We’ve been here before. Back in October 2013, TTAG reader MD Matt took Jimmy Kimmel to task for making fun of sight-impaired shooters in Blind People with Gun? Get Over it.) Three days ago, it was Defensive Gun Use of the Day: 92-Year-Old Blind Woman Chases Off Burglars. But that didn’t stop South Carolina’s WSPA from launching a hysterical report headlined Investigation: Shooting in the Dark. Like this: “Johnny Horton, former Army gunner and card-carrying member of the National Rifle Association, love his firearms and doesn’t go anywhere without his pistol. He says South Carolina’s concealed weapons permit law terrifies him . . .
The law forces the state to issue a permit to anyone who passes a CWP course and shows either proof of 20/40 vision within 6 mont5hs or a valid driver’s license.
You need 20/40 vision to get a driver’s license, but gun instructors say just because you have one doesn’t mean you have good enough eyesight to safely handle a gun. That’s because the state only requires drivers to update them every 10 years.
“They are shooting in the dark,” Horton explains.
He says he knows there are people out there who aren’t qualified; those who have lost their sight within the last 3 years and have a CWP.
Duh duh DUH! Disarm the vision impaired! Because . . . guns!
There’s no way a visually impaired person could responsibly exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. The blind Oklahoman who did so in the story referenced above could have shot someone! I mean, the wrong someone. Kinda like the New York City police. Anyway . . .
Warren Sanders, a CWP instructor, didn’t lose his eyesight, but ran into some serious problems with his vision a while back.
Sanders knew he had no business handling a gun at the time, but under state law, he could still carry a concealed weapon.
“I personally have had cataract surgery,” he says. “My vision deteriorated. I saw the need for corrective lenses and took care of it.”
Sanders says his concern is people like him who have vision problems, but don’t tell anyone and use a valid driver’s license to take advantage of what he calls a loophole in the law to get a concealed weapons permit.
“A person may make a decision based on faulty vision and it may cost someone else dearly,” he adds.
There’s no way to know how many people out there don’t meet the vision requirement, but are carrying guns. But Horton says there’s one thing we do know: they’re out in public with the rest of us.
“The last place you want to be is in the grocery store and catch a stray bullet while you’re buying a loaf of bread,” he says.
As opposed to? Seriously folks, remember this morning’s Quote of the Day, where President Obama vowed to keep “chipping away” at our gun rights? Like that. Rust never sleeps and neither do the proponents of civilian disarmament. Which is easy to see if you keep your eyes open.
I guess the anti-rights crowd hate firearms freedom enough for it to over rule their usual SJW BS.
— Sanders says his concern is people like him who have vision problems, but don’t tell anyone and use a valid driver’s license to take advantage of what he calls a loophole in the law to get a concealed weapons permit.—
Yeah, that’s not a loophole – that’s called LYING!
Calling it a loophole – that’s also LYING! Now you could certainly say “but there’s no mechanism for testing people every 2 hours to make sure their vision is still good!”
A loophole is simply an inflammatory term to describe some thing that is legal by statute, but offends the delicate sensibilities of the person calling it a loophole.
Freedom is a loophole.
Meanwhile…
I once witnessed a young lady take an eye exam at the DMV for an older lady so the older lady could get her license renewal. The DMV worker never batted an eye.
I was next in line.
I was denied, by the SAME DMV employee, my license and had to jump through many a bureaucratic hoop because I answered honestly to a question on the application regarding a medical issue.
So they are concerned with a vision-impaired person carrying a gun that, statistically, they will likely never pull out in necessity, but they don’t mind those same people manipulating a ton or two of steel, glass, and highly-inflammable liquids through highly-populated environments every day?
^ this exactly. Because guns!
It’s like they don’t teach logic and critical thinking in schools anymore!
It’s like they don’t teach logic and critical thinking in schools anymore!
Did they ever, really?
The public education system was not set up for education. It was set up for compliance.
Read John Taylor Gatto for details.
I taught college for a number of years. The level of thinking moving into college was pretty low. Gatto was right on the money.
As was Thomas Wolsey, actually.
Shall not be infringed.
^^This, exactly. Nowhere in the 2A do the words “unless you’re blind” exist. As a matter of fact, you won’t find the words “unless” or “but…”
So next they’re going to claim because it’s too dark to see clearly a CCW permission slip is not valid at night?
Aye!
