Crime is on the rise even more so in this economy and gun purchases are also on the rise. Criminals have guns and law-abiding citizens want to even the playing field. Why should only criminals have guns? Being safe in this society demands being proactive if you don't want to become a statistic.
The law provides for and citizens do carry guns in our society, but should this man be allowed a gun permit? He says he should and his lawyer agrees.
The New Jersey County Prosecutor is attempting to take Steven Hopler's gun permits. The Prosecutor says Hopler has a drinking problem and cannot care for his weapons safely. He shot himself in the leg which required hospitalization and some of his guns were stolen and used in other crimes.
When Hopler applied for a gun permit he said he wouldn't load or use the guns. He received his first gun permit in 1993 with the stipulation that he was not to load or fire the gun. Hopler went to court to fight for the removal of restrictions on his right to load and shoot a gun. According to the New York Times, he argued that it is his constitutional right to "own a gun, even if he was not fit to fire it". "Afterward, Mr. Hopler said: 'I didn’t think that a blind person would be able to load and fire a weapon. Of course not. That would be dangerous'.”
From the New York Times:
Mr. Hopler should not have a gun permit for the same reason that he would never be issued a drivers license. He may have the right to own guns, but is it wise to allow him to own guns?
Should a blind man be allowed to own guns? Do his rights supersede the rights of others? I am interested in knowing what you think. Please leave a comment.
Peace
The law provides for and citizens do carry guns in our society, but should this man be allowed a gun permit? He says he should and his lawyer agrees.
The New Jersey County Prosecutor is attempting to take Steven Hopler's gun permits. The Prosecutor says Hopler has a drinking problem and cannot care for his weapons safely. He shot himself in the leg which required hospitalization and some of his guns were stolen and used in other crimes.
When Hopler applied for a gun permit he said he wouldn't load or use the guns. He received his first gun permit in 1993 with the stipulation that he was not to load or fire the gun. Hopler went to court to fight for the removal of restrictions on his right to load and shoot a gun. According to the New York Times, he argued that it is his constitutional right to "own a gun, even if he was not fit to fire it". "Afterward, Mr. Hopler said: 'I didn’t think that a blind person would be able to load and fire a weapon. Of course not. That would be dangerous'.”
From the New York Times:
But he returned to court and successfully had those limitations removed. He was allowed to shoot his guns if he was with somebody trained to use firearms. An acquaintance who once accompanied Mr. Hopler at a firing range said Mr. Hopler used a remote-controlled bell to locate the target, firing at the sound.
The police confiscated some of the guns that Mr. Hopler still had after the burglary. Last year after Mr. Hopler recovered from his wound, another judge ruled that he could keep his remaining guns but ordered him to complete a course on the safekeeping of weapons and have his sobriety evaluated.
Mr. Trautmann said Mr. Hopler complied with those orders, taking a six-hour course administered by the National Rifle Association. But the prosecutor’s office is again trying to have all of his gun permits revoked, leaning more heavily on the alcoholism argument, while Mr. Hopler wants to not only keep his remaining guns, but also reclaim the ones the police took.
A spokesman for the rifle association did not respond to a request for comment about Mr. Hopler’s case, but Chris Danielsen, a spokesman for the National Federation of the Blind in Baltimore, said a blind person like Mr. Hopler should not be denied his constitutional right to own a gun.
“Blind people should be subject to the same restrictions or rules that anybody else would be,” Mr. Danielsen said. “The rule should be: until you demonstrate that you do not use weapons responsibly, then you’re allowed to have them.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/26/nyregion/blind-new-jersey-man-challenged-again-on-guns.html?_r=1What is the purpose of Mr. Hopler having guns? Yes, he has the right to own guns, but what about the rights of others. Due to his blindness, he could accidentally shoot someone or something and has already shot himself.
Mr. Hopler should not have a gun permit for the same reason that he would never be issued a drivers license. He may have the right to own guns, but is it wise to allow him to own guns?
Should a blind man be allowed to own guns? Do his rights supersede the rights of others? I am interested in knowing what you think. Please leave a comment.
Peace
No comments:
Post a Comment