Guns returned to blind FL man who ‘stood his ground’ against drinking buddy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Feb 23, 2014.

  1. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #1
    Apparently, run of the mill criminals are allowed to own guns in Florida.



    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/...tm_campaign=Feed:+TheRawStory+(The+Raw+Story)
     
  2. mrkramer, Feb 23, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2014

    mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #2
    Considering it doesn't look like he was convicted what I find disturbing is that apparently you can own a gun even if you are blind and can't see what you are shooting at.
     
  3. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #3
    Obviously that is what the founding fathers meant when they penned the second amendment....

    /s
     
  4. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #4
    Perhaps he has a Pointer as a working dog?
     
  5. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
  6. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6
    They are all responsible says the NRA, (up until the time they wrongly kill someone).
     
  7. tktaylor1 macrumors 6502a

    tktaylor1

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #7
    Blind people and guns go together as well as blind people and cars. How are they supposed to know what they are shooting at? I guess that is why he unloaded 15 shots when 1 MAYBE 2 shots would've been sufficient. This has bad endings written all over it. Just because you have the right to own guns doesn't mean you should. I would put blind people on the list of people who shouldn't own guns.
     
  8. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #8
    I still don't see an issue here.

    1. Wasn't he acquitted of the crime?
    2. His disability(if you see it that way) should not limit his Constitutional Rights.


    What grounds does the judge have to withhold his property?
     
  9. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #9
    This is exactly the problem Roger's has.
     
  10. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #10
    The guy is legally blind. Blind people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, period. It's a public safety threat and the judge legally can withhold his property if it poses a public safety threat.

    Aren't the most important things in gun safety to never point a gun at anything you aren't intending to shoot, and always clearly identify your target (and what's behind the target) before shooting? How is someone who is blind able to do either? A blind man with a gun is an extreme danger to society.
     
  11. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #11
    Maybe his extensive history of violence, some of which involves firearms? Taking guns away from a guy with a habit of shooting people seems reasonable to me.
     
  12. lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #12
    What other Rights do you feel a person with a visual impairment should not have?


    He was acquitted, so again on what grounds?
     
  13. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    As a gun owner do you think it is safe to fire your gun on any occasion without first looking where you are firing?
     
  14. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #14
    Based on his history of violence
     
  15. thekev, Feb 25, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014

    thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #15
    They may not have legal grounds (worthless state) to ensure this idiot can't randomly fire a weapon, but what I don't understand is given his history, why would anyone hang out with him, assuming he didn't have a gun pointed in their general direction? That he discharged 15 rounds on that other occasion while drunk should indicate that he is unable to safely carry a firearm. That they were in his house is beside the point if they were there legally. You may note that I'm not a fan of handling everything through prison sentences. Punishment isn't what matters so much as protecting others from individuals with a propensity toward violence. The history of violence should have prohibited him from owning a firearm. If necessary they could have allowed for a reinstatement of this right pending psychological evaluation. It's still disturbing that the guy can fire a gun without even being able to see where he is aiming.
     
  16. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #16
    We don't allow blind people to drive either. You really want a guy who can't see operating a car?

    On the same token, you really want a guy who can't see to be playing around with a deadly weapon when he can't even see what he's pointing it at?
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    Driving is not a right.
     
  18. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #18
    Sure it is. It's not a Constitutionally-specified right, but it's specified by other parts of our legal codes.

    You need to obtain a drivers license which legally grants you the right to drive.
     
  19. Macman45 macrumors demi-god

    Macman45

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    Location:
    Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
    #19
    It just beggars belief.....they do have blind target shooting clubs over here,but the guns are kept under lock and key at the club, only coming out under supervision, where each blind member has a buddy who calls the target out using the click method.
    giving a blind man a rifle and live ammunition is frankly insanity.
     
  20. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #20
    I would submit that gun ownership isn't a right either.

    Based on District of Columbia v. Heller, there is precedence set that the 2nd Amendment isn't without limits. As such, to own a gun, you must submit to and pass various background checks. Upon passing those, you are permitted to own a gun.

    That would, in turn, make gun ownership a privilege, not a right.

    BL.
     
  21. lostngone, Feb 25, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014

    lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #21
    Careful, if you want to walk that path then technically you have no Rights.

    ----------

    No you have the privilege to drive, not the Right.

    For example, they can legally take your drivers license away if you lose your sight.
    However they can not legally take your gun away.
     
  22. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    While that is true, how would you deal with someone who is legally blind and shows a propensity for violent behavior? Limitations and consequences do exist with other rights. He was acquitted on this one, yet he does have a history.
     
  23. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #23
    Careful.. you seem to forget:

    Everything else is granted, or allotted; as such, they can be taken away. see voting rights for felons, gun rights for felons, and assembly rights for sex offenders (they can't assemble on or near school grounds). Those rights, granted by the 1st, 2nd, 15th, 17th, 19th, 22nd, and 26th Amendments, were taken away.

    When you are arrested and convicted of a crime with a gun, you're bloody well right they are going to legally take your gun away. At that point, you become a criminal, and your Rights are severely castrated.

    If you pose a danger to the public, they can confiscate your gun.

    http://www.npr.org/2012/12/23/16789...-connecticuts-previous-efforts-at-gun-control

    That law is still on the books.

    BL.
     
  24. tktaylor1 macrumors 6502a

    tktaylor1

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #24
    Acquitted doesn't equal innocence. There are people who get off on insanity plea's all the time who are clearly guilty. There are too many loopholes and blood-thirsty lawyers know them all. It's just who is better at playing the game. This is a bad case to talk about this stuff because it is so bizarre. If he was able to see, I'm pretty sure the same choices would not have been made.

    He has a disability. I'm not sure anyone would argue that. It's not a disrespect thing; it's just how it is, unfortunately. As I said earlier, just because you have the right to own a gun doesn't mean you should. I'm all for people being allowed to own guns but there are times when common sense should take over. He has the right to own the gun, just like he has the right to own a car, but that doesn't mean he should shoot it blindly (see what I did there:D) at things/people; just like he shouldn't drive the car.


    The judge has no right in this case. Zimmerman got his guns back.
     
  25. tktaylor1 macrumors 6502a

    tktaylor1

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    #25

Share This Page