NY SAFE Act Eliminates Amish Gun Rights

Amish gun owner (courtesy kickass.to)

The [New York] SAFE Act requires a National Instant Criminal Background Check on all gun purchases,” freebeacon.com reports. True dat. Whereas most states “allow” Americans to sell or transfer guns to other legal buyers privately without the government sticking its proverbial nose into the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” tent, the Empire State’s “universal background check” law requires ALL sales to go through a licensed gun dealer. Which includes a background check. Which means ALL buyers have to have photo ID. And that’s a problem for New York’s Amish population . . .

The Washington Free Beacon interviewed Freeman Gingerich, of West Edmeston, N.Y., who expressed his vexation at his inability to purchase a gun to hunt. He lives with eight family members, four of whom are hunters.

Gingerich said his Second Amendment rights are being denied based on his religion.

After going to several gun shops, Gingerich said he was told by the employees and their managers that they could not help him due to the SAFE Act.

“They couldn’t do anything for us without a photo ID,” Gingerich said. He said a religious exemption is needed for the Amish in New York because “we don’t have photos taken of ourselves.”

“There are 60 families in our community that are in the same situation,” said Gingerich. He estimates 90 percent of the Amish throughout New York are also being denied their Second Amendment rights.

I reckon 100 percent of New Yorkers are being denied their gun rights. But if the plight of Amish gun owners shines a light on government tyranny and their loss of liberty leads the state’s judiciary to deep-six the laughably-named SAFE Act on First Amendment grounds, then so be it.

More likely, the Amish will get a carve-out, just like New York’s law enforcement officers re: the “assault weapons” ban. The important point to note here: criminal background checks hinder law-abiding Americans, not criminals. Not that the natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is based on social utility. [h/t JT]

comments

  1. avatar Kyle says:

    Always funny how the left screams discrimination at the drop of a hat, but it seems like the right gets discriminated against far more.

    The difference is, we dont get the fancy lawyers at the ACLU to plead our case. We just have to suck it up and take it.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      The Left does not care about the violation of freedom of religion because the left loathes religion and wants it to vanish from the world.

      It’s as simple as that.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        You dismiss religion too swiftly. Religion is in the 1A which has gained very strong protection. Muslims have gained considerable ground toward making Islam the established religion of the US. No one in the political elite wants to take any action that would tend to support any civil check on Islam; and so, religion in general is going to be treated with deference lest it foreclose the desirable protection of Islam. Here, we have an intersection of interest in the Amish not wanting to be photographed and Muslims wanting to drape their women’s faces.

        Finally, the Evangelicals and some other Christians take their religious freedoms seriously. They may not be passionate about the 2A but they will see the connection between religious liberty and any other liberty.

    2. avatar Jody says:

      Tolerance ends when people don’t share your views, right?

      I thought everyone knew this . . . .

  2. avatar DickG says:

    But no photo ID to VOTE!
    .

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      Yeah. Most nations have a voter idea system of some sort . My favorite is Switzerland… where you can use a SWORD as voter ID. But apparently here in the US we’re supposed to believe that showing ID to vote is someone a violation of your civil rights or that you’re racist for suggesting that.

      1. avatar Sian says:

        Now I want to show up to a polling place with nothing but a sword.

        Somehow I don’t think it would end as well as I would like.

      2. avatar int19h says:

        >> My favorite is Switzerland… where you can use a SWORD as voter ID.

        This is not true for general voting (for parliament, national referendums etc).

        A service bayonet (not a sword) was used in some of the cantons for local assemblies (Landsgemeinde) in times when women were not allowed to vote, and basically served as a combined proof of citizenship and age. However, since the last canton allowed women to vote in 1990, this is no longer practiced anywhere.

        1. avatar Chicago Steve says:

          On a business trip I once got into an argument at the hotel bar with someone claiming that there was no such thing as voting fraud in the US.

          My response? “I’m from Chicago.”

          Guess who won that debate.

      3. avatar Richard says:

        That is only the democratic party that are about that.

  3. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    When I was a kid in the dirt floor 1970’s your public library card hand typed no photograph was legal identification. You could vote with it. Or present it to the police and they accepted it.
    The times have changed.

    1. avatar Jack Burton says:

      Unfortunately, we are moving closer and closer towards a 100% surveillance state that tracks every aspect of your life permanently. REALID is pretty much the end of anonymity. You’re going to have to become a computer hacker if you want anything different. Or else move to a developing country to get out from under the oligarchy that rules you.

