Student with a brain injury

[sjfcontrol]

I don't see the part in Federal law that lets you pick and choose what type of disabilities are acceptable to you. If a legally blind person can't candle a gun safely, you can fail them on that grounds, same as a student who can't handle a gun safely because of a brain injury, Parkinsons, congenital stupidity, or any other condition.

I don't see the part in Texas CHL law that lets you decide a blind person does not have "sound judgment pertaining to the safe storage and handling of weapons" but doesn't allow others to decide the same about someone with a traumatic brain injury.

A legally blind person CANNOT get a license from DPS. Therefore there is no reason for any blind people to take the class. And I certainly see an issue with a blind person being able to safely handle a gun. How does he know he's pointing it in a safe direction?

The OP said there was no issue with gun safety with the brain-injured individual, so safety was not a reason to refuse service. If the instructor believed safety WERE an issue, that would be (IMO) reason to refuse.

But ultimately, everybody (students and instructors alike) must do what they feel comfortable with. You can handle your classes, refusing to service anybody you feel like. Just be aware of the possible consequences.

I didn't say the OP absolutely would get in trouble with the ADA if he refused. I simply mentioned that it was possible.

[jsenner]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts - never an easy answer is there :-)

Generally speaking if this were someone I didn't know that came to me for a class I'd have no problem teaching it. Not my place to judge from the medical standpoint, if they pass the course they pass the course. I'm not concerned at all about any "issue" if I refuse to teach him, we'd talk about it, he say, "yea, I get it", and we'd go have some beers. In this case I know him well enough to be able to tell him I wouldn't teach him and it'd be ok.

All the comments here have cleared it up for me, thanks everyone. The legal aspects of refusing him aren't an issue for me in this particular case, he's not going to raise the issue and I'm not going to turn myself in, so it really is just a moral decision for me. I'm going to talk to his wife and him, let them know my concerns, and give them the class if they still want it. I suspect they will. He's fully capable of exercising good judgement in any situation so I'm not worried about him shooting someone for taking the last box of fruity pebbles. If he can forget a 30.06 sign, he can forget a stop sign, or a yield sign, or other things that can be just as detrimental to life. I can't prevent all those other issues and while I'll feel like crap if he gets UCW, I'd feel a hell of a lot worse if something happened and he couldn't defend himself.

[Keith B]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts - never an easy answer is there :-)

Generally speaking if this were someone I didn't know that came to me for a class I'd have no problem teaching it. Not my place to judge from the medical standpoint, if they pass the course they pass the course. I'm not concerned at all about any "issue" if I refuse to teach him, we'd talk about it, he say, "yea, I get it", and we'd go have some beers. In this case I know him well enough to be able to tell him I wouldn't teach him and it'd be ok.

All the comments here have cleared it up for me, thanks everyone. The legal aspects of refusing him aren't an issue for me in this particular case, he's not going to raise the issue and I'm not going to turn myself in, so it really is just a moral decision for me. I'm going to talk to his wife and him, let them know my concerns, and give them the class if they still want it. I suspect they will. He's fully capable of exercising good judgement in any situation so I'm not worried about him shooting someone for taking the last box of fruity pebbles. If he can forget a 30.06 sign, he can forget a stop sign, or a yield sign, or other things that can be just as detrimental to life. I can't prevent all those other issues and while I'll feel like crap if he gets UCW, I'd feel a heck of a lot worse if something happened and he couldn't defend himself.

This brings up a good point. Does he still have a valid drivers license and drive? Does he drive his kids places? Is he a danger if he does? Has he actually forgotten what a stop sign is, or a green vs. red light? If he is able to drive still, then the CHL may not be that much additional for him to learn. I personally forget peoples names at times, even people I have met several times. Just one of those things I am bad with and I have always been that way. Maybe he was not real good at remembering names before and just has more trouble with recall now vs. actually forgetting newer things he is taught?

If he is usually with his wife or older kids when he goes out, maybe they can at least be his memory jogger and sign or restricted location lookout. Teach her/them about what to watch for and make sure he doesn't miss them. My wife is my backup observer even though she doesn't have her CHL (still working on that one ). She does know what signs are valid restricting to me and will watch if we are out somewhere. She questions me on different signs she has seen and if they might be restricting or not. She also watches for things that might be going on and will alert me if she sees some potential threat I may have missed.

So, depending on his support system, there may be a way for him to get his CHL, be safe and not run into trouble by going somewhere he shouldn't while carrying.

[speedsix]

...if I know that a prospective student has problems as described in the OP, and I accept him into my class...then, on the firing range, because he "forgot" a range rule, he shoots someone or himself...I believe both civil and legal responsibilities would fall on me and my business...this is not about accommodating a disabled person...it's about setting up a dangerous situation in the name of being PC...and I would not do it...I believe DPS would view it as gross negligence on my part...if I believe a person's not mentally equipped to safely handle a gun...I have no business putting one in his/her hand...

[ScooterSissy]

Thanks everyone for the thoughts - never an easy answer is there :-)

Generally speaking if this were someone I didn't know that came to me for a class I'd have no problem teaching it. Not my place to judge from the medical standpoint, if they pass the course they pass the course. I'm not concerned at all about any "issue" if I refuse to teach him, we'd talk about it, he say, "yea, I get it", and we'd go have some beers. In this case I know him well enough to be able to tell him I wouldn't teach him and it'd be ok.

All the comments here have cleared it up for me, thanks everyone. The legal aspects of refusing him aren't an issue for me in this particular case, he's not going to raise the issue and I'm not going to turn myself in, so it really is just a moral decision for me. I'm going to talk to his wife and him, let them know my concerns, and give them the class if they still want it. I suspect they will. He's fully capable of exercising good judgement in any situation so I'm not worried about him shooting someone for taking the last box of fruity pebbles. If he can forget a 30.06 sign, he can forget a stop sign, or a yield sign, or other things that can be just as detrimental to life. I can't prevent all those other issues and while I'll feel like crap if he gets UCW, I'd feel a heck of a lot worse if something happened and he couldn't defend himself.

I'm not an instructor, just an interested observer, and I'd say it sounds like you've reached a very reasoned solution. Kudos.

Aren't many of us on this forum pretty disappointed with the fact that "others" have decided to reinterpret the meaning of a pretty basic declaration. Personally, I don't see how adding to existing laws is much different.

I would agree that if a person is obviously, and demonstrably, unable to safely perform on the range, he/she should not be on the range. Barring that, I don't see how deciding for someone else that they're somehow unqualified (beyond what the law states) is any different than those attempting to infringe on our 2A rights.