The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Hunt

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 16, 2006, 09:53 AM   #26
SavageSniper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2005
Location: Crawfordville, FL
Posts: 494
Ok I am going out on a limb here. How about havin' the "vision impared" pass a shooting test, kinda like a driving test at the DMV? Seriously. That way it could be evaluated on an individual basis.
+1 on the 105 UniversalFrost. Two spotter rounds then load the triple whitebag and fire for effect
__________________
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights!
SavageSniper is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 01:15 PM   #27
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:savagesniper

The eye test is a good idea. I believe in Sweden a shooting test is required before a hunting license is issued. I know it controversial, but I have always thought that some kind of minimal shoooting test should be required.

Licenses to operate cars and airplanes require actually demonstrating an ability to operate those things. A surgeon must actually operate on a live person before they are permitted to practice. A teacher must present a lesson to a classroom before they are credentialed. Many skilled endeavors require some sort of test to determine qualifications. Hunters can get licenses without having any knowledge about the proper and safe usage of their guns.

I know many states require hunter safety classes. But I know that in California, the couse does not require actual firearm shooting. You can learn the safe way to oerate a car with a book. But until you are actually driving one all the book knowledge doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
roy reali is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 01:23 PM   #28
bclark1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,531
You can still see an awful lot being legally blind, it's entirely different than actually "blind." Even without corrective devices, a whole lot of those folks can still certainly be able to make out a deer and point at the boiler room. With corrective devices and some help, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to hunt. Their ethics will probably as good as or better than your average hunter - it's not like they're unaware of their handicap. They're of no greater risk than anyone else in the field in my opinion - there will be someone who doesn't do it right out of every group, but the vast majority take it seriously.
bclark1 is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 01:32 PM   #29
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:bclark

A person that is legally blind can not drive a car or fly an airplane. But they should be allowed to fire a gun. I know this doesn't sound fair, but life isn't fair.

Would you allow a legally blind individual to pheasant hunt? The lethal range of a shotgun, espically with birdshot, is nowhere near that of any rifle. So, how would you answer this?
roy reali is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 02:37 PM   #30
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,289
Quote:
A person that is legally blind can not drive a car or fly an airplane. But they should be allowed to fire a gun.
Without getting into the hunting issue, flying and driving are privileges regulated by the state. Owning and using a firearm is an inherent right that our constitution acknowledges that the government may not abridge.

As pointed out, a legally blind person may see better than you or I, but simply have restricted peripheral vision. It's easy to see why that would make driving or flying dangerous but wouldn't cause a problem for someone shooting as long as they have an observer on hand to monitor the area. Likewise, the inability to read road signs or instruments would be very problematic in driving or flying but a person with such an impairment might still be able to use a laser pointer to shoot accurately and safely.

As I read the article, it provides that there must be someone monitoring the situation to ensure that safety is maintained. Furthermore, the article isn't about letting people hunt who were previously prohibited from the practice, it simply gives them the right to use pointing devices such as lasers that are denied to normally sighted hunters in Texas.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 03:00 PM   #31
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:johnksa

Isn't there some hunting safety rule about not shooting if you don't know what is beyond your intended target? After all, you don't know where your bullet may end up.

Wouldn't a person without peripheral vision be unable to fully evalute the safety of his shot? Would he be able to see another hunter near the deer? Then pheasant hunting should be allowed too.

You also mention right versus privilege. I agree, that gun ownership is a Constitutional right we have as Americans. But which ammendment gurantees a right to hunt?
roy reali is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 03:10 PM   #32
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,289
Quote:
Isn't there some hunting safety rule about not shooting if you don't know what is beyond your intended target? After all, you don't know where your bullet may end up.

Wouldn't a person without peripheral vision be unable to fully evalute the safety of his shot? Would he be able to see another hunter near the deer? Then pheasant hunting should be allowed too.
Do you think the normally sighted person attending the shooter would not be able to determine these things?
Quote:
You also mention right versus privilege. I agree, that gun ownership is a Constitutional right we have as Americans. But which ammendment gurantees a right to hunt?
I'm sorry, I don't remember saying that we have a right to hunt. In fact, I seem to remember that my comments in that regard were preceded by this statement: "Without getting into the hunting issue..." Do you, perhaps, remember something like that as well?

