right eye, and -11.0 in my left. Because they're further from your eye, glasses have a higher absolute value, IIRC mine are in the -13.0 range.

Now, look at this chart (admittedly found on a optometry forum, so take it with a grain of salt, I don't have solid references):
Refractive Error & Visual Acuity
Refractive Error
Myopia in Diopters
Approximage Unaided
Visual Acuity
—.50 D 20/50
—1.00 D 20/100
—2.00 D 20/200
—3.00 D 20/300
—4.00 D 20/400
—5.00 D 20/500
—6.00 D 20/600
—7.00 D 20/700
—8.00 D 20/800
—9.00 D 20/900
—10.00 D 20/1000
These approximations apply to nearsighted (myopia) patients wearing glasses.

If you extrapolate that out (and it gets less exact as the numbers get higher, as I've been told) I'm at somewhere around 20/1300 vision. Awesome. Thankfully I'm very correctable (someday surgically, I hope). My point in explaining that is this; while I can't see freakin' anything really, and my uncorrected acuity is WAY worse than what a technically "legally blind" person might see. I'm talking peeing by echolocation because I can't see the toilet blind. Uncorrected, I can't get a hard focus on the front site of my Glock with the slide cover plate touching my cheek because it's too far away. And yet, at bad breath, interpersonal violence type distances, I am DEFINITELY confident I could use a firearm well enough to defend myself.

[TGS]

I had a roommate in college whose uncorrected vision was categorized as legally blind. With glasses he can see fine and drive.

Bingo.

Legally blind does not automatically mean you're Wally Karew. My mother's uncorrected vision qualifies as "blind", and even without glasses I have no doubt she can see well enough to shoot someone causing her harm without creating an unnecessary danger to bystanders.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness):


In North America and most of Europe, legal blindness is defined as visual acuity (vision) of 20/200 (6/60) or less in the better eye with best correction possible. This means that a legally blind individual would have to stand 20 feet (6.1 m) from an object to see it—with corrective lenses—with the same degree of clarity as a normally sighted person could from 200 feet (61 m).

ETA: Loknload beat me to it. :)


I'm talking peeing by echolocation because I can't see the toilet blind.

Good lord that was funny.

[JodyH]

We have a legally blind guy that shoots some of our matches.
Out to 15 yards or so he does great.
I have no problem with legally blind people having carry permits.

[LOKNLOD]

I think the whole point of the article is yet other pot-stirring, "look at the crazy gun folks putting so-called rights before public safety" BS hit-piece. Nothing more.

Kind of like the article on slide-fire stocks I saw on CNN money yesterday :rolleyes:

[EricP]

You can add me to the legally blind without corrected vision numbers.

[Tamara]

I knew a guy back in K-Town who was blind... not legally blind, but dog-and-cane blind blind.

He had a toter's permit. He passed the state mandated marksmanship qual, too. His mom or a friend would bring him to the range and somebody would get him out to his lane and he'd square himself up by feeling the dividers and tray and then he'd shoot two-handed iso with his Beretta and keep 'em mostly inside the 7 ring (heck, mostly in the 8) on a B27 at seven yards, which is better than plenty of customers with 20/20 vision could do.

[JodyH]

I was reading where 100% blind women are 6X more likely to be victims of a sexual assault.
Even if they're limited to contact shots they should have the option of defending themselves with a firearm.

[TGS]

You can add me to the legally blind without corrected vision numbers.

^

**medieval villagers voice** Buuuuurn him! Take his guns!

[Tamara]

I was reading where 100% blind women are 6X more likely to be victims of a sexual assault.
Even if they're limited to contact shots they should have the option of defending themselves with a firearm.

Word up.

Were I in the IFR boat, though, I think I would be doing whatever it took to become an SME on weapon retention.

[DocGKR]

I've know plenty of "legally blind" folks that are CEO's, CFO's, CTO's, physicians, etc... One of my patients can't get a DL because of poor vision, but can read well enough to work as a book editor for a major publisher. There is NO reason why "legally blind" folks like those described above could not safely carry and use a defensive firearm.

[Drang]

I was reading where 100% blind women are 6X more likely to be victims of a sexual assault.
Even if they're limited to contact shots they should have the option of defending themselves with a firearm.

This. Telling someone they don't have a right to the most effective means of self-defense for any reason is immoral.
You're blind.
You're a woman.
You're black.
You are the wrong religion.
You don't belong to the right political party.
You're not rich and famous.
You didn't contribute to the sheriff's reelection campaign.

[Shellback]

And this is why they should be issuing permits... (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/13/wisconsin-home-invaders-beat-blind-husband-raped-pregnant-wife-police-say/)

The complaint says that while the couple struggled to sleep about 5 a.m. that Sunday morning, the male victim, who is legally blind without his glasses, noticed the bedroom door was open and shouldn't have been…

"Someone's gonna die tonight," one suspect said, according to the complaint. One suspect was allegedly wearing a mask from the movie "Scream."

The female victim told the three men repeatedly that she was pregnant, and that the men could take what they wanted from the house...

All three men are accused of sexually assaulting the woman, and one is accused of forcing her to perform oral sex.

How come Obama's not claiming one of these guys could've been his son? The middle one looks like he could be.

http://global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./HomeInvasion.jpg