Iowa Issues Firearm Carry Permits To The Blind

In some cases equality maybe doesn’t make much sense:

Full Story over at The DesMoines Register.

LOL his wife is reading firearm safety rules at the start “Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction” … MMMmmmhmm he goes as he is fondling the muzzle with his hand.

0:40 – “If I needed to fire this… I can hear where people are, so I just simply point and shoot” <— Hmmmmm… yea that will end well. LOL

I don’t know what the solution is here… Iowa obviously can’t give every blind person 24/7 protection by issuing each one their own police officer.  However, it seems a bit irresponsible to give someone who CAN’T SEE the power to send lead in any direction at 1000+ ft/sec just because he may have heard a sound he didn’t like and got freaked out.

What’s this so called safety training he went through?  Oh and him and his wife are going to train at the range?  Wonderful, come to think of it that might be why there are so many holes in the roof, baffles, and target hangers at the ranges I’ve been to… blind people practicing.

Blind-Concealed-Carry-GunHows this for a simple test…  6 targets get put up at the range, 5 of obvious non-threats like mom and a baby, kid with a lollypop etc.. and one target of a thug. These targets switch places every 10 seconds.  If he can distinguish the thug one and hit ANYWHERE on the target from say 10ft away 10 times out of 10 he can have his permit.  Oh is that trampling on his rights because people who have vision don’t have to do that?  *eye roll* I hope someone doesn’t comment that.   I’m pretty sure the comment section of this post is going to be troll heaven…


Hat tip: Adam


37 responses to “Iowa Issues Firearm Carry Permits To The Blind”

  1. Eh, I don’t think it’s that big of a deal. They’ve been able to carry all along in Vermont and haven’t been a problem, and can in Arizona now too. If it comes down to hitting bystanders in shootings I would put their numbers up against the NYPD anyday.

    1. Then there’s this guy who is totally blind, which a lot of legally blind people aren’t. Their hearing is scary. Like bats.

      And this woman blogs about her adventures in the shooting sports, and happens to be legally blind. Interesting reading.

  2. His Constitutional rights can only be stripped from him with due process. In fact, the act of requiring a permit to carry a defensive arm is unconstitutional.

    That said, it may not be the best idea for him to shoot at anything other than contact distance.

    1. Hooray! Since you’ve obviously solved the complex issue of how far our 2nd Amendment rights extend, perhaps you can help us all finally put to rest the question of what the president’s role as the commander-in-chief specifically entails. I mean, you are the Constitutional expert.

      1. Wow Poppy, sounds like he has good logic to me.

  3. CopperTopTX Avatar

    Ouch, a little harsh there, ENDO Mike…. While I can see the potentially unsafe side of this, there are plenty of people out there with 20/20 or better vision who are probably far more unsafe with a gun in public. I doubt this gentleman, or most other visually impaired people, are planning on using their guns for doling out vigilante justice down at the local mall…. Don’t they have the same right to protect themselves as you or myself? As Adam mentioned, most visually impaired people have very heightened senses to compensate for their lack of vision. They’re blind, not stupid! (Well, I’m sure there are exceptions to that but you get the point….)

    1. I don’t necessarily think Mike is disputing that, but I mean look at how obviously unsafe this CAN be?

      1. That’s the logic gun grabbers are using against us.

        1. ^Exactly, Adam.

          Saying “this seems like it could be dangerous to me and therefore it should be illegal” is the EXACT same line of thinking that’s used to argue against CCW and gun ownership in general all over the world.

          Laws should be written to allow recourse against those that harm others, not potentially prevent injuries based on “what-if” scenarios while trampling on the rights of citizens. In this case, I would guess a legally blind person involved in a potentially justified shooting still has about a 99.99999987% chance of being liable in a wrongful death trial even if they can legally carry. Regardless, we should let them make their own decisions.

          We can’t pass judgement on how capable they are with their firearm unless we are advocating going to a full proficiency test for all CCW permit applicants, which is a completely different discussion.

          Mike, be consistent with your principles! Don’t fall into the same traps that turn average, middle-of-the-road people into gun-haters.

