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

[TanklessPro]

You ever notice how many things folks post that you just can't possibly decide whether are jokes or straight lines? It's like reading The Onion around here some times.

Was that sarcasm or straight? Nevermind.

 

[TanklessPro]

So, anyone have any idea on how this will be ruled on?

Ask the question to yourself.

Is it ok to offend someone that is Amish? Answer that and you have your answer.

 

[The Alaskan]

The Amish shun technology not for the sake of shunning technology, but for what it brings in to the home.

For example: electricity. With electric kitchen gadgets, one woman can run a large kitchen alone. But in the Amish way, it's take a family-usually a mothr and daughters and possibly daughter-in-law, to run a kitchen big enough to feed a large family. Likewise, electric power tools would allow one man to do the woodworking of many. In both cases the sense of family and community belonging are removed. Then there is the obvious bad influence that comes in on the television, internet, and radio that they wish to avoid.

However, they allow some departures. I've heard of gas powered driven air compressors to run some tools, and the Amish who sell their dairy products at local market to "outsiders" use propane to keep their products cold prior to sale. There is a community in the midwest that allows gas powered tractors as long as they don't have rubber tires. (I have NO idea what that is about.)

While their pacifism, or religious objection to war is well known, I know of nothing that would prevent them from owning a firearm for hunting, putting down a farm animal, etc. And while many of you might say "any gun is designed to kill people," many of you would also say "it's not the gun, its the person." Their religious conviction is not to harm other people-nothing about animals. I would be shocked if an Amish person used a firearm even in self defense, and if he did, he would be shunned from the community for life.

 

[The Alaskan]

On a side note, I am very interested in how this goes. I see religious liberty as the next big issue for our times and for our next generation to deal with.

PS: I suspect it will not go in favor of the Amish.

 

[The Alaskan]

It's interesting when you ask where do someone's religious rights end and someone else's begin.

My interpretation has always ben (because I have always be taught) that my rights end when they interfere with your rights (And the reverse is true.)

I don't see selling this guys a gun without a photo ID as interfering with any of my rights, so, I think it should go in favor of the Amish, but I don't see that happening.

 

[barnbwt]

Also the Amish Aren't as tech free as you would think. They all have cell phones and stuff now.

So in other words, they're like every other faith with its hypocrites

FWIW, the only firearms an Amish needs for hunting/etc aren't subject to firearms laws, being blackpowder muzzzle loaders, right? I say 'need' since that is supposed to be the governing force for the simplistic lived . After all, smokeless powder allows one hunter to shoot with the power/effectiveness of many (or something)

TCB

 

[zchry]

You ever notice how many things folks post that you just can't possibly decide whether are jokes or straight lines? It's like reading The Onion around here some times.

Read up on Poe's Law. Fun stuff.

On topic, as countless others have stated, Amish communities have different rules. What exactly is allowed or forbidden is dependent on the specific community. Also, as others have stated, guns are pretty old. The oldest cartridge still in use is what, the .45-70 I think? And that's ignoring that they may just wish to buy muzzle-loaders. Which, as far as I know, do require filling out the forms and all that fun stuff. Though some mentioned that is a state specific thing.

 

[TruthTellers]

Here's the deal: An Amish guy can't buy a gun because he doesn't have a photo ID, which he can't get because it's against his religious beliefs because it's modern technology or whatever. A gun is not modern technology, it's been around a few hundred years so whether it's a muzzleloader or an AR-15 it doesn't matter. Guns are mechanical devices, not electrical.

So, this really is the opening shot, no pun intended, at the "smart gun" laws that will likely be coming decades down the road.

As for the case at hand, a person shouldn't be required to present photo ID when buying a gun because he's already going through the NICS and filling out the 4473. The photo ID is a stupid safety measure that does nothing to decrease the possibility of selling a gun to a prohibited person. It's another inconvenience on the road to exercising a right, which is its entire purpose because if it's poor people that can't afford an ID to vote, they also can't afford an ID to buy a gun.

And it's the poor people the politicians hate having guns.

 

[goon]

.22 rimfire predates the .45-70, and it's been used in everything and by everyone.

I'm in favor of the no-photo-ID side for a gun and also for travel, voting, and buying cough syrup.
If a Muslim woman feels that her faith requires her face to remain veiled, I can respect that.
Same with the Amish - if they feel that photographs are a violation of their faith, who am I to judge?

 

[alexander45]

Only some what common 22 in production today that predates the 45-70 is 22 short and I can say iv seem way more 45-70 on the shelves than I have 22 short,
but in general I hope that law gets thrashed and that people can be left alone to do as they please as long as it doesn't effect others

 

[KansasSasquatch]

Why does an Amish man want to own a piece of modern technology? Doesn't that go against their religion? So he has no problem going against his religion in certain ways but not in other ways?

I was being a little sarcastic with this post. I know firearms aren't a new technology. The basic principles have been around since the 1300's if I'm not mistaken and I believe the Amish began in the 1600's.

