A blind man from Indiana who obtained his concealed carry permit is using that experience to advocate for stricter laws regarding who may carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. And he is also attracting considerable media attention in the process.
According to a report at keyc.com, Terry Sutherland sought a permit in his home state of Indiana, even though the state has a constitutional carry law, and he didn’t need one to legally carry a firearm there. Sutherland’s solution would be for states to have to go back to requiring a live-fire shooting test to qualify for a permit—a requirement that runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
While Sutherland is making a big deal out of the fact that he was issued a permit, it’s not really that curious. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a firearm outside of the home for self-defense. The amendment specifically mentions the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Of course, it doesn’t say, “… the right of people who can walk without aid.” And it doesn’t say, “… the right of the people who are not hearing impaired.” Likewise, it doesn’t say, “… the right of the people who have perfect eyesight.”
The protection was written for lawful Americans, which is “the people,” of which Sutherland is a part. To deny him that right would be a direct infringement upon his Second Amendment rights, no matter what his vision capability might be.
In fact, had Sutherland’s application been denied because he is blind, he could have sued the state for infringing upon his rights. And it’s likely a court would rule in favor of his challenge since by Bruen standards, it definitely infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms, and it would be hard to prove a historical precedent of denying the right to arms for those who are vision impaired.
What Sutherland and the media helping him in his crusade for more restrictions on carry permits apparently don’t realize is that with rights come responsibility. And with the right to bear arms comes great responsibility. Just because you have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense, doesn’t mean you should if you cannot do so responsibly.
Take, for instance, a hothead who is prone to flying off the hook and getting into altercations with little provocation. If he knows he cannot control his temper even when trying, he still has the right to carry a firearm for self-defense. However, being a responsible gun owner should lead him to the decision that he’s better off leaving his firearm at home.
The same goes for Sutherland. He does, indeed, have a right to carry a firearm. But responsibility dictates that it’s probably not the best thing to do, since one of the cardinal rules of gun safety is to always know your target and what is beyond it—a difficult requirement for those who cannot see.
Perhaps a better option for Sutherland would be to make sure that the people he spends a lot of time with are responsibly armed and know how to responsibly use their firearms. That could make all the difference if he is ever attacked and cannot defend himself.
Ultimately, Sutherland’s crusade is unlikely to change any carry laws in any state. While it’s admirable that he is putting effort into something he believes in, it is likely just a media flash in the pan that most of us will have forgotten about in a week or so.
The trick of denying gun rights for ‘blind’ people is that a lot of people are ‘legally blind’ but still have functional vision to various degrees. I am one of those people myself, due to neurological damage that left me with a restricted field of vision. Apparently most ‘blind’ people are more like them than those who have total lack of vision.
And, obviously, categorically denying people a right just because weird-o activist think that having that right is a bad idea is just the same old same old anti-gun rights non sense with a new justification.
Funny enough I do occasionally shoot with a blind guy mostly archery but some pistol. It’s not the most impressive groupings but easily minute of salad plate at 25 yards (and a lot of cheap blown out speakers). Wouldn’t be at all surprised if I read about him taking care of business some day/night given his neighborhood.
To clarify not the most impressive groupings to him, I barely managed to do minute of serving tray when I tried with blackout goggles.
Co-worker many years ago was legally blind as he was subject to frequent eye muscle spasms, so couldn’t reliably see to drive. Yet, he was usually the first to spot an attractive woman anywhere nearby.
I just went outside and checked… the sky here in Mn. is intact.
Can someone in Indiana check real quick and verify that the same is true there?
Great article thanks for the info
My father had polio when he was eight years old. Grew up on a farm in SE Mississippi doing a bit of substance hunting on crutches while his brothers fought WWII. He had to crawl to pick the cotton in the bottom field. The cotton wasn’t that high. This guy is just trying to use his disability to make a political point. He should be ashamed.
He shouldn’t be ashamed, he should be banned from speaking, if he thinks it’s fine to take the Second Amendment from someone because they are blind he has no argument against taking the First for the same reason.
TTAG has covered at least one blind man who was in a DGU. Blind people are statistically something like 4X likely to be crime victims.
Imagine using a disability to try to limit your constitutional right? If you have a lisp does it mean you have no freedom of speech? I imagine the majority of blind people would have a lot to say if I proclaimed that their disability robs them of their Constitutional rights.
we should make him take a reading test at the polls, no braille allowed.
