Texas bill: let blind people hunt

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2006-12-12 01:10pm

It's not quite as stupid as it sounds...

Blind hunters would be able to use laser-sighted rifles to hunt animals in Texas, if a bill introduced in the state's legislature is successful.

Republican Edmund Kuempel proposed an amendment to existing law that would permit "legally blind" people to use a laser-sighting device when hunting.

Current Texas law prohibits the use of laser sights, spotlights and headlights for hunting purposes.

A sighted person would be legally required to accompany the blind hunter.

"This opens up the fun of hunting to additional people, and I think that's great," said Mr Kuempel.

Sighted guide

Blind hunters are not a new phenomenon in Texas.

Under current procedures, a sighted guide can assist a visually-impaired hunter by peering over the hunter's shoulders and advising where to aim the gun and when to pull the trigger.

However, hunters say that without a laser pointer it is difficult to time the shot.

Laser sights, spotlights and headlights are banned in hunting in Texas, because they can make the animals freeze in their tracks.

If the bill is passed in when the state legislature reconvenes in January, it will probably not become law until 2008.

Mr Kuempel's bill would give the state until 1 January 2008, to come up with a definition of legally blind so the law could be enforced.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2006-12-12 01:18pm

So, Texas doesn't trust the legally blind with cars, but apparently guns are a-ok?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-12-12 01:35pm

insert dick cheney joke here

Azazal · Post by **Azazal** » 2006-12-12 01:51pm

General Zod wrote:So, Texas doesn't trust the legally blind with cars, but apparently guns are a-ok?

Actually what's scary, this sounds safer in the long run. Around here, mid Michigan, it's not uncommon to hear of a hunter shooting blindly into the brush because her heard a noise, only to find that it was another hunter. This sounds like it would further reinforce that silly idea of confirming your target before pulling the trigger.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2006-12-12 02:37pm

Ok, I read that article as, "Hunters want to use laser sights, so they are going to bring blind people along to justify it."

Too cynical?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2006-12-12 02:40pm

KrauserKrauser wrote:Ok, I read that article as, "Hunters want to use laser sights, so they are going to bring blind people along to justify it."

Too cynical?

Nah, sounds about right to me.

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » 2006-12-12 02:49pm

The way I read it blind people can already hunt, this would just make it easier to bag that kill.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2006-12-12 02:52pm

Just like all deaf people aren't necessarily stone deaf, legally blind people aren't necessarily completely without sight.

I can see the justification for it, since the added point of light might work for some, but it just hits off my BS meter.

Especially for Texas. I've hunted there, and it just sounds like something they would try, just to make shoting the deer even easier.

Lancer · Post by **Lancer** » 2006-12-12 02:58pm

They were talking about this on the radio, apparently they let blind people hunt with the assistance of a spotter.

The laser sights are just to allow the spotter to more readily confirm that the blind guy is aiming at what he's supposed to be aiming at.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-12-12 04:09pm

Remember that "telehunting" business a few years back, where you could sit at a computer and remotely control a gun to shoot at animals (the ultimate in canned hunting!)? If people were willing to do that, this is no surprise at all.

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-12-12 04:11pm

Oh, and what is to stop your sighted buddy from "borrowing" your lasersight-equipped rifle and taking a few shots?

Meh, sport hunting.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-12-13 01:32am

It just seems like an excuse to let the sighted guy play with the laser scope or other toys. The blind guy certainly doesn't need it, since he can't see shit anyway, so all the aiming needs to be done by the sighted guy. Right? Or can someone who is legally blind still be counted on to point a rifle?

Seriously, how much 'thrill of the hunt' is there when all you do is pull the trigger after someone else aimed it for you? With a laser sight on a high-powered rifle? And if you're doing this to get some delicious and cheap deermeat, why does the blind guy need to fire anyway? It's just fishy.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-12-13 12:14pm

Covenant wrote:It just seems like an excuse to let the sighted guy play with the laser scope or other toys. The blind guy certainly doesn't need it, since he can't see shit anyway, so all the aiming needs to be done by the sighted guy. Right? Or can someone who is legally blind still be counted on to point a rifle?

