Amish man challenges ID requirement for firearm purch.
- Thread starter LibertyBeacon
- Start date
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
I hope he wins.
If you don't need a photo to vote, you shouldn't need one to buy a firearm.
LibertyBeacon
Unto dust we shall return
Damn right. I'm glad you didn't take the religious angle, which I don't think is the primary issue here.
I maintain that there are many things wrong for having to show an ID for anything. First and foremost, the only purpose for ID to exist is for the purpose of control by the issuing authority. Reference this story, and any story about requiring firearm registration. Requiring an ID for anything is wrong on the surface, and is a violation the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, as it is a violation of the basic human right to privacy.
It is actually much easier in this country to steal an ID than to actually get a government-issued ID. Having an ID, a set of electronic medical, financial records online and available to the Chinese and Russian malware outfits to further exploit makes one an easy target to those that understand how this all works.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I am somewhat torn on this. Without ID, how do we (as a fellow citizen) know that you are a citizen, and therefore you are allowed the rights offered by the country? It seems unreasonable to accept that citizens are citizens if they can't prove they're citizens. At some point it becomes unreasonable to expect that just anyone who happens to be able to stand before you may claim they are anyone without expecting proof of some kind.
LB, you're clearly an exceptionally wealthy man what with your mini-limo and all, and you are clearly world traveled and beyond the pale in intelligence. But, a low-life proletariat scum like me could walk into one of your vast number of banks necessary to contain all your wealth and simply claim to be you and withdraw some of that money. Now, knowing you are so wealthy you'd never miss it, I also believe you're so intelligent you would catch it immediately. But, how would you contain such a thing, so that I don't keep taking tiny bites of a million here and a million there from you?
moving about your daily life, how does this matter ?
what rights do you need an ID to assert ?
are you trying to get some Gov. handout, requiring you ID yourself
This_person
Well-Known Member
Day to day, probably not much. But, if you want to vote, or purchase a weapon, or prove you're not the person for whom the police are looking, or you are the person who paid the taxes, etc., there seems to be a point. I don't want illegal aliens voting, or having guns in my country.
H
Hodr
Guest
As long as you live on the barter system and do everything face to face, sure. But you need some form of ID to do any non-in person transaction (doesn't have to be called a License, your name and password to this very website is an ID).
Like credit cards, checks, being able to get a loan to purchase a home? Can't do these things (reasonably) without verifiable identification.
H
Hodr
Guest
Arguing against the concept of ID is ridiculous, unless you can carry everything on your person that belongs to you and protect it yourself. If you can, great, you don't need an ID. If you cannot, then you need to rely on other people to store/protect your things (money, house when you aren't home, etc).
This_person
Well-Known Member
I am actually ok with citizens needing to prove their citizens to purchase the firearm. Again, I am not in the "for" column when it comes to an illegal alien purchasing a weapon. I am also perfectly fine with a person who is at least once (maybe twice) convicted as a felon giving up, as a part of that person's punishment for crimes convicted, their right to keep and bear arms for at least some amount of time. In that respect, I accept a background check (is the person on the list that cannot receive? No - then they can receive).
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think we're agreeing in concept, but less so in execution. Every item you described is a commercially-available form of ID that is between you and someone with whom you choose to do business or otherwise interact. I am speaking of a government-issued ID. It is more convenient for a government-issued ID to be the generally-accepted form of identification for those commercial activities, but that doesn't make a government-issued ID the most appropriate thing for the government to do.
I do believe that the government should have some form of ID check for actions where a citizen is interacting with the government, such as voting.
Toxick
Splat
I believe a mandatory ID system, not only for the state and federal government, but also for the global community. I think the UN should generate a system in which RFID chips are implanted into people at the age of consent. I think some kind of visual indication of compliance should also be required. Perhaps a small tattoo or brand that will be affixed somewhere on the person, say the forehead or back of the hand.
When I am elected as Secretary General, this will happen.
When I am elected as Secretary General, this will happen.
Point of this thread being, however, that Mr. Hertzler has absolutely no need for a photo ID in any other facet of his life and does not think he should be required to have one to purchase a firearm. I agree with him. And as a simple matter of historical fact, any requirements for an a photo ID to purchase a firearms are relatively quite recent.
:wildcrowdapplause: You gots my vote!
This_person
Well-Known Member
I wonder how he knew of the RFRA. He couldn't use a computer at the library without an ID. He couldn't get into the Library of Congress without an ID. He couldn't go talk with his Congressional representatives without (you got it) an ID.OP said:
I suspect you were following Toxick's lead by saying photo IDs are a recent requirement - like saying pilot's licenses certainly weren't a part of the constitution, isn't it? But, it's not like they're hard to get, or expensive, or anything else.
And, he's not claiming any of those things are a problem. His claim is that his religion doesn't allow him to be photographed. I think that the concept of religion vs. photo ID is reminiscent of the Florida case where a Muslim woman (Sultaana Freeman) wanted her photo ID with her face covered in a niqab, but was told that she couldn't have that happen. From the point of view of his case, which appears to hinge on religion (regardless of how much LB didn't want to talk about the actual case), I would have to agree with him. Surely this person files tax forms, or in some way is recognizable as a citizen of the US without a photo ID. Perhaps he could be required to provide a reasonable painting of himself every few years, and that painting could be photographed as his ID? That's said somewhat facetiously, but this isn't a driver's license he's seeking, and it's not whether or not he wants to veil himself. This is a religious objection to photography. Perhaps a thumb-print?
And you would be incorrect. I was simply noting a historical fact. For how many years did your driver's license have no photograph on it?
Last edited:
?? Your apparently dim view of Amish intelligence and how well informed they are...where does that come from?