Blind Man Wins Court Battle To Own Guns

[james_bond_007]

Blind Man Wins Court Battle To Own Guns, and Has Amazing Aim to Boot
http://www.guns.com/blind-sharpshooter-wins-guns-from-court-7923.html

A blind man has won a court battle to own and fire guns. If this is all familiar, it's because Guns.com (http://www.guns.com) covered the story (http://www.guns.com/blind-man-fights-to-own-guns-7647.html) a few weeks back. Well, now that the legal battle has ended, Steven Hopler, his attorney and his beloved handguns (http://www.guns.com/tags/handgun.html) have come out on top.

Hopler has been a gun lover all his life, but diabetes robbed him of his vision in 1991. When Hopler accidentally shot himself in the leg while cleaning one of his weapons (http://www.guns.com/tags/weapons.html) in 2008, the police decided that he was unfit for gun ownership (because it's the job of police officers to decide that, evidently) and removed Hopler's firearms. Hopler decided to take the issue to the courts (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143451/His-aim-incredible-BLIND-New-Jersey-man-wins-long-running-legal-battle-shoot-guns.html).

Hopler's attorney, Gregg Trautman, claimed that Hopler was just being singled out for his disability, and that the police simply didn't want a blind man to own firearms. The judge overseeing the case concluded that it didn't really matter what the police think and decided to give Hopler's guns back (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/rockaway_township_blind_man_wh.html), adding that removing his guns went against his constitutional right to bear arms.

Trautman celebrated the victory when he told reporters, "It's a hobby and you know what? It's his right." Amen to that.

The most amusing thing about this whole tale is that Hopler is apparently a rather good shot. Hopler's friends claim that he has incredible aim, even now that he is non-sighted. And the state was concerned that he was an unfit owner? Pfft.

[josh7328]

Good for him. Just because you are blind doesnt mean that you should lose your constitutional rights. My grandfather was blind, and I have ZERO doubt in my mind that he could have been somewhat successful defending himself at close range with a gun.

[tmleadr03]

Did he type the title for the thread?

[SideShow Bob]

Did he type the title for the thread?

[ROFL1][ROFL1][ROFL1]

[james_bond_007]

Did he type the title for the thread?

No, that was me and my FAT FINGERS ....[Bang]

If anyone that CAN fix it wants too, go ahead...I didn't think it was worth the asking.

[theGinsue]

Did he type the title for the thread?


No, that was me and my FAT FINGERS ....[Bang]

If anyone that CAN fix it wants too, go ahead...I didn't think it was worth the asking.

I fixed it.

[hammer03]

Good for him. But if he shoots the wrong guy, THEN he gets them taken away.

Wonder though, if he's "legally" blind, or actually blind?


That, and the whole shooting ones self while cleaning a gun, I don't buy... Doesn't make it the police's place to take his guns, but it certainly should have been a wake up call for the guy...

[JM Ver. 2.0]

At what point does he become a danger to himself and others?

[ben4372]

If he can drive to Walmart to buy ammo, let him shoot it.

[lead_magnet]

If he can drive to Walmart to buy ammo, let him shoot it.

Ummm....I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that he probably doesn't drive.

[Ronin13]

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

[tmleadr03]

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

By that logic if he collects cars and is legally blind, why should not the state say he can no longer collect cars? Or paintings. Or what ever.

[00tec]

Did I miss the memo where identifying your target became a non-issue? Or do we just shoot off duty Marines in the bush?

[Irving]

He CAN own firearms. Period. Let's all (Ronin, Jer, 00tec) take a moment to refresh ourselves on the prerequisite to owning firearms.

[00tec]

He CAN own firearms. Period. Let's all (Ronin, Jer, 00tec) take a moment to refresh ourselves on the prerequisite to owning firearms.

I agree that it is his constitutional right to possess a firearm. Didn't argue that at all.
Last I checked, identifying a target was a prerequisite of shooting. Not doing so is a bad idea.

[brutal]

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

I always use touch to verify a round in the pipe. Train for the worst scenario, and that will include darkness.


Did I miss the memo where identifying your target became a non-issue? Or do we just shoot off duty Marines in the bush?

Is it possible there are methods to identify a hostile target besides good eyesight? [Bang]

[Irving]

What does owning guns have to do with target identification?

The article is about this man OWNING firearms. What other discussion is there?

[00tec]

Is it possible there are methods to identify a hostile target besides good eyesight? [Bang]

Yeah, because the boogeyman is going to announce he is hostile. Unless he is touching you, it may prove pretty difficult. Glad he was able to identify his leg when the round went through it.

