By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Terry Sutherland, a blind man, obtained an Indiana handgun license to highlight flaws in the state’s gun laws. His successful application, despite his blindness, underscores the lack of competency testing for firearm permits. Sutherland advocates for mandatory competency tests at gun ranges, mirroring practices in other states, believing this is a minimum safety measure. Conversely, Second Amendment advocate Guy Relford opposes such restrictions, arguing for personal responsibility over government regulation. Sutherland’s efforts to prompt legislative discussion on common-sense gun safety measures have, so far, been met with silence from state representatives.
Read the original article here
A blind man in Indiana obtaining a license to carry a handgun, despite not needing one in the state due to its constitutional carry laws, highlights a crucial debate surrounding gun control and competency. This act serves not as an endorsement of blind individuals carrying firearms, but rather as a pointed commentary on the lax nature of Indiana’s gun regulations.
The core argument revolves around the concept of competency. The absence of a licensing requirement in Indiana means virtually anyone can carry a firearm, regardless of their training or ability to safely handle a weapon. This blind man’s acquisition of a license, while seemingly paradoxical, underscores the inherent flaws in a system prioritizing unfettered access over responsible gun ownership. His action effectively forces a conversation about whether competency testing should be a prerequisite, regardless of existing laws.
However, the suggestion of mandatory competency tests is not without its own complexities. Historical parallels, such as discriminatory literacy tests used to disenfranchise Black voters in the Jim Crow South, raise concerns about potential misuse. The fear is that such tests could be manipulated to disproportionately restrict certain groups from exercising their Second Amendment rights, creating a new form of systemic oppression. This possibility, while alarming, shouldn’t overshadow the need for responsible gun ownership.
The situation is further complicated by the varied levels of visual impairment. Legal blindness encompasses a spectrum of conditions, from near-total vision loss to significant visual field restrictions. This means that the physical capabilities of legally blind individuals regarding firearm handling also vary significantly. Assuming all legally blind individuals are equally incapable of safe firearm handling is inaccurate and potentially discriminatory.
The comparison to driving, while seemingly apt, doesn’t perfectly align. Driving requires a specific set of physical and cognitive abilities that are demonstrably essential for road safety. The absence of a similar universally applicable standard for firearm handling contributes to the debate’s complexities. The absence of a licensing requirement in Indiana, coupled with the potential for misuse of competency tests, puts the focus on the larger discussion of responsible gun ownership and the need for effective regulation.
The legal precedent surrounding disability rights adds another layer. Denying a blind person the right to carry a firearm solely based on their disability would likely violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. This underscores the tricky legal terrain surrounding firearm ownership and disability, forcing a reconsideration of how to balance constitutional rights with public safety concerns. The core of the matter is the tension between the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and the responsibility that comes with possessing a potentially lethal weapon.
Ultimately, this seemingly unusual situation compels a deeper look into several important issues. It reveals the gaps in existing gun laws, the concerns surrounding competency tests and their potential for abuse, the nuanced nature of disability, and the inherent tension between individual liberties and public safety. The blind man’s actions, intentional or not, have sparked a conversation that is crucial for improving gun safety regulations and preventing future tragedies. While his methods are unorthodox, they force a re-evaluation of the ease of access to firearms in some states, potentially leading to discussions about much-needed regulations that balance the Second Amendment rights with ensuring responsible gun ownership.
The debate extends far beyond Indiana’s specific laws. Many states have “constitutional carry” laws, mirroring Indiana’s approach. The controversy highlights the need for a national conversation about responsible gun ownership, standardized competency testing (without the potential for discriminatory implementation), and the delicate balance between individual rights and public safety. The core problem isn’t the blind man’s license; it’s the system that allows such a situation to even arise.