This blind/vision impaired argument pissed me off the last time it came up. How well do you need to be able to see to shoot a violent intruder? Think about it for a second at least. Or ask a 92 year old lady in OK. We aren’t talking about shooting groups here.
The blind have a right to defend their lives. Even if gun grabbers and the media think their lives are not as valuable as people that don’t have that particular handicap. Ive heard that argument before somewhere. The value of life is not based on eugenics.
When there is a rash of blind people shooting as poorly as most big city police departments, get back to me.
“When there is a rash of blind people shooting as poorly as most big city police departments, get back to me.”
Exactly!
Furthermore, I can guarantee that a blind person won’t miss an attacker who is in physical contact with them.
And I haven’t even touched on the fact that there are varying degrees of blindness — from total absence of any vision whatsoever to ability to see general shapes and colors to tunnel vision, etc. People with lesser degrees of blindness will have no trouble putting rounds on target when an attacker is just a few feet away.
…anyone who passes a CWP course and shows either proof of 20/40 vision within 6 mont5hs or a valid driver’s license.
Man, it’s tough to get a permit in the “gun friendly” South.
Here in Washington, you just have to fill out a form, pass an FBI background check, and pay a small fee.
SC is not like other states in the South. Their state is full of stupid gun laws that only exist to make it more difficult to legally carry. My GA Weapons Carry License works in every state that borders GA with the exception of SC. They do their own thing.
Indeed. GA system is as close to constitutional carry as you can get without it actually being so. The only thing that’s holding GA from going to constitutional carry is the revenue brought in by the WCL. I think that’s the issue in most free states.
Except in Washington you have “expanded back round checks”…..
With friends like these…
When there are hordes of semi-blind to totally blind people running amuck shooting randomly……then I will worry. I feel pretty safe knowing I will never have that worry. How many blind rapists/murderers/thugs are in prison?…….there you go.
The salient point being, if someone who is legally blind pulls a weapon and starts shooting randomly and there is a not so blind person in the vicinity to return fire, who is most likely to get the first center of mass hit and stop the situation?
“I personally have had cataract surgery,” he says.
Me too. Both eyes.
“My vision deteriorated.”
Me too.
“I saw the need for corrective lenses and took care of it.”
Me too.
And I was never unsafe or as bad a shooter as a New York City cop. And I never disrespected handicapped people like those douchebags Sanders and Horton, both of whom are slime and should be ashamed. Except they have no concept of shame.
Just curios Ralph, how long ago did you have your cataract surgery? They have made advances in that field, in the last few years. I had mine, both eyes, about 2/3 years ago, and I am so glad that I did. I was about to the point that I couldn’t drive without glasses. Now I can see great, even without glasses, but I recently had a pair of prescription safety glass made up, mostly for shooting.
Gunr, I had one eye done when I was 50 and the other when I was 52 — I’m 67 now. I had a great doctor and told him that if I had a third eye, I’d have him do that one too.
My biggest problem before the surgery was driving at night. Oncoming headlights made it seem like I had a spiderweb covering my eyes. Since the surgery, no problems. But I still need glasses. Astigmatism — it sucks. Especially since I was 20/10 when I was a kid.
This is the first I’ve heard of a vision test for a CCW. Soon all the commies will want us to have 20/20 to get a permit. I was born with bad eyes and I can still out shoot most of my friends.
Hiya Joe!
No vision test in RI? I just renewed my MA license and had to take a test at the Registry. It took, oh, thirty seconds, tops. Read one line, read another line, saw the colored lights in my peripheral vision, identified the color. That was it.
I’m convinced the aside from eating and sex, seeking to oppress other people is the most loved activity of human beings.
Except that odd anomaly of societal evolution known as the American. Let’s face it, liberty is not a natural concept and people in general don’t really want it. It took millenia and some pretty radical enlightenment to come up with the concept of individual rights and limitations on government. There’s a reason the US was called the Great Experiment.
Well, the results of that experiment are in. Eventually, the limited government will break free of its shackles, people will by and large regress to typical statists, and the few who are strong enough to retain the values of liberty will be forever fighting a defensive war against a world that hates them.
The dirty little secret is that seeking to oppress other people is often linked to sex in people with serious emotional ‘issues’…
+1 Silver. Eloquent and true.
Great post! I’ve been trying to get this same message across to people for decades.
Has he never heard of contact shots? CWP instructor… hmm. Government requirements to exercise a basic right foster division amongst the POTG. Licensing or any other permit is bad, bad, bad for the RKBA. It’s shall not be infringed for very good reasons.
