Quadriplegic Wins the Right to a Gun

Written by Spencer Aland


A New Jersey Judge has ruled that a quadriplegic man has the right to own and operate a firearm. The man will have to mount the weapon on his wheelchair and operate it by blowing into a tube. The judge ruled that the man may hunt and use the firearm as long as he is surrounded by qualified individuals who can assist him in its operation.


I read this article several hours ago and have been unable to decide whether or not I actually support this decision. As a firm supporter of the 2nd amendment I feel obliged to say that the man has a right to own a firearm regardless of his circumstance, and that the ruling was just. However, I also understand the concern that some might feel towards a man with a firearm attached to his wheelchair bouncing through the forest. There is an obvious need for reasonable moderation when dealing with rights in order to preserve social order and safety; this is similar to the idea that an individual’s right to free speech does not outweigh the social costs involved should that individual yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater.


I feel like I should revert back to what the meaning behind the 2nd amendment really is. The amendment represents an individual’s right to defend and preserve his self, family, and property. It also forces the government to live with an armed citizenry which would severely limit a government’s ability to become tyrannical should it ever choose to. The problem with the quadriplegic man in question is that he is physically unable to defend himself or his property without assistance. He is dependent upon others and/or technology to exercise his rights. Also his inability to use a firearm without assistance creates hazards not normally associated with personal gun ownership.


There are two main points that make me feel as if the 2nd amendment does not apply to this situation. Firstly, even if the man was allowed to own a firearm he would not be able to use it for defensive purposes even given the most inconceivable of circumstances. Secondly, the man cannot serve as a deterrent to criminals or any other type of tyrant for that matter. The man in question will only be able to use his weapon while hunting under strict surveillance, and quite frankly, the 2nd amendment was not written to protect hunting. Do I believe that the man should be granted the privilege to hunt under the circumstances the judge presented? Yes. But do I believe that the 2nd amendment should be used as justification for this man to have access to firearms. No.