No photos...for religious reasons.

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??
Click to expand...
Voting is a right that absolutely requires registration for its integrity. Registration should require steps to establish that you are eligible to vote. Showing ID proves that you are person registered to vote. Other safeguards are required to make sure you only register/vote once.
 
Voting is a right
Click to expand...

Stop there. Everything you typed after that is a limitation of that right, turning it into a privilege rather than a right.

Limiting voting rights isn't something that free nations do, it's what dictatorships and authoritarian regimes do. Limiting and controlling who can vote is how those regimes maintain power. We're not Trumpistan.

Yet.
 
WyMark said:
Stop there. Everything you typed after that is a limitation of that right, turning it into a privilege rather than a right.

Limiting voting rights isn't something that free nations do, it's what dictatorships and authoritarian regimes do. Limiting and controlling who can vote is how those regimes maintain power. We're not Trumpistan.
Click to expand...
Requiring some form of identification to prove that the person voting is the person who is supposed to be voting is not limiting or restricting voting, nor does it convert the right to vote into a privilege. I am consistently astonished that so many people seem to be against the idea that a person showing up at the polls should have to show proof that he/she is who he/she says he/she is before being allowed to vote. Everyone claims to be against voter fraud, but many of the same people who oppose voter fraud also seem to oppose the simple things that would virtually eliminate it.

I's 73 years old, and I registered to vote as soon as I was legally allowed to do so. I don't even remember what (if any) documentation I had to provide when I registered to prove that I am me. I'm sure I had to provide something. I do know that, for as long as I can remember, I have had to show my driver's license when I arrive at the polling place. I'm in a small town, so we only have one polling place -- the gymnasium of the old grammar school. It's split into four lines, divided alphabetically by street name. Each line passes by a table manned by one Democrat and one Republican registrar. Both registrars have a big sheet of paper with the names of every registered voter on their streets. I get to the table, I hand my driver's license to whichever of them is first, she reads the name and address out loud, she then hands it to the other one who also reads it out loud, then they each draw a line through my name on their respective lists. After that, they hand me back my driver's license and I can go vote.

I just don't see anything wrong with that. I'm sure I would be more than a little upset if I showed up at the polls late on election day and was told that I couldn't vote because I had already voted earlier in the day. I suspect anyone would be upset if that were to happen. But if you don't have to show identification, how can you possibly prevent it? Even in a small town, I don't know everyone. In fact, as I get older and the people I once knew die off or move away, I really know almost nobody in town. And they don't know me, so what's to stop some professional voter from voting under my name if we don't have to show identification?
 
If you have trail cameras on your hunting property his picture has been taken many times.
Click to expand...
This is a common misconception, and the answer is a little nuanced. The Amish generally won't pose for a photograph of which they're the subject. It's in deference to Exodus 20:4, which warns against creating graven images. On a deeper level, it's about humility. The idea is that they're to be remembered for their deeds and works, not a painting or a photograph.

Yes, pictures exist of them. No, they're not going to get all testy if a passer-by snaps a photo. However, government ID requires actively having a picture taken, so it's a no-go.

As for the Hertzler lawsuit, it appears to have gone nowhere, and a proposed Pennsylvania law fixing the problem is likewise dead in the water.

So, yeah. There's really no way aside from a private sale for him to purchase a modern firearm.
 
Like someone else said, the Ordnung (order, authority) determines those rules. Either your guy lives is an ultra-conservative community, in which case, he shouldn't be handling a modern firearm or he's trying to pull a fast one. I know of no Blue State that allows for Niqabs (full face coverings...Hijabs covering hair ok). You can't get a passport w/o a photo and these days you need one (or a card) to go to Mexico or Canada.
 
I am in TX, but I wouldn't hesitate to help this young man. First, I would confirm that he is not prohibited from owning a firearm (by law or the wishes of his family). Second, I would lay out my ARs and figure out which was going to meet his needs. Third, l'd agree on a price, shake his hand and he'd have his AR. Fourth, I would shop me up a brand new AR.

Ok, in truth, steps 2 and 4 would intermingle 'cause my offer price would cover the expected cost of my replacement rifle if it needed replaced - for my trouble.
 
Dred said:
I am in TX, but I wouldn't hesitate to help this young man. First, I would confirm that he is not prohibited from owning a firearm (by law or the wishes of his family). Second, I would lay out my ARs and figure out which was going to meet his needs. Third, l'd agree on a price, shake his hand and he'd have his AR.
Click to expand...
You'd be commiting a felony since you're not both residents of the same state.
 
