Terry Sutherland says he was trying to make a point when he applied for a concealed carry license in Indianapolis, not exercise his Second Amendment rights. Sutherland, who’s legally blind, apparently doesn’t believe he should have the right to keep and bear arms, and he’s upset that he wasn’t denied a carry license because of his disability.

Sutherland was using his sight seeing stick when he went to the City County Building to get fingerprinted for the permit.

He said he spoke with several people who knew that he was blind. 

“It just went very smoothly and normally, and nobody seemed to think anything about it. It was mind boggling. It shocked me more than I expected. I thought at the last second somebody would go, ‘wait a minute,’ and it just would not get approved. I’d get a letter that explained, ‘listen, you can’t aim a gun or put a bullet where it’s supposed to go, so we’re not going to give you this permit,’” Sutherland said.

That didn’t happen. Now, his concealed carry permit sits in a lanyard around his neck.

Sutherland wants Indiana lawmakers to make a significant change to the state’s carry law and require live-fire training before licenses are issued, but as Second Amendment advocate and attorney Guy Relford told WISH-TV in Indianapolis, that opens up a Pandora’s box of problems. 

“We start putting government imposed restriction on constitutional rights; I always think that’s dangerous and inappropriate. And that’s not to say people shouldn’t be trained, but society always functions better when people exercise personal responsibility and understand – of their own volition – that they need to be safe and responsible with that gun. To me it’s a bit of a ploy to go out and establish an argument for restricting constitutional rights where, by the way, we’ve had constitutional carry since 2022,” Relford said.

Relford raises a very good point. Sutherland didn’t actually need to apply for a carry license in order to lawfully bear arms in Indiana. So long as he can legally own a gun he can lawfully carry it under the state’s Constitutional Carry law. 

Sutherland said he just wants common sense gun laws that keep the public safe.

“If I can have a gun, why can’t I have a drivers license? What’s the worst that could happen? I could kill somebody with a car,” Sutherland said.

Sutherland sent letters to his representatives at the Statehouse to see if they would talk about legislation, but he hasn’t heard back from them.

Driving a car isn’t a constitutionally-protected right, for one thing. But let’s take his suggestion one step further: my driver’s license notes that I wear corrective lenses, and technically, I’m supposed to have them on when I’m behind the wheel. Does Sutherland think the state should put those same limitations in place when it comes to carrying a gun? What if you’re not blind but you wear glasses or contacts? What if you’re legally blind but you still have some vision? 

Sutherland’s argument ignores common sense. Does Indiana have a big problem with blind people discharging guns in public? No, because most people who are completely blind aren’t interested in owning a gun. But again, there’s also a big difference between “legally blind” and being completely unable to see. 

I would much prefer the state of Indiana err on the side of protecting the right to keep and bear arms than impose a one-size-fits-all standard that would inevitably lead to some folks being unfairly denied their Second Amendment rights. If Sutherland doesn’t believe he can safely and responsibly carry due to his disability, there’s an easy solution: don’t carry a gun. Trying to curtail the rights of everyone else with vision problems, however, would be a big step in the wrong direction.