Legally blind doesn't equal totally blind, as someone pointed out earlier.
As to the justification for it, I gather it's so the 'spotter' can confirm for himself that the weapon is indeed aimed at the proper target before he tells the hunter that it's OK to fire.

Seriously, how much 'thrill of the hunt' is there when all you do is pull the trigger after someone else aimed it for you? With a laser sight on a high-powered rifle? And if you're doing this to get some delicious and cheap deermeat, why does the blind guy need to fire anyway? It's just fishy.

I don't hunt myself, so you'd have to ask a hunter that question.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-13 12:24pm

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks they have serious psychological issues with guns. This mania to put guns in as many peoples' hands as possible is perhaps best exemplified by the people rushing to make excuses for letting legally blind people hunt.

Rather than view the gun as a responsibility which one must meet certain criteria to have, they view it as a right which the government cannot take away except in the most extreme of circumstances.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2006-12-13 12:55pm

thinks for a second...

I'm legally blind correctable to 20/35 hmm allowed to use a laser device when accompanyied by another hunter.....

Ok, mikie lets pack up the capacitors, and one of those really cool high powered lasers......

FSTargetDrone · Post by **FSTargetDrone** » 2006-12-13 02:26pm

Darth Wong wrote:And Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks they have serious psychological issues with guns. This mania to put guns in as many peoples' hands as possible is perhaps best exemplified by the people rushing to make excuses for letting legally blind people hunt.

Rather than view the gun as a responsibility which one must meet certain criteria to have, they view it as a right which the government cannot take away except in the most extreme of circumstances.

My parents used to live in an area close to a large maximum security prison (State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Graterfod, PA, USA). The area surrounding (and owned by) the prison was partly open (farmland) and partly forested. Now I don't remember if hunting was allowed on that land, but you would not believe the number of deerstands in the trees I came across when I decided to walk our dog in the woods on the privately-owned side of the prison boundaries (it was marked everywhere with signs on the trees, etc.). In fact, I didn't even know people hunted there until I saw those deeerstands, high in the trees. After I saw that, I decided it was best to leave. On the way out I noticed a hunting arrow stuck in a tree, and shortly after that, I blundered into a hunter armed with a rifle, who was in full camo. I don't think he was all that happy to see me there with our dog, so I just said hello and left. After I'd lived there awhile, I'd occasionally hear shooting in the woods and it sure as hell wasn't guards chasing down escaped prisoners. But I never again went for a walk in those woods, whether it was hunting season or not.

In some places in the US, kids actually get out of school for a few days to go hunting at the start of the season. It may well be that the hunters secured permission to be shooting in the area I talked about from the homeowners, but I knew of a few people who were not happy about it.

The point of all this is, there seems nothing more insanely dangerous than letting people wander around, shooting guns and arrows in the forest, especially in an area like where I used to live where there are private homes well within range of any gunshots that happens to miss the intended target. And I'm sorry about those blind or sight-impaired people, but I think it's nothing but bad business to let them shoot.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-12-13 03:23pm

Darth Wong wrote:And Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks they have serious psychological issues with guns. This mania to put guns in as many peoples' hands as possible is perhaps best exemplified by the people rushing to make excuses for letting legally blind people hunt.

Rather than view the gun as a responsibility which one must meet certain criteria to have, they view it as a right which the government cannot take away except in the most extreme of circumstances.

The somewhat ambiguous wording of the federal 2nd amendment aside, it *is* unambiguously defined as a right in many state constitutions (full listing here in PDF format) , including my own.
In a 1980's case involving the city of Gary's refusal to process CCW permit applications, the state Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms was both a liberty right and a property right under the state constitution.

I'm sure it seems strange to non-Americans, but many of us view gun ownership as a right because it is defined as one by the government under current constitutional amendments.

Sephirius · Post by **Sephirius** » 2006-12-13 08:48pm

I think a lot of people here are going Legally Blind = Totally Blind.
Which is definitely not the case, as Yosemite pointed out.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-13 10:20pm

Glocksman wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:And Americans wonder why the rest of the world thinks they have serious psychological issues with guns. This mania to put guns in as many peoples' hands as possible is perhaps best exemplified by the people rushing to make excuses for letting legally blind people hunt.