      1. avatar Fuque says:

        Or Join an emerging pro constitution group using the book ” unintended consequences” as their playbook…

  4. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    All roads leading into New York state need to have signs: Abandon Rights, All Ye Who Enter Here.

    The NY SAFE act (and several other NY laws) need to find their way into the Inferno.

  5. avatar MarkPA says:

    What does NY do with female devote Muslims who will not allow their undraped faces to be photographed? How do they get driver’s licenses?

    The Feds would allow the Amish to keep NFA firearms as trustees of a trust without photo ID.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I’ve purchased three items through a trust. After the form 4 red tape, there’s still a 4473, where the seller transfers the firearm to a person named in the trust. And that requires photo ID.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        I didn’t know that. I bought 3 stamps for my trust with nothing whatsoever to identify myself other than my name, address and signature. This was on a Form 1 to make silencers. So, there was no seller – let alone an FFL – to ask for ID.

        1. avatar JasonM says:

          A form 1 is different, because it’s manufacturing. I’ve done two of those, and did not have to fill out a 4473 either. But the form 4 is for a transfer, so after the six month background check, you still have to fill out a 4473.

  6. avatar Bill Kohnke says:

    Rights? Rights? Yo don’t need no stinkin’ rights

  7. avatar Dev says:

    “Gingerich said his Second Amendment rights are being denied based on his religion.” That may be the way to get the whole thing repealed.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      No, as the article suggests, the state will just amend the law. The Democrats will ‘compromise’ to it and the Republicans will take the lead and claim some sort of victory. That’s how it works.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        The Amish population is far less than 1% of the population of New York and none of them vote. Since the Amish represent no votes for the Democrats, what is the incentive for Democrats in New York to compromise?

        1. avatar Jay-El says:

          Creating a carve-out allows them to cling to the notion that the law does not inconvenience law-abiding firearms owners, or law-abiding individuals who wish to buy a firearm.

          This move basically amounts to making something that is 99.9% ridiculous, 99.8% ridiculous. Both political sides get to claim victory, and the giant boot is still stomping on us, the non-elite, non-criminal masses.

        2. avatar MarkPA says:

          You are choosing to look at the wrong facet of the case.

          We shouldn’t be arguing for a carve-out for the Amish. Rather, we should be arguing that the Amish are 2A entitled and 1A entitled to their religious sentiments. There is a clash, and something has to give.

          A carve-out would be one solution; but, another solution is to question whether the exercise of a fundamental right can be predicated on a photo ID. If it can, then that photo ID requirement could be used to discriminate against legitimate holders of the right who – for any number of reasons – will not submit to photo ID.

          The right to arms is at least as fundamental – arguably more-so – then the right to vote. How can voter ID be prohibited but gun-buyer ID be enforced? Here, something has to give.

          If access to a right – guns or the voting franchise – is to be controlled by positive identification then the applicable agency (FFL, voter registrar) ought to accept anything that works. Today, for example, fingerprints generally work with rare exception. Any such agency could require positive ID where a driver’s license is acceptable and fingerprints are acceptable.

          The opportunity here is not to build a fingerprint infrastructure at every FFL or voter registration office. Instead, it is to make a rhetorical point that will score us some points legally and in the court of public opinion.

        3. avatar MarkPA says:

          Perfectly irrelevant. The fact that many Black people in Southern States did not register to vote for fear of being lynched did not stop whites in the South or North from advocating for the Voting Rights Act to effectively enfranchise Blacks.

          Never let a legitimate political argument go to waste. The Amish are a great example to press home the incongruity between voter ID prohibitions and gun-buyer ID requirements.

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          With the talk of a carve-out, I am surprised no one has asked “how?”! Are they going to carry photo ID which proves they are Amish? Or can anybody ignore the act by claiming to be Amish, with zero proof? Makes me agree, this should be interesting. NRA/SAF needs to look into backing their play, that could throw the stupid law in the crapper. Nationwide. Including Osama’s version, before it’s even passed.

      2. avatar law-abiding-citizen says:

        I see the Amish population in New York increasing dramatically if this happens. It’ll be like St. Patrick’s Day, except everyone will want to be Amish instead of Irish.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          This exceedingly narrow infringement serves to keep RKBA in the public consciousness and news in a sympathetic way. The longer it’s debated the better. If SAFE is opened to amendment that crack in the door will raise opportunities for other amendments to be introduced and debated. One more chip to be followed by another.

  8. avatar Chrispy says:

    If the Amish get SAFE act exemption I’m going to grow a beard and wear the hat.