Finally, didn't you read the last sentence in my previous post? These people are already allowed to hunt if they wish--I am aware of no law prohibiting legally blind people from hunting in TX. This new law would only relax the type of sighting devices that they are allowed to use so that they can aim more effectively.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 03:45 PM   #33
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:johnksa

And I thought that California has whacky laws!
roy reali is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 07:04 PM   #34
Mannlicher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 8, 2001
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 2,970
this has been flogged around the various boards for a week or so now. My take it that it is not prudent. One thing that will happen for sure, is that the helper, the guy with the laser, is going to target another person by mistake. who will be responsible? The blind guy that pulls the trigger, or his sighted helper?
One of the most basic rules of safety with guns, is to be sure of your target, and of what is behind it. Blind folks don't have a prayer of following these rules.
Sad that some folks are not sighted, but thats life.
__________________
Nemo Me Impune Lacesset

"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.".........Ronald Reagan
Mannlicher is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 07:12 PM   #35
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:mannlicher

Dittos to you. Another voice of common sense. I know political correctness has run amoc in our country. But I thought that of all places, this forum would be immune from it.
roy reali is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 10:50 PM   #36
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,289
Quote:
...the helper, the guy with the laser, is going to target another person by mistake.
You need to read the article. The laser would be mounted on the gun as a sighting device. That is currently illegal in TX, this law would make it legal for use if the hunter is legally blind as long as he's accompanied by a helper.

Currently (without the law), the legally blind can hunt, but they must use the same sighting equipment that is legal for all other hunters.

The sensational headline notwithstanding, this law does NOT legalize hunting by the legally blind. There's no need to do that as anyone who can afford a license can legally hunt regardless of their visual acuity. If they're older than some age cutoff that I can't recall at the moment, they don't even have to take a safety course.

The ONLY thing that this law does is provide the legally blind with extra sighting equipment options that would normally not be legal for a Texas hunter.

If you're going to debate this, you might as well debate the proper issues. The issue is NOT whether or not the legally blind can hunt, it's whether or not they should have more options for sighting equipment (particularly lasers) than normal Texas hunters.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 16, 2006, 11:29 PM   #37
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:johnksa

So, if someone with a white cane and a seeing-eye dog walks up to a sporting goods counter in Texas, they will be issued a hunting license?

If that is true, California does not have a monopoly on nuts.
roy reali is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 01:02 AM   #38
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,289
roy,

I'll overlook for the moment that you have somehow still failed to grasp (or have chosen to ignore) the facts that:

1. Legally blind people rarely need canes or seeing-eye dogs.
2. The article is not about legalizing hunting by the legally blind but rather about legalizing the use of certain pointing/sighting devices by such persons.

And I will answer your question.

There is no law prohibiting the sale of a hunting license to a person in Texas who is legally blind. There is no vision test required to purchase a hunting license in TX.

The TX statutes are available online so you can check them yourself--this will eliminate the need for you to once again thinly veil your implications that I don't know what I'm talking about with feigned incredulity and repeated comments on how amazing/"whacky"/"nutty" the fact is.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 08:47 AM   #39
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:johnksa

I am not confused or trying to argue your point. You are talking about the legality of blind hunting. I am refering to the morality of it. Maybe some sort of basic eye exam like the DMV gives might be in order.

I believe that issuing hunting licenses to people with limited vision is crazy. If I go hunting in Texas, and a person of limited sight shoots me, and they have a state issued license, can I then go after the state?
roy reali is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 10:33 AM   #40
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,461
Morality? What morality? The impaired guy has a helper to deal with all the extraneous issues. He's a backup to ensure the red dot is in the right place, is all.

We're not talking running deer or skylined deer or any of that. Some common sense about a suitable target is all that's involved. I've killed a fair number of deer that were just standing there looking at something; it seemed like I had all day to shoot.

I'd bet that the very few legally-blind people who'd even be interested in this already have a fair amount of capability; using the laser merely augments the morality of a clean, quick and ethical kill.

Sorta like Bill Hearne, the blind folksinger/guitar picker. Bill wears glasses with milk-bottle-bottom lenses; he can read at some 4". Sorta. He plays golf; he can see to drive to the green but they give him the putt when playing with his friends at "Willie's Country Club". Using a laser pretty much equates to the giving of the putt...

Art
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 11:31 AM   #41
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:art Eatman

Then lets extend it to pheasant hunting and varmint hunting too. If a poor fellow with limited vision wants to shoot a flying bird, then by God we should let him. At least a shotgun's range is more limited then a rifle.

It is not illegal to hunt in dense fog for upland game. However, common sense tells us not to. The fog hampers vision and thus makes shooting dangerous.

If, God forbid, the sight hampered shooter does accidentaly injure or kill another hunter with his shot, who will be held responsible?
roy reali is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 12:07 PM   #42
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
I don't see what all the controversy is. What I'm thinking is a bit harsher than that, but this is THR after all.

The visually impaired or stone-cold-can't-see-daylight blind hunter is using a person as a spotter. The new law simply allows the use of a gizmo to make it easier for the spotter to assist in lining up the shot. What's the big deal? It's been legal for years. Ever heard of it being a problem? No?