Rather than view the gun as a responsibility which one must meet certain criteria to have, they view it as a right which the government cannot take away except in the most extreme of circumstances.
The somewhat ambiguous wording of the federal 2nd amendment aside, it *is* unambiguously defined as a right in many state constitutions (full listing here in PDF format) , including my own.

OMIGOD it must be a right because your precious paperwork says so!!!!!!

In a 1980's case involving the city of Gary's refusal to process CCW permit applications, the state Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms was both a liberty right and a property right under the state constitution.

I'm sure it seems strange to non-Americans, but many of us view gun ownership as a right because it is defined as one by the government under current constitutional amendments.

That doesn't make it a basic human right. It makes it an American right, and it is not a valid argument when discussing the wisdom of this policy.

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2006-12-14 12:00am

OMIGOD it must be a right because your precious paperwork says so!!!!!!

It's not a right in Canada, but it is one that's enumerated in the Texas Constitution among others, thus those who would limit the right in Texas have the responsibility to justify that limitation* as constitutional.
Or they can work to repeal the RKBA provisions of the various state and/or federal constitutions, and then they don't have to worry about violating someone's rights.

That doesn't make it a basic human right. It makes it an American right, and it is not a valid argument when discussing the wisdom of this policy.

I'm not claiming its a basic human right, I'm merely stating why many Americans regard it as a right that is protected under our system of laws.

*Personally I think allowing legally blind people to hunt is a boneheaded thing to do because an inability to see what you're shooting at justifies limiting your right to bear arms despite it being an enumerated right in the Texas state constitution.
After all we accept limits on other rights such as free speech.
We just differ on where those limitations should be.

Covenant · Post by **Covenant** » 2006-12-14 12:29am

Sephirius wrote:I think a lot of people here are going Legally Blind = Totally Blind.
Which is definitely not the case, as Yosemite pointed out.

How well can someone see if they're legally blind? That's not a snarky question, I seriously do not know. My brother without his glasses can barely distinguish faces right in front of him, so I wouldn't think he would be safe behind the wheel of a car or the sight of a rifle, especially if what you're pointing at looks like a moving bush but is actually a hunter in camo.

So, where's the 'legally blind' cutoff?

Post by **Beowulf** » 2006-12-14 02:11am

I believe legally blind is 20/200 or worse in the best eye, or less than 20 degrees visual acuity, in most jurisdictions.

KrauserKrauser · Post by **KrauserKrauser** » 2006-12-14 08:25am

Going from the OP, the blind people are already hunting, the people asking for the laser sights are the sighted people that are aiming for them.

It's not like the blind people were not allowed to hunt before this law.

Having hunted in Texas, i can easily see it just being "No, no, buddy, here let me use the laser sight, it's ok, we'll say you shot it. *BLAM* Yeeee Ha! I love these laser sights!"

Oni Koneko Damien · Post by **Oni Koneko Damien** » 2006-12-14 02:42pm

Let's put this in perspective...

Let's let legally blind people drive without glasses. All that we need to do is require that they have a 'spotter' passenger with them, who also knows how to drive, and have a break pedal on the passenger side of the car as well (which is pretty much all my driver's ed. car had as far as student-safety goes).

There, I'm sure no one would see any problem with that, right?

The Silence and I · Post by **The Silence and I** » 2006-12-14 03:49pm

That is not entirely accurate as an analogy. Driving a car is a much more demanding activity than aiming a rifle, and by that I mean response time is much lower. In theory the blind man aims his rifle and does not fire until his spotter has confirmed he is aiming correctly, this is theoretically safe because a gun is only dangerous when fired and his spotter can take his time to confirm everything is hunky dory. Driving a car on the other hand is very different, the spotter cannot even in theory direct a blind driver through even an open, simple road system with no traffic at common driving speeds. There is too much dynamically changing information he needs to convey and it isn't possible the way it is with a gun.

Now, that's all in theory. In practice I can see this being abused so other hunters can use the laser sights, and mistakes can always happen. My opinion on the idea is unformed so far, but I wanted to point out your analogy fails.