What I do have a problem with, however, is that if an "Englishman" wishes to buy a firearm at a retailer they're required to fill out a 4473, provide photo I.D., and undergo a NICS check. Why should being Amish exclude them from having to provide photo I.D? *But I will say I'm not in favor of ANYONE having to provide photo I.D. to exercise a constitutional right*. Honestly, I don't even believe having a felony record should exclude someone from being able to possess a firearm. If they've done their time their rights should be restored, fully, period. If they're too dangerous to be able to own a firearm then they should still be in prison. That's a little off topic but I thought it would provide some idea of just how PRO 2A I am. If the Amish aren't required to show photo I.D. to buy a firearm, the "English" shouldn't be required to either, PERIOD.

I believe voting is the one time showing photo I.D. should be required to exercise a right. Voting has the potential to easily change much more than firearms can without using a lot of effort. The voting system could also be abused very easily if the Amish can vote without I.D. What would there be to stop a politician from getting together a large group of people together (who already voted), dressing them up in Amish entire, and having them illegally vote again using an Amish name? I honestly don't know how a system could work without showing I.D., even if we were to throw out the idea that the system could be abused. I do think a basic I.D. to vote should be free if one's income is below a certain level.

 

[45_auto]

the BOR prohibits the govt from infringing upon those rights which we all are born with.

Actually, the BOR prohibits the govt from infringing upon those rights which the founders believed that we all are born with.

All people aren't born with the rights described in the BOR, it's a document written by men. They have no relevance to the vast majority of the world's population. The other 95.6% of the world's population that's not American were NOT born with those rights. And a large percentage of our American politicians are trying to change our laws so that our rights are more in line with the rest of the world.

The BOR enumerates the Founding Fathers predominate belief system in people's rights, nothing more. If they had been Muslim or Hindu you would have totally different rights. You're only born with the rights proscribed by the legal system you're born under, which are established by men and can be changed by men.

Only reason you have the rights described in the BOR is the luck of your birthplace and the determination of the men who preceded you to protect them.

 

[M-Cameron]

Actually, the BOR prohibits the govt from infringing upon those rights which the founders believed that we all are born with.

All people aren't born with the rights described in the BOR, it's a document written by men. They have no relevance to the vast majority of the world's population. The other 95.6% of the world's population that's not American were NOT born with those rights. And a large percentage of our American politicians are trying to change our laws so that our rights are more in line with the rest of the world.

The BOR enumerates the Founding Fathers predominate belief system in people's rights, nothing more. If they had been Muslim or Hindu you would have totally different rights. You're only born with the rights proscribed by the legal system you're born under, which are established by men and can be changed by men.

Only reason you have the rights described in the BOR is the luck of your birthplace and the determination of the men who preceded you to protect them.

no.....ALL men are created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator.....if your govt sucks, and prohibits you from exercising your rights, it is your right, as a human being, to fix it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[45_auto]

As for the case at hand, a person shouldn't be required to present photo ID when buying a gun because he's already going through the NICS and filling out the 4473. The photo ID is a stupid safety measure that does nothing to decrease the possibility of selling a gun to a prohibited person.

You don't see how a photo ID helps prevent selling a gun to a prohibited person using the NICS system?

If you're selling a gun and I show up with Barrack Obama's non-photo ID, how do you know that you're not selling the gun to Barrack Obama without a picture? I could be an escaped serial killer rapist terrorist that looks nothing like Obama, but as long as I had his (or yours or anyone else's ID without a photo) there would be no way to know. NICS will return Obama's status and the terrorist will be happy with his gun. Might as well eliminate NICS without a photo ID.

 

[Sam1911]

Might as well eliminate NICS without a photo ID.

Ok! Now that does sound like a workable arrangement! Let's talk about how we can implement that.

 

[45_auto]

no.....ALL men are created equal, and are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their creator.....if your govt sucks, and prohibits you from exercising your rights, it is your right, as a human being, to fix it.

It would appear that your beliefs do not agree with about 95% of the rest of the world's population.

No big deal, it's still a free country so far.

 

[45_auto]

Ok! Now that does sound like a workable arrangement! Let's talk about how we can implement that.

Works for me. Unfortunately, 50% of the people are below average in intelligence. I don't see any way we're going to overcome that handicap.

 

[barnbwt]

" I could be an escaped serial killer rapist terrorist that looks nothing like Obama, but as long as I had his (or yours or anyone else's ID without a photo) there would be no way to know"
I suspect you'd simply acquire an illegal firearm as you did to commit said serial murders in the first place. Unlike voting, firearms laws are easily circumveted with or without ID (voting, being a clerical rather than a mechanical function, is more impacted by documentation rules)

"It would appear that your beliefs do not agree with about 95% of the rest of the world's population."
The presumption is that they choose to be farm animals in those lands, due to them being intellectually unenlightened. Power deriving from the consent of the governed, and all. The purpose of our founding documents/theory was something akin to a proclamation "you don't have to live this way." Doesn't matter if some/all buy into it everywhere, it remains as a declaration of beliefs like The Republic or the Communist Manifesto (only far more sucessful for its adherents)

Moral relativism is a great way to find yourself in a horrible situation, quickly.

