Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Blind New Jersey Man May Lose Guns - Court to Decide

 The Daily Record reports

A blind Rockaway Township man who is fighting to keep his gun collection defended himself Monday against allegations he abuses alcohol and said he drinks perhaps a six-pack of beer a week.

The Morris County Prosecutor’s Office wants Superior Court Judge Thomas V. Manahan in Morristown to take away 49-year-old Steven C. Hopler’s firearms purchase identification cards and end his ability to possess and buy weapons.

Assistant Prosecutor Catherine Broderick on Monday urged the judge — who said he expects to issue a written ruling by the end of this week — to rule that Hopler is unfit to have firearms because he allegedly abuses alcohol, was arrested three times between 1984 and 2003, and was taking Zoloft for depression in October 2008 when he accidentally shot himself in the shin while lubricating his .357-Magnum Smith & Wesson firearm.
We talked about Mr. Hopler before. My opinion is still the same, blindness is a disqualifier for owning firearms, as is negligently shooting oneself. This guy Hopler is a double loser.  It should be an easy decision for the judge.  We'll see soon enough.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

11 comments:

  1. He should just move to another state. Here in Arkansas, for example, the question would never arise. He has the misfortune to live in a state that does what your side wants.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In general I believe a blind person has the right to own firearms. That said, I also believe they should be limited to being able to shoot a violent attacker with a pistol at point-blank range. I am even thinking that they should be limited to blank ammunition (ammunition with cases and powder only and no bullets). The advantage of blanks for a blind person is that they still make a loud "bang" which would scare away almost every criminal even if the blind victim missed. And a blank at point-blank range will definitely injure a criminal and could even kill a criminal. Best of all, if the blind victim "misses", there is no bullet flying away that could injure a bystander.

    Anyone who isn't happy with that solution has an agenda.

    As for MikeB wanting to disqualify the gentlemen for a history of unsafe handling and criminal convictions, the blanks (ammunition) should be acceptable even with that history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course he should be disqualified! What a stupid assumption, otherwise. Same as disqualification for driving a car or operating heavy machinery. If you can't see who you are firing at, you can't know if they are actually an attacker, your wife, or just the neighbor popping over for sugar, and have no idea if bystanders may be near. Duh.

    As Capn Crunch's solution of only allowing point blank shooting or with only blanks, sure, nice sentiment, *if you could actually control how they use it or the ammo they buy.* Good luck enforcing that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baldr wrote,
      "... nice sentiment, *if you could actually control how they use it or the ammo they buy.* Good luck enforcing that."

      So tell me how gun control is going to work? I am especially looking forward to hearing the part about how it is going to work on hardened criminals -- the people who are responsible for about 90% of the violent crime with firearms as the weapon.

      Open mouth, insert foot.

      Delete
    2. Man from Oregon, who, in your view, is qualified to own firearms? We hear you tell us time and again who isn't qualified. Who is?

      Delete
    3. Capn Crunch: "I am especially looking forward to hearing the part about how it is going to work on hardened criminals."

      This is another tedious attempt to spin the argument. We do not say criminals will obey the laws, we never have. Yet you keep asking this stupid question.

      Gun control laws are aimed at the law-abiding gun owners. They are the ones who need to be more responsible with their weapons, including not allowing them to so easily slip into the criminal world.

      Delete
    4. No, it's not a tedious spin. You want to control people who abide by the law. We keep telling you that criminals are the main problem, but you're obsessed with the good guys.

      Delete
  4. "He should just move to another state. Here in Arkansas, for example, the question would never arise. He has the misfortune to live in a state that does what your side wants."

    says a guy who lives in Arkansas, where he CAN'T do what he wants, cuz Arkansas doesn't have a gunlightened gummint, while praising Arizona as a gunz paradize. Now why is that? is it because you, Greg Camp, have a nice gummint funded teaching position or 'cuz you are going to stay there and fight the good fight while the T.J. Readys of the world get to have all the fun?

    "In general I believe a blind person has the right to own firearms."

    Guess what, so do I. Of course I don't believe a blind man has the need for them and I certainly don't think he has the "right" to possibly endange others by firing them at the sound of a perp. You construct an elaborate scenario justifying his possession of gunz, but then say he can just fire "blanks" and prolly scare off the intruder. Why is that? Is it because you know the chances of him actually scoring a kill is minimal and that by NOT being able to kill someone as easily as a sighted person he is putting himself in the position of being murdered and having his fine collection of teh gunz stolen and USED FOR CRIMINAL PURPOSES? Why doesn't he just buy a state of the art alarm system and use it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Last time I checked we lived in a free country. A man has a right to own property and his right isn't subject to your notion of whether or not he needs something.

      The fundamental principle of liberty in this country is that anyone can do anything as long as it doesn't infringe on someone else's liberty. A man who can see has the ability to operate a firearm without endangering other citizens' lives. It is obvious that a blind man can operate a firearm without endangering other citizens' lives only in a limited manner. Thus I advocate he should only operate a firearm within that limited manner. What could possibly be wrong with that? Oh I know. It's wrong because the blind man is doing something without your approval.

      The man is blind. He is an easy target for criminals. He is already in the position of being murdered. Why would you seek to deny him the only effective option to defend his life when that option will not endanger anyone else?

      A state of the state alarm system for home is great. All that does is alert him to an intruder and does nothing to stop said intruder. Need I point out that it is absolutely no good away from home?

      This demonstrates once and for all that gun control isn't about public safety. It is about controlling other people -- denying basic liberties -- for whatever sick reasons the gun grabbers have in their minds.

      Delete
    2. How can you say it's not about public safety, this guy already shot himself once and has substance abuse problems. This is a public safety issue.

      You want him to operate a firearm in a limited manner? First of all what the hell does that even mean. And secondly, I though you believed in freedom and rights. What's that "limited" nonsense?

      Delete
    3. I explained it above. We have the right (freedom) to do whatever we want until that right infringes on someone else's right. A man who can see is physically able to operate a firearm safely without hurting someone else's right to life. A blind man is not physically able to operate a firearm with bullets safely without hurting someone else's life. However, a blind man is physically able to operate a firearm safely with blanks. This is a very practical solution that upholds everyone's right to life.

      Delete