Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

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

  1. #1
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)

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

    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/m...eedom-lawsuit/

    The Voice of Reason

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,323
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    IMO he does, and IMO he should also win.

  3. #3
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    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.)
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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"
    The Voice of Reason

  5. #5
    Administrator Mjölnir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    2,948
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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?
    The most important six inches on the battlefield ... is between your ears.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,323
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Rainmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    on a Marl Road
    Posts
    3,880
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Rainmaker; 10-28-2015 at 11:19 AM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mjölnir View Post
    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.
    The Voice of Reason

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Columbus, ohio
    Posts
    3,323
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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..

    Quote Originally Posted by Bos Mutus View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Bos Mutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    1,543
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
    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?
    The Voice of Reason

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •