The Annoyed Man wrote:I've been a guitar player for 48 years. I am well aware of what it takes to play a guitar, and total blindness is no obstacle. I also know enough about both the guitar and CHL to say that this is not even a valid comparison.
The fact of the matter is that this is a lose/lose situation. If the instructor (our OP, who I note has only posted three times since [strike]trolling[/strike] joining) goes ahead and teaches the blind person the course, he opens himself to potential liabilities from the state and from the family of the innocent bystander shot dead by the blind man during a self-defense shooting.
The blind man faces potential manslaughter charges for shooting innocent people any time he uses his gun in legitimate self-defense.
And then there is the innocent bystander who doesn't get to go home to his family that night.
Then, there is the cop who understands the blind man's need to defend himself in a righteous shooting but who has to arrest the blind man on manslaughter charges for the death of an innnocent bystander. Etc., etc., etc.
The whole thing IS a can of worms. I know what I would do if I were the instructor, but the law doesn't currently state with any specificity that you can't offer a blind person a CHL course. So if you, as the instructor, refuse to instruct a blind person, then you may be guilty of violating some kind of federal anti-discrimination law. (Please note that I am using the term "blind" to mean "completely blind." If a person can distinguish shapes in the background, moving or not, then I think that is sufficient to make an informed shoot/don't shoot decision.)
Balanced against that is talk, from myself as well, of detering a citizen from exercising his fundamental right to keep and bear arms. That is a losing proposition as well. That person does have an absolute and enumerated right to keep and bear arms.
At what point has wisdom entered this conversation? RPB, I appreciate the stubborness you refer to, and the desire to prove to the (for lack of a better term) "able-bodied" that you are not limited by your physical handicaps; and I think that is an admirable quality.........if tempered by wisdom. Stubborness for its own sake without a legitimate goal is not a good justification for anything. "I'll show you" has been the cause of many more disasters in history than it has victories. There has to be a legitimate goal of that stubborness, or else it is just stupidity.
I try to let wisdom be the overriding arbiter of my own behavior....not always with success, but at least I have that standard I try to live up to. Wisdom dictates that I don't drink and drive. Wisdom dictates that I don't spend money I don't have. Wisdom dictates that I stay out of rough neighborhoods and high-crime areas to the degree that it is possible to do so. Wisdom dictates that I keep my savings in banks and not in my mattress. Wisdom also dictates that I don't give driving lessons to the blind.
To me, and this is just my opinion, but wisdom dictates that if a blind person were to ask me to teach them a CHL class, I would try to talk them out of it AND offer them what I think is a better alternative: martial arts training with an emphasis on using a knife. If they insisted on the CHL, then I would likely refuse. Why? Because at the end of the day, I have to live with the consequences of my actions. If a blind person wanted me to teach them how to shoot, I would do that in a heartbeat. If a blind person wanted the experience of assisted hunting, I would support that (although I am in no position to provide such a service myself). If a blind person wanted to have a gun for self-defense use inside of their home, I would support that and be happy to help them make a good selection of firearm.
But......I would categorically refuse to enable a blind person to pass a CHL course and carry a gun on the street.....because my wife and son and I might have to be walking down that same street on the day the blind man needs to shoot his gun in self-defense. And by the way, whatever the legal arguments, I would not in fact be stepping on his rights by doing so, as he is certainly free to try and pursue it with someone else. But I'm not going to be part of that because I think it is dumb and extremely unwise.
Also, I think that much of this is moot. I suspect that the person's blindness would turn up during the DPS background check and he would be denied his CHL anyway......AND he would be out the $140 to the state plus whatever the instructor charged him. So this whole thing is an exercise in futility.
Now, I'm not going to be one bit surprised to see this thread show up on the Brady Bunch site with the headline "CRAZY GUN NUTS ADVOCATE BLIND PEOPLE CARRY GUNS," while they try to get legislation through Congress limiting the rights of the blind.
Some things are just better left alone. This is one of them. The OP, "comfortinarms," has posted exactly three times since joining. All three posts are in this thread, and he hasn't posted at all since the day he joined, two days ago. He has shown no interest in any other topics on this board. Hopefully he will come back and prove to be an active and contributing member of this board. If he doesn't, then I think we can take this entire thread as a trolling exercise. I'm done contributing to it.
You know, TAM, if you'd just posted this back on page one, we could
already be back to arguing about whether or not Ron Paul is a kook, or if handguns chambered for .17HMR or .50BMG make good EDC weapons.
I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, nor should anything I say be taken as legal advice. If it is important that any information be accurate, do not use me as the only source.