Let me ask, what if bad guy is holding a hostage? Hand over their mouth, shooting at you. Do you return fire at the gunshots if you can't see shit? The self defense argument starts to sound pretty weak at that point.

How can you tell if someone's kid runs out in front of that paper you are killing?

Look, I never said they should take his 2A away, but a bad idea is a bad idea on his part. Just because it is a good argument, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[brutal]

Yeah, because the boogeyman is going to announce he is hostile. Unless he is touching you, it may prove pretty difficult.

Let me ask, what if bad guy is holding a hostage? Hand over their mouth, shooting at you. Do you return fire at the gunshots if you can't see shit? The self defense argument starts to sound pretty weak at that point.

How can you tell if someone's kid runs out in front of that paper you are killing?

Look, I never said they should take his 2A away, but a bad idea is a bad idea on his part.

Or kicking his way in your front door?

I don't suppose we could assume he lives in the sticks, or shoots with friend's so the "kid" argument is pretty weak at best?

We could argue what-if's all day long.

Bottom line, it's his right to own a firearm and regardless of the circumstances, he may decide to use it. We really don't have enough info to decide that it isn't just plinking and he has zero intent of using them for self defense? We are all often guilty, myself included, of immediately jumping on the self-defense platform when it's really all about 2A isn't it?

[CrufflerSteve]

Yep. I agree he can own guns. He can and will be judged if he uses it on another person. It would be cool to rig up some sort of echo location sighting system on a gun and have him at the range (with a sighted person helping). Orient him and let know when the range is hot and cold.

Steve

[Ronin13]

By that logic if he collects cars and is legally blind, why should not the state say he can no longer collect cars? Or paintings. Or what ever.

Good point... but in the case of using them, that's where I think maybe family should give assistance. Perhaps, but yes, you are correct, he should be allowed to own... okay ouch, let me get my head out of my ass real quick here. Blindness might make it more challenging to use, but yes, ownership does not equal use- kind of like I own a guitar, but I don't ever use it anymore.

[james_bond_007]

I don't mean to play the other side here, but if he effectively is blind, as in cannot see- like if you were to ask him how many fingers you were holding up and he doesn't get it right 9/10 times blind- then why would you allow him to own a gun? That just doesn't seem right... he already shot himself- he can't visually check and see if there is a round in the gun (I guess he can verify by touch), but this just seems like a liability rather than him exercising his rights. Just saying. I don't advocate anyone having their rights infringed, but in this case common sense does say that one who is blind probably shouldn't be in possession of a gun.

Should he be able to own guns ?

To me, it would seem OK for him to own firearms, as collectables.

I would also say that in his home, he should be able to access them and defend himself as it is a very familiar environment to him. (I understand that often your other senses, like hearing, sharpen quite a bit to adapt for loss of another sense, like vision. He could probably hit what he wanted to when defending himself at home). He would also take the responsibility, just as everyone else does, of accidents from use of firearms in such a situation.

In one sense if he were COMPLETELY denied use of firearms, such as in his home, he's now more likely to draw the attention of burglars, as his residence (assuming someone like him might possibly be living alone) is a "Gun Free Zone".

Colorado law might (and likely does) extend far enough to allow him to carry while in a private vehicle, again a familiar environment (hopefully as a passenger). As per my interpretation of the law , it does not indicate you have to be driving or an owner to legally posses a handgun in a vehicle w/o a CCW permit- 18-12-105: Unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon - unlawful possession of weapons.

Should he be allowed to get a CCW Permit ?

But I would be concerned if he were in need of defending himself in more crowded,public, or unfamiliar environments where he was "Not sure of his target, or what was beyond". See the other article I posted about a bind guy wanting to get a CCW.

On that note, the Adams County CCW Information Packet states

"Regardless of whether an applicant meets criteria in the previous section, if the Sheriff has a reasonable belief that documented previous behavior that the applicant makes it likely that the applicant will present a danger to self or others if applicant receives a permit to carry a concealed handgun, the Sheriff may deny the permit"

SO...
1) The guy previously shot himself
2) Is blind and cannot, in all situations, follow the basic firearm safety rules
Seems like a reasonable posture for the Sheriff to deny him a permit.

But I would guess the ACLU would get involved and drag things into court, in the end.

Did the Police Act Properly ?

To the questions about "Why did the police take his weapons away ?" I believe the police have a duty to defuse what they consider dangerous situations. They must use their best judgement, with whatever understanding of the law that they have (right or wrong) and act accordingly. The courts are then used to determine if the police acted lawfully or not.

So a cop sees a blind guy with a gun. This is not something that comes up everyday. to the cop, it "just doesn't seem right". The cop is not sure if it is legal or not, and impounds the guns until someone (i.e., the courts) can figure it out.

