No photos...for religious reasons.

D

dahermit

New member
The 21-year-old Amish youth (all my neighbors are Amish save for one), whom I allow to deer hunt on my land stopped by yesterday with a surprising request. It seems that he saw an AR15 (for coyote hunting) in the local gun store and wanted me to purchase it for him. I asked him why he needed me to buy the gun...why not just buy it himself. He reminded me that the Amish have a religious prohibition against having their pictures taken. No picture...no photo I.D. Therefore, a dealer cannot do an NICS check or sell him a gun.
I explained to him that if I purchased the gun for him, I would be committing a federal felony...a "strawman" purchase. So that was definitely out.
We hashed it over for awhile and it would seem that the only way he could legally buy the gun he wanted was to find one offered by a non-dealer for a face-to-face transaction. However, that was not likely in light of the fact that advertisements advertising AR15's for sale in our small town, rural area are hardly ever seen.
Which brings to the point...Is there any way for the large population of Amish (many Amish hunt and varmint shoot), to buy a gun from a dealer without a photo I.D.? For that matter, it would seem that the Amish will not be traveling to Canada for the same reason...no photos for I.D.'s or passports. It is notable that my closest Amish neighbor took his whole family to visit relatives in Mexico a few years ago...do Americans need a passport to enter Mexico these days also?
 
If the state allows private sales without ID they may be able to purchase legally.
But what you have described sure sounds like a straw sale.
Personally, I wouldn't sell or buy a gun without ID on both sides. Too many pitfalls for a stolen weapon or prohibited person.
As for Mexico travel you can often get into Mexico in the border towns with just a smile and drivers license. But to get back in the US without a passport you may not like the hassle.

Addition:
If it's legal in your state you may be able to sell him one of your existing guns. But I'm a bit skidish on your situation.
 
Last edited:
Your Amish friend could buy an 80% lower, and buy the rest of the components from wherever (or you could legally buy them for him), then he can roll his own. If the Amish don't have access to the machinery and tooling necessary to complete an alloy lower, he could buy one of those kits to cast your own polymer lower. No photo ID or background check needed to buy a mould and a batch of plastic.
 
Hate to say this, but no proper identification, no sale, no gun.

The Mennonites I've known have not been nearly as fundamentalist as this. I'm not convinced of the religious aspects, it seems more cultural.
 
In general, I don't think Mennonites are as fundamentalist as Amish. When I was in Army Basic Training back in Vietnam days, there was a Mennonite in my training company -- in my platoon, in fact. I don't remember if he was a conscientious objector and going through Basic on his way to a non-combat role, or what the deal was. But I'm pretty certain an Amish lad would not have been drafted at all.
 
Last edited:
19th century lifestyle, 19th century guns. Help him pick a good muzzleloader he can mailorder without positive identification.
 
I would, in this case, sell one of my rifles to the friend and buy a replacement. That would eliminate the purchase as a straw purchase. If I later decided that I liked the old gun better I would be free to trade guns with him as long as he was willing.
 
I thought Amish were forbiddened to use any modern implements, not even buttons on their clothes. What is he doing with a modern sports rifle? Was he also asking you to download fox call for him?

-TL
 
I'd get clarification, but it is legal to sell or "gift" a gun to someone who can legally own the gun and if the transfer is legal. If he were in different state it would make things impossible. A straw purchase is normally defined as someone buying for another who they know cannot legally own a gun.

I can purchase a gun and legally gift it to my grandkids. I don't see a huge difference here if you know the kid is legal to own the gun. But this is a matter for someone who understands the law better than I, and like you I'd be hesitant to do so until I spoke with someone who could say for sure.

I don't know anything at all about the Mennonite faith. But lots of religions bend the rules at times in order to live in our modern world. It is hard for me to believe that it is possible to not have some sort of photo ID and live anything close to a normal life in this country in 2017.
 
I thought Amish were forbiddened to use any modern implements, not even buttons on their clothes. What is he doing with a modern sports rifle? Was he also asking you to download fox call for him?
Click to expand...
You thought wrong. There are variations from Amish community to community. In each Amish community, the rules ("Ordnung") for that community, is established by that community's elders. In the local Amish community, they have telephone "booths" (small buildings containing a telephone...no telephones in the home.), spaced out in the community. Also, my next door Amish neighbor has a Kitchen cabinet shop (makes beautifully polished stone top counters although they would not have anything that fancy in their own homes...all for sale to the non-Amish, that they refer to as, "The English".) that is powered by a generator. While they do not own cars or drive themselves, the community owns a van and hires a person to drive them to and from some of the local stores...I see my neighbors in Walmart frequently. They also own and shoot modern guns as well as bow hunt and muzzle load season, deer hunt. Their washing machines are powered by gasoline engines. They do not have pedals/chains/sprockets on their bicycles, they have bikes that are similar to the scooters of old, that they push along with one of their feet. They also have skies...and as the tracks across my yard in the snow will attest to in the Winter time, get pulled by horse-drawn buggies and a long rope as per water skiing. My neighbor the cabinet builder usually takes several large bucks with his bow, muzzle loader, shotgun during the hunting season as well as varmints (.17 magnum rimfire), whenever the opportunity presents itself. His kids also trap coons...that last time with modern dog-proof style traps. He also owns and shoots a Ruger Blackhawk .357 which was abandoned in a mobile home on the property he bought. They (the Amish), also use chainsaws.
 
