Amish Man With No Photo ID Suing Over Denial Of Gun Permit
Well, now, this is an interesting case, and brings up a different issue
In the Amish tradition, practicing members cannot have their photo taken. According to the suit, Andrew Hertzler, the plaintiff, “has a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from knowingly and willingly having his photography taken and stored.”
The case, as The Post points out, highlights the tension between the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993, which was established to avoid cases such as this. Hertzler, in order to enjoy his Second Amendment rights, would have to violate his faith.
“The exercise of one Constitutional right cannot be contingent upon the violation or waiver of another,” the suit reads.
Mr. Hertzler again attempted to purchase a firearm over the summer, using a government issued non-photo ID, and was again told “no”, because a photo ID was required. So, her reached out to Senator Pat Toomey, who checked with BATF
Toomey heard back from the ATF and sent Hertzler the following response: “As the enclosed response [from the ATF] states, Federal firearm laws require photo identification when purchasing a firearm.There are no exceptions to this federal requirement.”
There are a couple things at play here. First, the 2nd Amendment says the Right shall not be infringed. I personally do not have any problem in requiring a photo ID for purchase of any gun, be it a handgun or a long rifle. For 99.9%, there is no infringement. Or is there? More on that in a moment.
The First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law that restricts the free exercise of religion. Does requiring a photo ID to make a purchase when taking a photo is against a person’s religion a violation of the 1st?
Obviously, in a rational and sane world, an accommodation would be made for Mr. Hertzler (and other Amish), since they know who he is, and he has a government issued ID. Certainly some government official or someone else with a photo ID could vouch for him.
But, let’s think about this: in order to exercise a Constitutional Right, one must, no exceptions, have a proper government issued photo ID. Liberals pitch a hissy fit over photo ID requirements to vote. Why no complaints about the requirement for gun purchases?
Liberals say requiring photo ID disenfranchises certain people from being able to vote. By certain people, they mean Blacks, because Liberals apparently think Blacks are too lazy, poor, and stupid to be able to obtain a government issued identification card, even though most states, especially those who require photo ID to vote, offer them free or at very low cost for many low/no income citizens. Does not requiring photo ID for a legal gun purchase disenfranchise these same people from exercising their Constitutional right?
You can’t have it both ways, Democrats. Pick one. Photo ID or no ID?
BTW, states that require voter ID do, in fact, have accommodations, typically in allowing a provision vote be cast.