It seems in this case this might be what happened.

To me, it would be different if the police were trying continue to appeal the court's decision and pursue not allowing him to posses firearms or are harassing him and continue to take his guns away...I didn't read that they were doing any such thing.

[james_bond_007]

...Or do we just shoot off duty Marines in the bush?

I'd reword this, if I were you. [Coffee]

Someone might think you believe the Marines are a bunch of women, based on the part of the body in which you speak of shooting them. [ROFL1]

[james_bond_007]

... kind of like I own a guitar, but I don't ever use it anymore.

Nothing personal, but I would also use the analogy:

"Owning a guitar does not make one a guitarist
and
owning a firearm does not make one a marksman."

[00tec]

I'd reword this, if I were you. [Coffee]

Someone might think you believe the Marines are a bunch of women, based on the part of the body in which you speak of shooting them. [ROFL1]

I actually prefer Marine women with no bush [Beer]

The original reference was to a bear hunting incident where some jackass shot a Marine in the woods.

[Ronin13]

Nothing personal, but I would also use the analogy:

"Owning a guitar does not make one a guitarist
and
owning a firearm does not make one a marksman."

That is very true! I like that analogy.

[tmleadr03]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXR7lGvwp48&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Someone embed for me? On my phone. Shows you don't need vision to shoot.

[ChunkyMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXR7lGvwp48&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Someone embed for me? On my phone. Shows you don't need vision to shoot.

xXR7lGvwp48

[james_bond_007]

For the most part, there has been agreement that OWNERSHIP by a blind guy might be OK.

Another part (or maybe a New twist) to this is ...

CAN A BLIND PERSON FOLLOW THESE* FIREARMS SAFETY RULES BY THEMSELVES?
(W/O ASSISTANCE FROM ANYONE )


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.

* There are other variants of "Safety Rules"; this is just ONE variation I picked to discuss (I don't want this to morph into "Which set of safety rules are best", if I can help it)

My comments :


All guns are always loaded. - YES:It should not be a problem for a blind person to feel for the magazine or chambered round
Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. - SOMETIMES, but not ALWAYS - Although there are environments when this can be true, I can think of some examples when it would not always be true.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the target. YES: It should not be a problem
Be sure of your target and what is beyond it. - NO - A blind person can never be 100% sure of the target and what is beyond it without help from someone else. (IMHO).
For static targets (paper bulls-eyes etc.) They will be need to be told where the target is by someone else and be told where to aim (unless they are relying on the target always being positioned EXACTLY the same distance away from them AND at the exactly the same height EVERY TIME.) In this scenario, one can "train" to remember where to shoot. We all could hit a bulls-eye blindfolded if we practiced enough, it was always in the same spot, always located the same distance away, and we were a steady/repeatable enough marksman. (Heck, that seems like a descent drill to sharpen one's skills...)
They could locate the target if it was more than just visual i.e., emitted a beep, had a special smell, etc.
What would they do for randomly moving, very silent targets (i.e., a burglar, clay pigeons, etc.)? I can't think of anything.
The "...and what is beyond it" would be tough without anyone assisting a blind person. EX: Target shooting at 50 yards in a field and a dog wanders next to the target. Unless the dog was smelly and upwind or making noise, the blind shooter would not know it was there.
Ironically, for sniper/spotter situations, the "spotting" part would be "about the same" as a sighted shooter. At longer distances, a sighted shooter relies on one's spotter to provide "adjustments" because the shooter may not be able to "see" the bullet holes or POI. (basically 10x-20x scope (or "irons") vs. 40x-60x spotting scope issues). So if a blind person could hold a position, then correct it based on spotting calls, they would be "pretty much" in the same situation as a sighted person. Difference being that a blind person would need spotting "almost always" and a sighed person may only need it at larger distances and that when a sighted person moves out of position, they could re-find their reference. It would be very hard for a blind person to do this to the same degree.

[james_bond_007]

Here's a story of 2 blind shooters that tested the Kentucky statues.
Their permits were NOT revoked.

http://www.kc3.com/news/blind_CCW.htm

[james_bond_007]

ACLU got involved for a Blind Gun Owner in Rhode Island

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/daniel-zimmerman/aclu-sues-to-get-ri-man-his-guns/

[james_bond_007]

Minnesota and North Dakota issues with Blind and CCW

http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/powder-keg/37413-blind-man-given-concealed-carry-permit.html

[Irving]

ACLU got involved for a Blind Gun Owner in Rhode Island

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/06/daniel-zimmerman/aclu-sues-to-get-ri-man-his-guns/

Good for the ACLU.