PDA

View Full Version : Amish man sues to buy firearm without photo ID in gun rights, religious freedom lawsu



Bos Mutus
10-27-2015, 10:11 PM
In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy a gun without the required photo ID

Sounds like he has a case: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/27/amish-man-sues-to-buy-firearm-without-photo-id-in-gun-rights-religious-freedom-lawsuit/

garhkal
10-28-2015, 02:39 AM
IMO he does, and IMO he should also win.

Mjölnir
10-28-2015, 03:15 AM
This sort of reminds me about the couple of recent cases where a female Muslim did not want to expose her face for a driver's license photo. Essentially the state won in their refusal to license her on the grounds that the ID was a required form of ID, and that if she wanted to drive she had to follow their licensing rules. The right rejoiced the ruling.

It would seem that in this case, the right is protesting the enforcement of an ID law because of the connection to gun purchases.

It seems like if this man wins his case, it would seem to validate the argument that a Muslim should be able to wear a full face covering for a photo ID (respecting their deeply held religious belief on humility.)

Bos Mutus
10-28-2015, 03:21 AM
This sort of reminds me about the couple of recent cases where a female Muslim did not want to expose her face for a driver's license photo. Essentially the state won in their refusal to license her on the grounds that the ID was a required form of ID, and that if she wanted to drive she had to follow their licensing rules. The right rejoiced the ruling.

It would seem that in this case, the right is protesting the enforcement of an ID law because of the connection to gun purchases.

It seems like if this man wins his case, it would seem to validate the argument that a Muslim should be able to wear a full face covering for a photo ID (respecting their deeply held religious belief on humility.)

I'm sure the will say "owning a gun is a right, driving is a privilege"

Mjölnir
10-28-2015, 03:22 AM
I'm sure the will say "owning a gun is a right, driving is a privilege"

K ... what if a Muslim wanted to wear the full face covering for an ID used to buy a firearm?

garhkal
10-28-2015, 06:12 AM
I'm sure the will say "owning a gun is a right, driving is a privilege"

Agreed. And the difference there is, Gun ownership needing photo ID can be taken care of by having someone show up in a court, where as having a photo on a license is needed for ANY time driving that a cop pulls you over for ID conformation.

Rainmaker
10-28-2015, 10:17 AM
I'm sure the will say "owning a gun is a right, driving is a privilege"

Yes they will say that......and they'll be right.

They'll also say that you don't need a license or have to register a car with the state to drive it on your private property.......and they'll be right again.

Bos Mutus
10-28-2015, 01:04 PM
K ... what if a Muslim wanted to wear the full face covering for an ID used to buy a firearm?


I think we seem to be mixing apples and oranges.

1) To get a photo ID. Should there be an actual requirement to be able to see the person? Regardless of what the ID is used for, if it's a photo ID, should the issuer be able to require that your photo serves to recognize you?

2) Should a photo ID be required to exercise your constitutional rights when some people have religious objections to being photographed, or toward meeting the requirements of having a valid photo ID?

Maybe a better example is voting vs. gun purchase. Both considered constitutional rights by most. Yet it seems liberals want photo ID to purchase guns but none for voting; while conservatives want photo ID for voting, but none for gun purchases.

Not sure if they still do, but when I got my driver's license in NJ, they did not have photos...I maintained a photo-less license until about 2009. These weren't the licenses with "Photo Not Available" over the photo place that military people sometimes get...it was an option in NJ to have a non-photo license. When I was living in VA, I inadvertently got with a week of my license expiring and didn't have time to get one from my home state, so I got a VA license with photo.

garhkal
10-28-2015, 07:23 PM
I think we seem to be mixing apples and oranges.

1) To get a photo ID. Should there be an actual requirement to be able to see the person? Regardless of what the ID is used for, if it's a photo ID, should the issuer be able to require that your photo serves to recognize you?

IMO to get and use a photo id that is needed for verification of who you are (passport, drivers license) you SHOULD be required to see who the person is. Veils, balaclavas etc should not be allowed to be worn for them.
Getting IDs for other stuff where there is not as much of a requirement to verify who you are, such as guns (you can go to court and verify that way from what i here), not so much.



2) Should a photo ID be required to exercise your constitutional rights when some people have religious objections to being photographed, or toward meeting the requirements of having a valid photo ID?


See above..



Maybe a better example is voting vs. gun purchase. Both considered constitutional rights by most. Yet it seems liberals want photo ID to purchase guns but none for voting; while conservatives want photo ID for voting, but none for gun purchases.

Not sure if they still do, but when I got my driver's license in NJ, they did not have photos...I maintained a photo-less license until about 2009. These weren't the licenses with "Photo Not Available" over the photo place that military people sometimes get...it was an option in NJ to have a non-photo license. When I was living in VA, I inadvertently got with a week of my license expiring and didn't have time to get one from my home state, so I got a VA license with photo.

IMO if you are required to get a ID for performing one function of your constitutional rights (Gun ownership), then you should bloody well get one for voting.

Bos Mutus
10-28-2015, 07:49 PM
IMO if you are required to get a ID for performing one function of your constitutional rights (Gun ownership), then you should bloody well get one for voting.

So, is your opinion that this Amish guy does not get to purchase a firearm or vote?

UncaRastus
10-28-2015, 11:33 PM
If this guy wants to buy a gun, why doesn't he go ahead and buggy on down to the nearest gun show? I have seen many a transaction without ID being required. No background checks, nothing.

Is he trying to make sure that there will be a precedent for other people to be able to get guns without picture ID, people to get driver's licenses without having their picture taken, or the worst of all, what if anyone can get a library card, without having to show a picture ID?

I mean adult library cards. I believe that this fellow is also trying to get an adult library card without presenting a picture ID, so that he can read '50 Shades of Gray', without having it blabbed about and his picture shown from his ID in the very popular Amish weekly, "What doest thee, Brother'. A nice Amish shame and shun tabloid, if you ask me.

Anyone below driver's license or permit age has to get their folks to show up to get their kiddy card. Or at least they should. I would hate to hear that some kid snuck off with a copy of the Highlight magazine, or a Hardy Boys book, or even a Bobbsey Twins book, just because the parent/foster parent/guardian/representative of his or her reformatory not showing up to sign up their child for a library card.

I think that I shall present myself at my town's library, to be their security guard. Complete with my favorite scatter gun. I might even rig some claymores outside of the library, just in case some kid sneaks by me.

Can't be too careful, you know.

garhkal
10-29-2015, 02:53 AM
So, is your opinion that this Amish guy does not get to purchase a firearm or vote?

More that i was saying if the liberals want to keep pushing for the ID needed for ONE of the 2, then by logic, they should support an ID for the other..

Bos Mutus
10-29-2015, 03:28 AM
More that i was saying if the liberals want to keep pushing for the ID needed for ONE of the 2, then by logic, they should support an ID for the other..

So, by extension, would you agree that if conservatives push for no ID for gun purchase, they should also push for no ID for voting?

Absinthe Anecdote
10-29-2015, 05:27 AM
So, by extension, would you agree that if conservatives push for no ID for gun purchase, they should also push for no ID for voting?

You'd better quit screwing with Mannix like that. He judo chopped a fat lady for hogging a mobility scooter last month.

I'd hate to see him twist you up like a pretzel for cracking wise.

garhkal
10-29-2015, 05:38 AM
So, by extension, would you agree that if conservatives push for no ID for gun purchase, they should also push for no ID for voting?

Indeed i would. Though i personally would rather it be yes to both.