          1. ENDO-Mike Avatar

            This guy is old, and he seems sane so like others pointed out I’m sure the chances of him doing something negligent or ever even having to use his gun defensively are probably pretty slim. Should he have the means to protect himself? Sure I would like hope every blind person isn’t looked upon as being defenseless… up until now I pretty much assumed they all were. If he can’t see though, what good is a gun even really though? I’m sure certain situations that arise might allow him to have lots of time to find it.. feel where the muzzle end is.. sit in a chair and wait to see if an intruder kicks his door down before he shoots etc… most of this though just seems to be “WHY SHOULDN’T HE HAVE A GUN?! HE’S AN AMERICAN TOO!”. We could probably give this guy a car license, and a pilots license, and a permit to manufacture explosives too and I bet he would be responsible with them too, but really what’s the point? It sucks because I’m sure no one likes to be left out because of a disability. Probably the best part about this guy having a gun is the deterrent aspect… someone robbing his house likely won’t know he’s blind, they will just see an old guy with a shiny revolver and crap their pants and take off before a shot is fired!

  4. I don’t know how much good a range will do him, but sure, go ahead and give him a derringer. Better he defend himself than be a victim. Although I think most people could disarm a blind old man fairly easily…
    He did muzzle sweep EVERYONE though

  5. There’s two discussions to be had. How unsafe CAN this be? No moreso than letting a 21 year old CC.

    How bad is it? Well, legally blind in the US means not correctable to 20/200, but that means that most of these people (I had a guitar teacher who was legally blind, but worked at Sam Ash and taught music just fine) have very poor vision with glasses on. My vision is terrible without my glasses/contacts but I can still see well enough to do a shoot/no shoot or figure out who someone is at 15 feet. Yeah, someone who’s legally blind isn’t going to win a Tueller drill, but they could (here comes the risque reference) Zimmerman it and go for a contact shot while fighting for their life.

  6. I say firearms for everyone. Whats gonna keep the new world order from putting fluoride in our water to make us all blind so they can take our guns away? …wait they all ready are. ALEX JONES IS RIGHT! THe blind must keep and bear arms just like the rest of us! just because u r blind doesn’t mean you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms!!!!

  7. I got no beef with him being armed. Also glad it’s a 22 and not a 357 or other centerfire gun to limit penetration in case of an errant shot. The only real issue with this man is that he and any friends or family will simply have to work out a communication strategy for when they visit so they don’t get shot. I’d also imagine that since he has lost his sight, his hearing is considerably sharper than ours and direction finding based on sound probably is much more reliable than ours giving credibility to his claim of being able to shoot at someone he can hear. My guess is that he’ll be very proficient with the gun, so much that he can operate it blindfolded (yep, joke intended). Carrying in public or even in his car, then we might have issues despite him having that right to carry.

    1. I think a responsible follow up piece would be to put him through a course of fire where he could demonstrate his target identification skill by hearing only. That would probably be necessary if the city/county/state decided to try and take away his right.

  8. If he is reliant on sound, he better not have a gun that will give him tenitis…

  9. All guns are always loaded.
    Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy.
    Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
    Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.
    —Jeff Cooper

    Pretty clear violation of rule 4 for any blind person.

    1. Of course then we have to discuss the degrees of blindness.

      Sorry folks but I’m with Mike on this one. It doesn’t make sense to issue CCPs to blind folk. Not that the CCP concept isn’t already flawed.

    2. If all guns are always loaded, how do they work? Where does the ammo go? How do you clean them?

      1. I believe this response deserves some kind of prize or other acknowledgement.

        1. ^^^^^^^^^ – sarcasm

          1. I just want to know! I want answers!

            1. Its a safety thing. if you treat every gun like it is always loaded, you will be less likely to negligent discharge into someones gut that one time when you miscount and only fire 5 instead of 6 rounds out of your revolver

  10. I am pretty sure my risk of being injured is higher in an area where firearms are restricted than that of being injured by the .001% of blind guys packing.

