.

Arm The Handicapped!!!!

tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
Since we pro-gun people are, overall, basically losing the federal gunrights battle (with the exception of concealed carry which is a states rights) perhaps we can use even one small area of gun rights where we are able to accomplish a major victory. Sometimes if your side is losing the war, winning even a small but important victory can turn the tide for your side. Now, with THIS IN MIND "It is very, very difficult for ANY politician to vote AGAINST granting special and needed rights for the handicapped:

Let's push for a new law giving, just for one example, parapalegics and/or people with the use of only one arm, a federal right to carry a concealed handgun. Reason being how doubly unfair if an handicapped person was attacked by a violent criminal and not only could not fight back but could not even run for help. Or say a handicapped person took a "walk" with their teenage grandchild and the grandchild was attacked by to 90 pound pit bulls that had recently escaped from a neighbors yard and the handicapped person could only look on as the grandchild was mauled. Or say a handicapped persons van broke down on a dark and lonely stretch of highway and here comes a couple of robbers. The handicapped person could not fight back or even run.

We might even throw in the need for a one-armed person to be able to own and use high capacity magazines and semi-auto "assualt weapons". Reason being that the one-armed person could not operate a pump or bolt action gun and could not quickly and easily change out a 10 round mag for a full mag.

Now my intention is not just to help handicapped people. Because once such laws as suggested on this post are in place, it becomes relatively easy for other citizens to claim that they also (for various reasons, such as advance age, living in an isolated area, etc) also have need of such rights. And in that case it would also be very, very difficult for the politicians to coldly deny that right. comments?????

Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"

Comments

  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Thanks Mark for that good, valuable and as usual I assume always correct information. However that can be considered the "down side" of this idea. How's about we concentrate on the "up" side. If I like or want something I always try to think of how it can be done to my liking rather than how it can fail or how it may already exist in a form that is not helpful to me. Back in pre 1993 when the very, very clever anti-gunners of Handgun Control, Inc. such as Josh Sugermann first suggested that hanging a term such as "assualt weapon" on some guns that WERE NOT true assualt weapaons (i.e. fully automatic, etc.) and Sugarmann had made the claim that this simple term could be used to caused widespread problems for gun owners, I am sure someone probably had reasons why Sugermann's idea wouldn't work. But it did.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • Broomie2Broomie2 Member Posts: 325 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Gentlemen: I believe the approch to this concept, is of no importence to our goverment & elected officals, & less important to any of them because of the small number of people they could appease, and hope to influnce for the own personal gain for some future agenda.

    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Broomie2. what about the ADA act which was passed by congress. That was a huge sweeping new law that was passed to benefit many of the same group I am targeting. The ADA act has been used by some handicapped people to cause potential employers to have to almost do cartwheels to accomandate the handicapped. And there are many other stories in the news about the handicapped sueing someone or some organization and making them spend thousands of dollars to accomandate the handicapped. People this IS DO-ABLE!

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • Broomie2Broomie2 Member Posts: 325 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Fox: I understand about the ADA, another feel good for the handicap, behind closed doors, its a joke. As a handicap person (sense June 9, 1972)our goverment, representives, people and employers are willing to do little or nothing for this small group, though once in a great while a lawsuit, highly toted in the neswpapers, throughs us a bone. Applying for a job, and the comments I've recived behind those (closed doors) would make anyone of the 8 million illegal's seem like a more welcome addition to our country.



    Those who would offer any interpretation that would relegate Amendment II to "relic" status of a bygone era are blatantly stating that the remainder of the Bill of Rights isn't worth a damn, either.
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    Broomie2, to me, your actual experiences carry much more value than my theories. But I will not give up.

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • notdownoroutnotdownorout Member Posts: 274 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Members:

    The following is a post that I listed in 2003. It dealt with the lack of "consideration" for the handicapped individuals in the Missouri statutes for CCW:

    THANKS TO SOME INTELLIGENT LAWMAKERS WE NOW HAVE A "RIGHT TO CARRY" LAW IN MISSOURI. I JUST GOT THROUGH READING THE ENTIRE STATUTE AND I HAVE SOME REAL ISSUES. I AM DISABLED, DUE TO A STROKE 3 YEARS AGO, AND DO NOT HAVE THE USE OF MY RIGHT HAND OR LEG. I AM AN AVID GUN COLLECTOR AND A STRONG SUPPORTER OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. BUT THIS NEW "LAW" SEEMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT THOSE OF US WHO HAVE DISABILITIES. THE NEW "LAW" REQUIRES FIREARM SAFETY TRAINING. DURING THE TRAINING YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO SAFELY LOAD AND UNLOAD A REVOLVER AND A SEMI-AUTO HANDGUN AND TO QUALIFY FROM A STANDING POSITION. WELL, I GUESS I AM S.O.L. BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY THAT I CAN RACK A SEMI-AUTO HANDGUN FOR LOADING AND UNLOADING, NOR, CAN I SHOOT FROM A STANDING POSITION. I'LL GUARANTEE THAT I CAN SHOOT AS WELL AS A STANDING PERSON FROM MY WHEELCHAIR AND I CAN LOAD AND UNLOAD MY REVOLVERS SAFELY. I BUY MOSTLY REVOLVERS FOR THAT REASON AND THE SEMI-AUTO GUNS ARE NOT SHOT UNLESS I HAVE SOMEONE THERE TO RACK THE GUNS FOR ME. IS THIS A VALID QUESTION FOR THE A.D.A.. I AM SURE PONDERING THE ISSUE. ANY THOUGHTS?