TCB

 

[bearcreek]

So in other words, they're like every other faith with its hypocrites

FWIW, the only firearms an Amish needs for hunting/etc aren't subject to firearms laws, being blackpowder muzzzle loaders, right? I say 'need' since that is supposed to be the governing force for the simplistic lived . After all, smokeless powder allows one hunter to shoot with the power/effectiveness of many (or something)

TCB

Of course. Every faith has it's hypocrites. In this particular case however, there does not appear to be any hypocrisy involved since there is nothing in the Amish faith that prohibits firearms or "modern technology". I can look across the street at my Amish neighbors house as I type this and see the solar panels on their roof. Where are you getting your info? Who told you that the Amish are only supposed to get things based on "need"?

 

[bearcreek]

It would be good to see this guy win this but I think if I were him I'd just buy a used gun private sale and be done with it. No photo ID required.

 

[45_auto]

The presumption is that they choose to be farm animals in those lands, due to them being intellectually unenlightened.

No, the presumption is that they have free will and their beliefs may be different than ours, so they are free to make and enforce their own laws. No difference between them in their lands and the Amish, Hindu, Muslim, Shintoist, Buddhist, Confucianist, etc in the US except their physical location. If they're located here, they're subject to United States man-made laws and rights (established by mortal vote, not a deity), not the man-made laws of the other lands.

it remains as a declaration of beliefs like The Republic or the Communist Manifesto

Exactly. Each of them written by men and enforced by men of particular (often conflicting) beliefs.

 

[CoalTrain49]

As for the case at hand, a person shouldn't be required to present photo ID when buying a gun because he's already going through the NICS and filling out the 4473. The photo ID is a stupid safety measure that does nothing to decrease the possibility of selling a gun to a prohibited person. It's another inconvenience on the road to exercising a right, which is its entire purpose because if it's poor people that can't afford an ID to vote, they also can't afford an ID to buy a gun.

I don't think you understand the reason for the photo ID. The onus is on the dealer to make sure the person who is buying the gun is actually the person they say they are. The easiest way to do that is with an ID card with a photo on that card. A NICS check only checks the information the dealer enters. The dealer is responsible for a positive ID of that person. So it isn't a stupid safety measure, just an infringement.

The Amish have a right to all of the religious freedom they want. That would be to practice their religious beliefs until it affects someone else. In this case it does. It affects a gun dealer's ability to positively ID a buyer, in which case a sale isn't possible for anyone regardless of their religion. I don't know of any federal code that exempts the Amish, but it wouldn't surprise me if they got one through congress. A new 4473 with your religious affiliation required. Everyone will check Amish but you will need a horse drawn wagon and a set of really old carpenters tools to prove it.

 

[BSA1]

We are straying from the core argument which is simply does the Government requiring a Government issued form of identification a reasonable infringement on the right to bear and keep arms?

As we know the 2A gives all U.S. citizens the right to own firearms which exemptions for certain types of crimes and mental health adjudication. The issue being raised now is can a purchaser be compelled to have a Government issued photo identification card to purchase a firearm?

The roots of this argument goes all the way to dictators and communism. Our courts sadly have upheld that failing to produce proper identification to a law enforcement officer can be a crime. For example be stopped by a LEO while walking on the street and refuse to provide identification upon demand. The conversation is likely to go downhill fast.

Of course there are the requirements for "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" but that is outside the scope of this case. Many gunowners unfortunately have taken this a step further and accepted the requirement that they must have the advance permission of the Government to purchase a firearm (example Illinois FOID Card).

Now in regards to the Amish I have ate meals in their homes as a guest and their cooking is very wonderful.

 

[goon]

I believe voting is the one time showing photo I.D. should be required to exercise a right. Voting has the potential to easily change much more than firearms can without using a lot of effort. The voting system could also be abused very easily if the Amish can vote without I.D. What would there be to stop a politician from getting together a large group of people together (who already voted), dressing them up in Amish entire, and having them illegally vote again using an Amish name? I honestly don't know how a system could work without showing I.D., even if we were to throw out the idea that the system could be abused. I do think a basic I.D. to vote should be free if one's income is below a certain level.

The odds of voter fraud occuring in the US are about 1 in a million. Even conservative sources have to work to make those numbers look outrageous. I wish we could get all other crime rates that low!

http://www.redstate.com/2015/08/13/heritage-nearly-300-cases-voter-fraud/

Still, I doubt my opinion will be considered by the judge in this case.

 

[TimSr]

I think every Amish man or boy has a gun. They are all hunters. They will not use one for self defense, and i've never seen one with a pistol.

Photo ID has never been an issue for elections here because they do not participate. Dr. Sandman is right. Differnt groups have different rules.

Either way, I'm wondering how this will measure against voter ID laws, since the same arguments made for not showing ID to vote are never used concerning purchasing a gun.

The odds of voter fraud occuring in the US are about 1 in a billion.

Our population is 325 million. I don't know how many of those are voters, but I can tell you that my own small town exceeds those odds of one in a billion in every election.