20/40 is not bad vision. If I recall correctly, the military could waiver 20/50 vision into flight school.
Isn’t 20/200 the threshold for being legally blind?
I know I was at 20/200 at one point, and on physicals and such they would just draw a line through “vision (uncorrected)”. And it was still correctable to 20/20 with ordinary glasses.
This guy needs to stop training others. He is clearly not qualified.
Sheeeit.
I am not safe with guns? Oh nos. Guess I’ll have to get the range to refund my yearly membership, and the $1350 I just spent on a Vinci tactical. Guess Maryland should take that handgun qualification card back. I’ll have to find someone to take these other handguns and rifles, and my other shotgun. I got news for this guy. My wife is going to be pissed when I tell her she has to return her super black hawk, and you do not want my wife pissed at you–it’s days like this I regret giving her those throwing knives.
It’s always nice to hear than I’m more than I ought to be…Seriously bro, how’s the air up there on that horse?
Makes me want to learn to drive just to yank his chain.
Makes me want to learn to drive just to yank his chain.
😀
I don’t get it. This is South Carolina; right? I just took the SC CWP test and it included a 50 round shooting qualification at 5 to 15 yards. If an applicant can pass that qualification I don’t care if he’s blind; his shooting is good enough to carry.
Ehh…To be fair, I would blame the slant more on cub reporter Mike Manzioni “who spent months investigating the issue…” and the likely anti-gun bias of editors at CBS affiliate channel 7, WSPA in Spartansburg.
Old Johnny the Army Gunner is the owner of a gun range, and is reportedly a good ol’ boy.
http://www.carolinashootersclub.com/threads/indoor-range-in-spartanburg-sc.88230/
Wouldn’t be the first time a gun guy was misquoted…
Wouldn’t be the first time a gun guy was unmasked…
FIFY
So now maybe, they want to make it illegal to shoot someone in the dark, like an intruder?
Nah. They’ll just pass a law requiring daytime break-ins.
At least that would be a law with honest intention!
“In reality we don’t mind if you rob these people, just be courteous about it. Don’t worry, we won’t let them fight back!”
Once again, they’re trotting out the false equivalency of driving privileges and gun rights. There’s legally blind, and there is sightless.. The vision requirements to operate a motor vehicle on public roads are indeed different than those for operating a firearm in close quarters for lawful self defense.
One of my carry guns is an S&W 642 Airweight with a 1 3/4” barrel. It doesn’t even have rear sights, just a groove in the top of the receiver frame. It’s rightfully called a belly gun..
If a law abiding citizen minding his business in public with a white cane in his hand is attacked, he should be free to grab a handful of his assailant’s clothing, draw his weapon, and fire away. Just like we’d be doing if we had our eyes closed, which would be likely if someone is raining down blows to your head.
This is a solution in search of a non existent problem. When I hear of even one legally blind person shooting an innocent, with all other factors equal, then we can have the “discussion”. Until that happens it’s just another avenue to trample your rights to self defense.
Discrimination.
Hey RF, just wanted to let you guys know that yes, someone did pick up on the fact that your header pic caught the intrepid reporter with his eyes closed…
Blind is not necessarily vision of 0/0. LOW vision is the way I describe “legally blind” to people. A person is considered to be legally blind if (s)he has a visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in their best seeing eye. That means that the detail in an object a normal person would see at 200 feet, a legally blind person would see that same detail from 20 feet away or less.
There are several shooting aids that can help the visually challenged shoot a firearm. The green laser is one such aid.
There is nothing more rewarding than seeing someone overcome visual/physical challenges and enjoy recreational shooting… or shoot a qualification score unassisted better than others in their CCW class.
In our countries current environment my legally blind wife desires the ability to join me in being able to defend herself or be an additional deterrent to a bad guy or girl if needed. With shooters engaging the innocent in places of soft target gatherings more and more I concur with her. In the state of Arkansas you must show the license to carry and additional identification, not a drivers license only but state I.D. The legally blind carry such I.D. We all should know the distance most attacks happen within and how quickly and there is no reason the target could not be engaged by the legally blind within those distances. As stated before being legally blind is not being unsighted and each person will have a different level of functional vision. If that functional vision allows the passing of the class and shooting requirements of that class, then get ready naysayers for the legally blind spouse of this CCP holder is about to join the ranks. And I trust her her Much more than the writer of this article who seems to be impaired in another area.
Comments are closed.