A blind man from Indiana who obtained his concealed carry permit is using that experience to advocate for stricter laws regarding who may carry a concealed firearm for self-defense. And he is also attracting considerable media attention in the process.
According to a report at keyc.com, Terry Sutherland sought a permit in his home state of Indiana, even though the state has a constitutional carry law, and he didn’t need one to legally carry a firearm there. Sutherland’s solution would be for states to have to go back to requiring a live-fire shooting test to qualify for a permit—a requirement that runs afoul of the Second Amendment.
While Sutherland is making a big deal out of the fact that he was issued a permit, it’s not really that curious. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to carry a firearm outside of the home for self-defense. The amendment specifically mentions the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Of course, it doesn’t say, “… the right of people who can walk without aid.” And it doesn’t say, “… the right of the people who are not hearing impaired.” Likewise, it doesn’t say, “… the right of the people who have perfect eyesight.”
The protection was written for lawful Americans, which is “the people,” of which Sutherland is a part. To deny him that right would be a direct infringement upon his Second Amendment rights, no matter what his vision capability might be.
In fact, had Sutherland’s application been denied because he is blind, he could have sued the state for infringing upon his rights. And it’s likely a court would rule in favor of his challenge since by Bruen standards, it definitely infringes on his Second Amendment right to bear arms, and it would be hard to prove a historical precedent of denying the right to arms for those who are vision impaired.
What Sutherland and the media helping him in his crusade for more restrictions on carry permits apparently don’t realize is that with rights come responsibility. And with the right to bear arms comes great responsibility. Just because you have the right to carry a firearm for self-defense, doesn’t mean you should if you cannot do so responsibly.
Take, for instance, a hothead who is prone to flying off the hook and getting into altercations with little provocation. If he knows he cannot control his temper even when trying, he still has the right to carry a firearm for self-defense. However, being a responsible gun owner should lead him to the decision that he’s better off leaving his firearm at home.
The same goes for Sutherland. He does, indeed, have a right to carry a firearm. But responsibility dictates that it’s probably not the best thing to do, since one of the cardinal rules of gun safety is to always know your target and what is beyond it—a difficult requirement for those who cannot see.
Perhaps a better option for Sutherland would be to make sure that the people he spends a lot of time with are responsibly armed and know how to responsibly use their firearms. That could make all the difference if he is ever attacked and cannot defend himself.
Ultimately, Sutherland’s crusade is unlikely to change any carry laws in any state. While it’s admirable that he is putting effort into something he believes in, it is likely just a media flash in the pan that most of us will have forgotten about in a week or so.
Read the full article here