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.
Click to expand...
They object to having their picture taken...is someone asks to take their picture, the answer is always, "No."
We have a Saturday morning T.V. show called, "Calling Dr. Pol". He has a veterinarian clinic in Central Michigan. Whenever he makes a call to the farm of his Amish clients, their faces are always pixilated whereas his non-Amish clients are not.
 
Quote:
Voting is a right
Stop there. Everything you typed after that is a limitation of that right, turning it into a privilege rather than a right.

Limiting voting rights isn't something that free nations do, it's what dictatorships and authoritarian regimes do. Limiting and controlling who can vote is how those regimes maintain power. We're not Trumpistan.

Yet.
Click to expand...
What? So you have a right to vote as many times as you want? Or as a different person? Or in a jurisdiction where you don't live? Or if you are 6 years old? Or if you are not a citizen of the country? Really? If there are NO controls or limits on voting, it becomes meaningless.
 
There is a right to vote and a right to keep and bear arms. Neither is exempt from limitation. Convicted murderers do not retain the right to keep and bear arms and I doubt if they have the right to vote. Lawful limitations on voting rights IS something free nations do. Unlawful limitations on voting rights, e.g., racial discrimination, have been overturned, i.e., eliminated in the specific case, by courts.
 
"I'm not convinced of the religious aspects, it seems more cultural."

It's actually interpretational and how his particular order/group views the bible.

Stricter groups do not permit personal photography because they believe it violates the commandment against creating graven images or idols.

For some it can also tie into whether they believe they are posing for a photograph. A posed photograph (such as a driver's license or ID) falls back to the graven images or idols.

Most Amish, even stricter sects, don't have a problem with the pictures being taken if it's not a posed photograph.

My first job was with a newspaper in an Amish area in Pennsylvania (not Lancaster County) and only once did I have an Amish man ask me not to take his photo. I asked him if it was a religious thing, and he said no, I just don't like having my picture taken.
 
"Some states, like Pennsylvania and Ohio, do issue nonphoto identification. Individuals must provide a form stating their religious objections, along with the bishop’s signature (see The Amish and the State for more)."

When it comes to driver's licenses / state I.D.s, some states allow non-photo identification cards.

Oregon became the first state to offer a "X" as a third gender option to Male and Female on it's driver's licenses.

Illinois offers Sharia compliant Driver's Licenses allowing Muslim women to cover their faces.

I had to take off my glasses for the facial recognition camera at the local DMV.

There is something wrong with the system.
 
I had to take off my glasses for the facial recognition camera at the local DMV.
Click to expand...


Could you explain this a little, please??

Did you have to take off your glasses for the software to recognize your face?
Or were you providing your face for the software without glasses, because??

What I'm getting is that the facial recognition wouldn't work if you were wearing glasses. That can't be right, can it??
 
WyMark wrote:
Stop there. Everything you typed after that is a limitation of that right, turning it into a privilege rather than a right.
Click to expand...

Placing reasonable restrictions on a right does not abrogate that right. The Supreme Court - the people who get to say what the Constitution actually says - have repeatedly said (for example Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47) that rights are not absolute.
 
hdwhit said:
Placing reasonable restrictions on a right does not abrogate that right. The Supreme Court - the people who get to say what the Constitution actually says - have repeatedly said (for example Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47) that rights are not absolute.
Click to expand...
While this may be correct, I'm not sure it's even necessary to mention. Requiring proof of identity to vote, for example, in no way restricts the right to vote. The U.S. Constitution doesn't establish who can vote -- that was one of the powers left up to the states. My state's constitution says:

Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in the town in which he offers himself to be admitted to the privileges of an elector at least six months next preceding the time he so offers himself, who is able to read in the English language any article of the constitution or any section of the statutes of the state, and who sustains a good moral character, shall, on his taking such oath as may be prescribed by law, be an elector.
Click to expand...
So, constitutionally, there are four criteria to be a voter: The person must be a citizen of the United States,, the person must be at least 21 years of age, the person must be able to read English, and the person must have lived in the town where he/she intends to vote for at least six months prior to the election. That establishes who has the right to vote.

Does requiring identification in any way restrict that? I don't think so. Requiring identification only guarantees that ONLY those people who satisfy the constitutional criteria are allowed to vote. But those are the only people who have a right to vote, so ... where's the problem?
 
Last edited:
JimPage said:
Aquila:
Doesn't your state submit to the Federal age of 18 for voters?
Click to expand...
Yes. I quoted the original body of the state constitution. There was an amendment in 1976 that revised the age to 18.

cjwils said:
I suspect the quote above about electors is about joining the electoral college, not about voting.
Click to expand...
No. The term "electors" is used in discussing the election of state officials.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top