Last edited:
I'd get clarification, but it is legal to sell or "gift" a gun to someone who can legally own the gun and if the transfer is legal. If he were in different state it would make things impossible. A straw purchase is normally defined as someone buying for another who they know cannot legally own a gun.

I can purchase a gun and legally gift it to my grandkids. I don't see a huge difference here if you know the kid is legal to own the gun. But this is a matter for someone who understands the law better than I, and like you I'd be hesitant to do so until I spoke with someone who could say for sure.
Click to expand...
The exchange of funds in this instance would it a straw purchase, regardless of the legal status of the 'true' buyer. (And intent, but that's like arguing about the existence of God...)
 
jmr40 .....A straw purchase is normally defined as someone buying for another who they know cannot legally own a gun.
Click to expand...
No, that's hust the often mistaken definition of a straw purchase. A straw purchase occurs when someone who is NOT the actual buyer/transferee completes the Form 4473. It doesn't matter one bit if the actual buyer is a prohibited person.



I can purchase a gun and legally gift it to my grandkids. I don't see a huge difference here if you know the kid is legal to own the gun. But this is a matter for someone who understands the law better than I, and like you I'd be hesitant to do so until I spoke with someone who could say for sure.
Click to expand...
The OP could legally gift a firearm, but that's not what the situation is.
And the difference is HUGE. The Amish kid is asking the OP to violate Federal law.
 
The exchange of funds in this instance would it a straw purchase, regardless of the legal status of the 'true' buyer. (And intent, but that's like arguing about the existence of God...)
Click to expand...
A moot point...it is not going to happen. I am too old to chance going to prison.

The Amish kid is asking the OP to violate Federal law.
Click to expand...
In the kid's moral defense, he did not know about the law...I had to explain to him the significance of a "Strawman" purchase.
 
This presents a conundrum that I'd never considered. We don't have many Amish around here, though.

However, as some others have noted, had the OP taken the young man's money to purchase a rifle, that indeed would have been a straw purchase. Straw purchases are not dependent on the legal status of any of the parties relative to firearms possession. IOW, it's not about buying a firearm for Frank Felony. It's about whether the person going through the NICS check is the "actual purchaser" of the firearm. SCOTUS made that clear in Abramski a few years back.

dahermit, you did right in declining to go forward, and in explaining the law to the young man.
 
If you have trail cameras on your hunting property his picture has been taken many times.

Also, there are cameras everywhere these days. I don't see how they would keep their picture from being taken if they interact at all with the modern world.
 
I don't see how they would keep their picture from being taken if they interact at all with the modern world.
Click to expand...

While I'm no expert on these matters, I'd be willing to bet they make a distinction between having their picture taken and getting their picture taken.

having their picture taken by a security camera is a different matter than getting their picture taken, posing for a picture, one that they will personally use or benefit from.

In the past, some cultures prohibited any representation of a person, this included drawings, carvings, statues, and portraits, and when the technology was introduced, photographs.

The way it was explained to me, these were considered "graven images". It was not permitted to have a picture of God. Man was created in God's image, so therefore, it was not permitted to have a picture of man, either. A picture of anything else God created was ok, since it was not something "in his image".

This was the prevailing belief in many Islamic regions at one time. Today, it seems not to be the case, although some of that belief still seems to have some traction, I've seen many pictures of Islamic "protesters" carrying portraits (not actual photographs) of their "beloved" Ayatollah....
 
Quite an interesting situation indeed. I have never thought of this as an issue and I believe it is a plausible constitutional issue. While the lack of photograph almost seems absurd in this time, we have had Amish in this country since it was founded. They abide by the rules that they abide by, and most in America have at least a vague understanding of who they are and some of their customs. Because of this, I think it is an infringement on their 2A rights. That being said, much to at least a few objections here I assume, I generally support the photo ID requirement.

As for a solution to the young man's conundrum, I would absolutely sell him one of the stripped lowers I have laying around so he can have a rifle were I in your shoes. Dahermit I know you may not have such a creature, but if you do I would consider it. If not, and you have any friends that may and would entertain the idea I would send him in their direction. Especially if you both know this kid and he's good to go.

So long as you didn't intend to sell it to the kid at the time you purchased it, you are not violating law.
 
This does bring up an interesting point, which "God given rights" does our government recognize in practice, and not just on paper???

and which ones take precedence?

Our religious freedom is one of the shining principles of our nation, until someone labels you a "cult".

We have seen, over the years, our government decide various issues both ways. Sometimes in favor of allowing people to follow their beliefs, sometimes, not.

So, here's one question (among many) if exercising your 1st Amendment right runs afoul of some government REGULATION and prevents your exercise of your 2nd Amendment right, which takes precedence, and who decides??

Alternate, same question but actually violating the law, and not just a regulation??

Also, it comes to my mind that there has been considerable argument about what ID is required to vote. Phrases like "undue burden", and others come to mind. SO, is it equal treatment under the law to require a photo ID to exercise one of our fundamental rights, and not another??

Or to turn it around, if a specific ID regulatory requirement places an unacceptable burden on the exercise of a particular right, why doesn't it do the same for other rights??

Yes, I know the answer is "because that's the system we've made", but I'm interested in the underlying principles, in this case, not the mess we've made and currently practice.

It's a twisty subject, so lets keep things focused, and within L&CR forum RULES, as well as our guidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top