They're blind, not stupid. They know what they can do safely. I worry more about the so-called normal folks who are fearless slob hunters. The fields and woods are full of them. And the roads - road hunters.

One more time, the visually impaired can already legally hunt. In Virginia they don't even need a license to hunt on their own property.

"Resident or non-resident landowners, their spouses, their children and grandchildren and the spouses of such children and grandchildren, or the landowner's parents, resident or non-resident, do not need a license to hunt, trap or fish within the boundaries of their own lands and inland waters."


Some of you folks act like you've never known a person with a visual impairment or any sort of serious physical limitation. The worst disability is a closed mind.

John
johnbt is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 05:14 PM   #43
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,289
Quote:
No one has answered wether hunting should be extended to pheasants for the visiually impaired.
You continue to ignore or miss the point.

The article is not about EXTENDING hunting to anyone or anything, only to expanding the sighting options available to impaired hunters. Furthermore, if you cared to do any research, you would find that TX is not the first state to consider such a law. Similar laws have already been passed in several other states.

As far as I know, there is NO kind of hunting legally denied to the visually impaired so your question doesn't make sense.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 06:00 PM   #44
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,461
Y'know, I just really, really doubt that seriously visually impaired folks would get involved in trying to bird hunt. Just because they can't see doesn't mean they can't think.

And Lord knows, we have enough folks who can see 20/20 but think 20/200.

Art
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 06:54 PM   #45
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re: Art Eatman

Thank you for answering my bird hunting question. Maybe there should be an eye exam to get a hunting license. The license can have any restrictions put on it. Like drivers that have to wear glasses to drive.

I would hope that a person that has very poor eyesight would have the common sense not to attempt pheasant hunting. But if a state issues a hunting license to such a person, then in effect the state is giving that person their blessing.

I also think that Sweden's shooting requirement for a hunting license makes some sense.
roy reali is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 07:08 PM   #46
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,289
He didn't answer your question, he tactfully pointed out that it was not relevant since "I just really, really doubt that seriously visually impaired folks would get involved in trying to bird hunt. Just because they can't see doesn't mean they can't think."

You know what I think? I think that maybe people should have to get a license to have access to the internet.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 07:54 PM   #47
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:johnksa

I agree with your internet license idea. Part of the requirements to have the license would be knowledge of the proper use of punctuations.
roy reali is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 08:12 PM   #48
johnbt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
Posts: 6,004
"But if a state issues a hunting license to such a person, then in effect the state is giving that person their blessing."

I don't know of any state that assumes any type of responsibility for a hunter, any hunter, just because they sell somebody a license. The sale of licenses is all about fees - money to run the fur & fin agencies - and not about the blessing of an activity. Call them and ask and they'll tell you that.

And once again I'll point out that you don't need a license to hunt in VA on your own property no matter if you're blind, deaf or so-called normal...AND...you don't need a driver's license to drive on your own property either - even if you're blind or underage.

John
johnbt is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 08:46 PM   #49
roy reali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 23, 2005
Posts: 3,248
Re:johnbt

Private versus public property is a whole different matter. On one's own property I could care less of the condition of the hunter. Most of my hunting is on public land around here. I pray that hunters I encounter are as safe as possible. I hope that if they have a hunting license that the state of issuance has taken some measures to ensure my safety.
roy reali is offline  
Old December 17, 2006, 09:18 PM   #50
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,461
roy, stick with me here, okay?

1. "Legally blind" in Texas means 20/200, uncorrected.

2. Corrective lenses can be of assistance. Tri-focals are great things. This doesn't mean correction to 20/20, necessarily. But our example person can walk through a room without banging into the furniture.

Note: "Seeing" means, generally, seeing clearly; seeing details. Very-poor vision can commonly mean that one readily distinguishes shapes. For example, you could tell that it's a buck, but not how many points the buck has. You can distinguish between a pickup truck and a car at a reasonably long distance.

So: As it is now, there is no vision test for a hunting license. One generally assumes that if a guy can't see well enough to see sights, he's not gonna bother with a hunting license. But, some legally blind folks, with glasses, can sorta make out what's going on when out in the boonies. They can see trees as a mass, or slopes, and tell which end of a deer is pointed north.

Okay: It's gonna be made legal to use a laser sight on the rifle. You can't now use such for hunting in Texas, no matter if you have exceptionally good vision, better than 20/20. So, a couple of guys sit in a box blind and Eagle Eye tells Cousin Weakeyes when the laser is on the right spot. That's really all the change is about. It adds nothing to qualifications for a license. It adds nothing to any naming of legal game. It only adds a method of sighting to one specific group which is not now restricted otherwise. Okay? "Not now restricted otherwise." And you'll have ol' Eagle Eye there to keep him from Doing Bad--which to me sounds like an improvement for all concerned.

Art
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16099 seconds with 7 queries