    Posted - 09/20/2003 : 7:13:54 PM

    THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT "GUNPHREAK." I HOPE YOUR RESPONSE SOLICITS OTHERS TO RESPOND. I WAS TOTALLY PEEVED AT THE STATUTE WHEN I READ IT. I HAVE CONTACTED THE OFFICE OF MY STATE SENATOR AND ONE OF HIS ASSISTANTS IS DOING SOME RESEARCH AND HAS PROMISED TO RESPOND. MY SENATOR WAS A SUPPORTER OF THE VETO OVERRIDE. IN FACT, THE "ANTI-GUN" FOLKS PICKETED HIS HOME ON THURSDAY OF THIS WEEK. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OUR "PRO-GUN" PEOPLE THERE ALSO. ANYWAY, I TOLD THE ASSISTANT RESEARCHING THIS ALL THE LAWMAKERS WOULD OF HAD TO DO IS WORD THE STATUTE LIKE THIS:

    "APPLICANTS MUST DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO SAFELY LOAD AND UNLOAD A REVOLVER OR A SEMI-AUTO HANDGUN, OR MAY CHOOSE TO QUALIFY WITH BOTH.
    APPLICANTS WILL BE CERTIFIED AND LICENSED ACCORDINGLY."

    HOW SIMPLE IS THAT. THEY ALSO WANT THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE HIS/HER ABILITY TO SAFELY CLEAN A REVOLVER AND SEMI-AUTO HANDGUN. WELL, THERE AGAIN I AM S.O.L. AS THERE IS NO WAY I CAN BREAK DOWN A SEMI-AUTO FOR THOROUGH CLEANING USING ONE HAND.

    AS YOU HAVE PROBABLY READ, IT REQUIRES "SHOOTING FROM A STANDING POSITION OR ITS EQUIVALENT." THEY MAY HAVE COVERED THE WHEELCHAIR ISSUE WITH THE WORD EQUIVALENT. THE ASSISTANT IS CLARIFYING THIS ALSO.

    BOTTOM LINE: WHERE IN THE HELL IS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE HANDICAPPED IN THIS NEW LAW? NOT ONE PLACE IN THE BILL DOES IT MENTION THE WORD HANDICAPPED. I THINK THE A.D.A. WILL BE MY NEXT CONTACT IF I AM NOT GIVEN FAVORABLE RESPONSE FROM THE ASSISTANT TO THE SENATOR.


    As a footnote: You would not believe the responses that I received from the sponsoring representatives of the Missouri CCW statute. Basically, I was told that the handicap issue was not brought to the forefront during the house and senate bill. Then I was told to go to an out of state provider of non-resident permits and procure a permit from a state that didn't have these "handicap discriminatory" requirements. So, guess what I did????? Still, this was a poor solution to addressing the handicap issue. THE LEGISLATORS JUST DON'T GET IT!! nOR, DO THEY SEEM TO GIVE A RAT'S AXX.[:(][:(][:(]

    NO, I'M NOT EXPRESSING ANGER! I TYPE WITH CAPS BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE THE USE OF ONE HAND!
  • tr foxtr fox Member Posts: 13,856
    edited November -1
    notdownorout: it is regretable that the legislators don't always keep the needs of ALL Citizens in mind when making laws, such as happend with the MO concealed carry law. The only excuse I could think to let them off the hook a little is that the legislators who crafted this bill probably had doubts that it was even going to make it. And if you have such doubts about any project or efforts sometimes you don't have the energy to do a complete job. BTW, what state did you get your concealed carry non-resident license from?

    Quote "Somehow government decided that the Constitutional Bill of Rights has become the Bill of "Suggested" Rights and are to be rationed to the citizens as the power elite sees fit"
  • notdownoroutnotdownorout Member Posts: 274 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    trfox,

    You are so right with the incompleteness of the MO law. What I really think happened is that none of the legislators were willing to define what "handicapped" is. In other words, if they tried to define this it would have clouded and confused the issue even more. I am just very disappointed in the response and lip-service that I received. Believe me.....no one wanted me to take this any further. In fact, the senator's assistant pleaded with me for the time he needed to respond to my concerns. Which he never did!!!! I could have addressed this with the ADA, but why create waves.

    To answer your question...I got my permit from Pennsylvania. Sorry I got a little long winded before I provided an answer.[:(][:(][:(]

    NO, I'M NOT EXPRESSING ANGER! I TYPE WITH CAPS BECAUSE I ONLY HAVE THE USE OF ONE HAND!
Sign In or Register to comment.