    Does he have a right to self defense? I would say he is probably at higher risk of being assaulted. He has a right to do what he can to even the odds.

  11. Great tshirt potential hear

    1. Blind as a _ _ _
      Accurate as _ _ _ _

  12. My dad is legally blind. He passes the same shooting qualification that every other licensee in Texas is required to pass.
    He occasionally comes and shoots IDPA with me. He doesn’t win any matches, but he usually places higher than several fully sighted shooters.

  13. TheMirage Avatar

    As a instructor for permits in Iowa I think many are also not aware we have a Permit to Carry Weapons not a concealed carry permit, etc. Though the permit process is written for handguns it allows the carry of non-firearms that would otherwise be illegal such as knives with blades over 5inches, stun guns, impact weapons such a baton, etc. Also I’ve had many people get their permit only because they want the added protection that if a significant other leaves a loaded firearm in the car they can’t be charged with possession if stopped and the permit holder isn’t present and in control of the firearm.

    1. Some people also get them even if they never use them just to support Second Amendment rights. That way when politicians go to vote they see how many permit holders there are.

  14. A permit to carry a firearm isn’t not a requirement to use said firearm. Blind people are just as capable as sighted people at exercising proper judgment and not taking unsafe shots. Just because this man is permitted to have a weapon and permitted to carry that weapon doesn’t mean he has a carte blanche to put hot lead down range every time he hears a sound. He’s still expected to know his limits and know when his weapon can be safely discharged.

    Is he going to be a stone cold operator ripping off head shots on bad guys playing peek-a-boo with a hostage? Of course not (and neither should 99+% of people who carry). But he could certainly safely stop a would be attacker who’s looking to victimize a perceived defenseless target at point blank range.

    There’s nothing inherently unsafe about a blind man with a firearm. A firearm requires human action to fire and to suggest that this man is incapable of exercising proper judgment and self-control just because he’s blind is ludicrous.

    1. Good Lord man, look at Vermont! Blind folks have been able to carry WITHOUT A PERMIT (EEEK!). Haven’t you heard the stories of blind vigilantes mowing down crowds of innocent bystanders! Think of the children!

      1. ^ rofl

  15. Just because someone is fully or “legally” blind doesn’t mean they don’t have common sense about safety issues. I’m from Iowa and I fully support blind people being able to protect themselves with guns.

  16. I think I remember hearing Barry from Moss pawn and gun say he sold a gun to a blind man once.

  17. Didn’t read any comments from above but I’ll just offer my experiences… I have a fairly serious visual impairment and a concealed carry permit… it’s really simple, everyone who carries a gun uses their brain to decide when to shoot, not their 5 senses. The senses acquire information, the brain makes the decision. The shots I can take might be fewer than the shots someone with 20/20 vision can take, the bad guy might have to be a little closer to me before I can make the positive ID that it’s a gun he’s holding and not a cell phone, but it’s ignorant to think I’d take those extra shots just because someone else can take them. If I did, it would be my brain that is the problem, not my eyes. Everyone who shoots should be able to recognize that they have shoot/no shoot limits. No matter the information the 5 (or 1 or 2) senses bring in, you don’t shoot unless you’re sure. just because someone else’s limits are different than yours doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the right to take the shots they can safely take, even if those are few and far between.

    It honestly scares me a little when people start making claims that those with impairments shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns unless they pass some sort of litmus test, because it illustrates that the person making that claim doesn’t understand the nature of limitations and the mindset that is needed to prevent them from becoming problems.

  18. As an Iowa CWP holder and lawyer, I love this. There are no PRIOR restraints on the exercise of the right. Like any other. However, you can have it taken away if you are shown to be a danger (or otherwise through due process). the point is, we start with the position that he does have the right. If they want to claim he doesn’t have the right they have to show that he, specifically should not after due process of law. Like a competency hearing, maybe.

    Oh, and no permit of any sort or record if he wanted to sit at home with a shotgun, so I don’t see a difference if it’s any other gun or any other place. either someone is a risk or they aren’t, tools and locations don’t matter.

    1. Ed hits the nail on the head!