For me, it all boils down to a test something like this.
Suppose you were in a restaurant and, heaven forbid, a madman came in and began shooting.
Would you hope that an armed citizen with good vision was in that restaurant? Certainly.
Would you hope that an armed citizen with poor vision was in that restaurant? Again, certainly.
Would you hope that an armed citizen with no vision was in that restaurant? Uh, probably not. Wouldn't be helpful. In fact, it would probably only make a very bad situation worse.
In fact, I cannot conceive of any situation were a totally blind person would be safe with a gun. So I would deny the permit, just as I would deny a permit to a person who is a known psychotic and hears voices.
No one here is a bigger 2nd Amendment supporter than me. But every amendment has its boundaries. The 1st Amendment gives me free speech. But I cannot scream at my neighbor's house at two in the morning.
Of course, the devil is in the details. Big Brother government could define "blind" to be anyone who wears glasses, and "psychotic" to be anyone who is a registered Republican.
If a blind woman was grabbed, dragged into an alley and being raped, would you hope she had a loaded derringer in her pocket?
“In fact, I cannot conceive of any situation were a totally blind person would be safe with a gun. So I would deny the permit, just as I would deny a permit to a person who is a known psychotic and hears voices.”
Your lack of imagination is not a reason to deny citizens their Constitutional rights.