Amish man challenges ID requirement for firearm purch.

[This_person]

?? Your apparently dim view of Amish intelligence and how well informed they are...where does that come from?

I do not have a dim view of their intelligence at all. As a group, I'd guess they score like most any other group with probably right about the same spread on the bell curve - lots of highs, lots more middles, lots of lows.

So, my question stands - without the ability to get at any of the information without an ID, how do they get ahold of the information? I would have to guess someone with an ID provides it for them. We're talking one individual here, but that's how he's coming at the court (not as a group in a class-action, but as an individual). If his neighbor has internet and he signs on and reviews the congressional websites, I have no issues. But, that would kind of also be a violation of his religion, wouldn't it? So, maybe he's just on a mailing list and receives the laws quarterly on a press that is printed without the use of electricity on paper made without the use of electricity, and the gun he wishes to purchase is made without the use of electricity. Or, maybe (like 99.999999999% of all of us) his religious needs are sometimes swapped out for the realities of living in the 21st century. I'm just saying it's pretty hard for him to get around having an ID in all other facets of his life without in some way violating his religion. Will he demand a trial in a building that is not brought up to modern technology to purchase a weapon that is not manufactured with modern technology?

 

[Hodr]

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.

And I was replying to the poster who said there is no need for any ID, photo or otherwise. Why do you attack arguments that I don't make?

 

[This_person]

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?

Mine always did. I suspect once the technology was mature enough to allow it, everyone's had it.

However, I do think there is a way to provide an ID without a photo - one that should satisfy all involved. It would just be a matter of the government accepting his first amendment rights and supporting his second at the same time. A little creativity.

 

[Hodr]

So, maybe he's just on a mailing list and receives the laws quarterly on a press that is printed without the use of electricity on paper made without the use of electricity, and the gun he wishes to purchase is made without the use of electricity.

FYSA, most of the Amish provisions against the use of technology have to do with community and home life. They often find it perfectly acceptable to use technology in their work life. Did you know there are several new housing communities on the Eastern Shore built entirely by the Amish? I learned this from an Amish electrician that had worked on many of the houses.

 

[GURPS]

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?

I have a friend that came visit from the UK in 1999 her DL was a [metric] 8 1/2 x 11 piece of paper filled out
... NO Photo, she said her next license would have one

 

[This_person]

FYSA, most of the Amish provisions against the use of technology have to do with community and home life. They often find it perfectly acceptable to use technology in their work life. Did you know there are several new housing communities on the Eastern Shore built entirely by the Amish? I learned this from an Amish electrician that had worked on many of the houses.

I was trying to effectively say I knew that. The key sentence was: "Or, maybe (like 99.999999999% of all of us) his religious needs are sometimes swapped out for the realities of living in the 21st century."

 

[GURPS]

I was trying to effectively say I knew that. The key sentence was: "Or, maybe (like 99.999999999% of all of us) his religious needs are sometimes swapped out for the realities of living in the 21st century."

yeah they have electric lights on there buggys

 

[Hijinx]

Well if we go back to the original post and read the link I believe we can assume the boy hired himself a lawyer.
Amish do not need much education to do that and they do have money.

The part I question in the original post is that he asked for the gun to use in self-defense.
Amish are not allowed to fightback or use a weapon in self-defense to my knowledge.
I would say if he can fight in self-defense he can have his picture taken.

Amish do have weapons for hunting , and I suppose they could have one for target shooting.
But, I do question the self-defense reason he gave.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

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?

In your effort to put forth some humor, you completely overlooked the fact that this is about having to show government ID for a firearm and not my bank, which is a private organization and who has myriad ways to verify my identity to ensure that I am the only one who can conduct business on my behalf, and whose methods for identification are between me and my bank.

I understand you are OK with showing ID for the purchase of a firearm. I don't agree, but I don't think any less of you for it. Your position is well considered, as is mine. But more importantly, it also demonstrates to me you are no friend of liberty. That's OK with me to, but it is nice to know.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I have a question for you. Would you give a if instead of "Andrew Hertzler" this were "Mohammad Hertzler Al-Hamsi" ?

 

[This_person]

In your effort to put forth some humor, you completely overlooked the fact that this is about having to show government ID for a firearm and not my bank, which is a private organization and who has myriad ways to verify my identity to ensure that I am the only one who can conduct business on my behalf, and whose methods for identification are between me and my bank.

I understand you are OK with showing ID for the purchase of a firearm. I don't agree, but I don't think any less of you for it. Your position is well considered, as is mine. But more importantly, it also demonstrates to me you are no friend of liberty. That's OK with me to, but it is nice to know.

I appreciate you caught the humor.

However, I have said I'm not convinced one way or the other, overall. But, I agree that government ID for interacting with the government is different from government ID to interact with the rest of the public. How would you control voting, without ID? How would you ensure that the correct person is jailed for a crime, or more importantly NOT jailed for a crime? How would you have us know who pays the taxes for the services government rightfully should provide?

It's all fine to say "liberty" reflexively in every argument to limit government actions - I fully agree with the concept. But, there are also legitimate things the government should do, and legitimate concerns for citizen interaction with the government. How would you do that with absolutely no form of ID?

 

[nutz]

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.

You'll have to get in line. Bank of America has patent #6708176 for interactive advertising. IBM has patent # 7076441 for id and tracking of people in store environments. Philips has patent #6677917, fabric antenna for tags (clothing, shoes, hats, scarfs, etc.). There are tons more. IoT (internet of things) is here, they are just working out the technicalities and legalities of who is gonna be your keeper. Have you seen Person of Interest, that's closer to reality than most would believe.

 

[GURPS]

I have a question for you. Would you give a if instead of "Andrew Hertzler" this were "Mohammad Hertzler Al-Hamsi" ?

is Mohamod citizen ?

 

[Gilligan]

Mine always did. .

That indicates how much younger you are than I. ;-)

 

[Gilligan]

And I was replying to the poster who said there is no need for any ID, photo or otherwise. Why do you attack arguments that I don't make?

And I was reinforcing that fact. 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.

 

[Gilligan]

It's all fine to say "liberty" reflexively in every argument to limit government actions - I fully agree with the concept. But, there are also legitimate things the government should do, and legitimate concerns for citizen interaction with the government. How would you do that with absolutely no form of ID?

How did we manage without photo IDs for the first 200+ years? And to remind you...the topic is photo IDs.

 

[This_person]

How did we manage without photo IDs for the first 200+ years? And to remind you...the topic is photo IDs.

LB is against ID's - period. I would submit that it was much easier for IDs without photos when the technology wasn't mature enough. What is the point in having ID's without photos in the 21st century? I should say that what I mean by that is why would you not put photos on them, not that there is absolutely no point in having an ID unless it has a photo.

 

[Gilligan]

LB is against ID's - period. .

So? The topic of thread is an Amish man that refuses to obtain a photo ID..and photo IDs are a relatively new "thing".

 

[This_person]

So? The topic of thread is an Amish man that refuses to obtain a photo ID..and photo IDs are a relatively new "thing".

They are. So are cell phones and computers. But, that doesn't answer the question - what is the problem with photo IDs?

I've said earlier in the thread that I think there should be a religious accommodation made - if there is validity to the religious claim, then provide him an avenue to have a different type of ID. I think his thumb print, or some other uniquely-identifying method could easily be used to accommodate. We accommodate Indians to use peyote when the rest of us can't, why can't we accommodate this guy to have a slightly different ID?

But, as a general rule, I see no reason to not have photo IDs for interactions with the government. It seems a simple thing to do with the technology we have.

 

[This_person]

That indicates how much younger you are than I. ;-)

I got my license in the '70s.