Tired of living like a blind man
Couldn’t see the gun I’m stealing
And this is how I remind you of who I really am
How does a blind gun owner obey rule #4?
Know your target and what lies beyond it. Or what is the back stop like behind the criminal you are shooting at?
This “blind guy owner” is just another elitist. A blind one. But still an elitist who thinks you don’t need a gun. And as it has already been point out above.
There are many degrees of blindness according to the law. Some people see very well during the day. But suffer night blindness.
This guy is a Fudd. A blind one. In more ways than one.
Rule #4
HEY! ! ! I said, HEY ! ! ! Watch out I’m preparing to fire.
——
Two in the sign.
One in the window.
Two in the door.
One in the dog.
In other words, typical NYPD marksmanship.
I wonder if he, before he could fire a shot, would beat the threat to death with his cane trying to ‘detect’ where the threat was.
“…since one of the cardinal rules of gun safety is to always know your target and what is beyond it…”
Those rules are not law, and are not stated in the Constitution or BOR, as legitimate restrictions on either.
So now, we open, again, the question of how “common sense” applies to the exercise of a natural, human, civil, and constitutionally protected, right. What is “common sense”, how is it applied, how is it enforced?
It’ll be enforced at least civilly when he injurers or kills the wrong person, just like the rest of us. Except the bar for his willfulness, or recklessness, may be somewhat lower now that he’s made a public spectacle of it.
we’ll know it when we see it. oh, wait…
A license to carry a gun? What’s next a license to watch TV?
ever been to great britain? confuse a cat detector vans everywhere. good to know usaid was contributing to the bbc.
Did this blind guy pass a state mandated qualification course to use that cane, did he need to apply for a permit to have that cane, is there a requirement for a ‘live-tapping test’ to qualify for a permit for using that cane, is there a permit required to have that cane?
Sighted Man Gets Cane To Push For Qualification Requirements for Canes.
So blind man upset at how easy it was to exercise his constitutional right and how the ‘government’ didn’t infringe or oppress or deny his constitutional right – just like, ya know, the constitution intended – by doing something (the permit) that was contrary to his own constitutional right and wasn’t required
There is a reason they will not issue you a driver license to drive a car. First, a drivers license and driving a car is a privilege and not a constitutional right, and because its a state-government allowed privilege they are free to impose ‘restrictions’. So this old ‘drivers license’ reason is really an old anti-gun argument – a ‘privilege’ and a ‘constitutional right are two different things and one has no bearing on the other. Second, driving a car is 100% dependent on certain intact ‘senses’ one of which is sight, which is why the state doesn’t grant you the ‘privilege’ of driving – but because there is no actual physical restriction on you that keeps you from getting in a car and trying to drive it while blind would you do so? Third, just getting a permit for concealed carry doesn’t mean you actually carry the firearm but rather can – and – like driving a car carrying a gun needs a little self-responsibility – so, say they did issue you a drivers license, would you get behind the wheel of the car and try to drive on the roads/streets knowing you were blind and could not see? Fourth, there are literally multiple millions of law abiding people who carry a gun concealed every day – and do so legally and safely without a permit – and who did not have some state mandated course to complete – you have probably encountered these people and didn’t know it and ‘lookie here’ (no pun intended) here you are still all intact and not shot up because someone didn’t have a permit and a state mandated course.
So it seems you got a permit – didn’t need to do so, but did it anyway – so you could bring attention to your own, maybe lack of responsibility, ’cause’ to make an inane point about exercising the constitutional right you choose to exercise and now you want everyone to be burdened by something that has been shown to make no difference at all. In context of your driving example, traffic accidents still happen with licensed ‘state mandated driving test’ drivers and are more than 1,000 times more likely to happen than an accident is to happen with a law-abiding person legally carrying a gun without a permit or some state mandated ‘qualification test’.
So your point was what exactly? That you are doing the same thing as millions of other law abiding gun carriers do safely every day only you did it it by subjecting your own constitutional right exercise to ‘government permission’ and treated your constitutional right as a ‘privilege’ instead of a constitutional right. It doesn’t take a sighted person to see that self-subjecting your own constitutional rights to ‘government permission’ to turn it into a ‘privilege’ is not a wise or good thing to do – but apparently, it takes a blind person like you to advocate for ‘government granted privilege’ instead of constitutional right by doing something stupid.
Blind Man Mad That Cops Gave Him a Gun Permit.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_pEFs9uiQo