    1. avatar Craig says:

      Trade the car in for a horse and buggy. Cheaper on gas.

      1. avatar Chrispy says:

        But I like to work on my own car, I don’t want to have to work on my own horse…

        Ever heard of an amish mechanic? He’s the guy that’s got his arm buried in the horses…

        Still better than the NY politicians with their head stuck up their own.

      2. avatar Geoff PR says:

        “Trade the car in for a horse and buggy. Cheaper on gas.”

        You obviously have zero experience in owning horses.

        They ain’t cheap, hombre.

        Arguably much more expensive for ‘City Slickers’ (thanks, DG!) then those in the far reaches of suburbia or beyond.

        That info comes first hand from 2 generations of current family members.

        Happiness is never having had to shovel horseshit for my sister’s horses.

    2. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

      I’m already half way there. Just need the hat….let’s see, Kangol, Stetson, golf, baseball, derby, bowler….I am going to get an Amish hat.

  9. avatar Tom W. says:

    After all this time Eziekiel and Abraham don’t have an old scatter gun lying around. Really?

    Or does he just have his eye on the new Mossberg 590.

    1. avatar twency says:

      I doubt the Amish use any form of birth control. You can only divide dad’s gun collection amongst the young’ns and their respective young’ns so many times before you start to run out.

      Besides, we wouldn’t say the First Amendment was unviolated if Jethro couldn’t buy books printed after 2014, on the theory that books have been published for centuries so he’s had plenty of time to collect all he needs.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Hey, now there is a thought. Banning books printed after 1986 would be utterly and totally unacceptable and obviously unconstitutional. Why is a ban on select-fire firearms manufactured after 1986 okay? The Hughes Amendment (which bans the sale of select-fire firearms manufactured after 1986) is obviously arbitrary and capricious. Wouldn’t that be rock-solid grounds to find the Hughes Amendment unconstitutional?

        I suppose before that happens the U.S. Supreme Court has to produce a ruling that We the People have a right to keep and bear select-fire firearms.

        Oh, who am I kidding. The Second Amendment on its face precludes the Hughes Amendment. If that wasn’t good enough, why would we expect to toss it out on grounds that it is arbitrary and capricious?

  10. avatar defensor fortismo says:

    Sounds like someone has been taking Amish mafia seriously.

  11. avatar Bob says:

    Oh, and yeah, we also need 30rd mags, you know for our religious ceremonies. Yeah that’s it.

    Cthulhu demands a ceremonial burning of gun powder via mag dump.

    1. avatar beefeater says:

      Cthulhu 2016
      “Why choose the LESSER evil?”

      1. avatar meadowsr says:

        One might say:

        Cthulhu 2016
        “DO choose the LESSER evil!”

        1. avatar Geoff PR says:

          “”In his house at R’lyeh dead Cthulhu waits dreaming”. “

  12. avatar SouthernPatriot says:

    Democrats must support gun rights and transfers for Amish or be hypocrites. Democrats support no license for voting decrying this puts many poor to great disadvantage. Since gun ownership and freedom (“shall not be infringed”) is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and voting is not in the top 10…well, you can see the problem that those who want to allow voters not to have an ID, then to require one to purchase and transfer a gun…

    1. avatar Roymond says:

      I’ve heard very few Democrats who want no ID for voting — the objection is to the way it’s implemented. And they have a point; for some people, getting that ID can be very burdensome. Ironically, in the retired bunch my mom knows, over half would have been effectively disenfranchised by a number of the ID laws — and most of them vote Republican (followed by Independent, then Democrat, with a pair of Libertarians finishing the list).

      As a libertarian, I have to oppose excessive ID requirements; every little bit is a step toward a “Papers, please!” society where a citizen needs government documentation to even legally exist — or buy ammo, or a gun, or a knife, or fertilizer . . .

      IIRC one of the great old Democrats, Hubert H. Humphrey, once linked ID for voting and for firearms, holding that being an adult human being was enough to identify him as holding both rights. Of course that was before massive illegal immigration, and before the vanishing of conservative Democrats (though there’s a remnant in the Blue Steel Democrats, they’re just not the same).

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        If we had a will to fix this voter-ID problem we COULD do it. Simply have each State pass a law making provision for “house-call” service to any person with an enumerated excuse. E.g., the DMV could send an employee to every old-folks’ home once a year a few weeks prior to the election. The Sheriff could send a deputy to any hermit ‘s residence.
        A problem with such cases might be no documents. Conceivably, a person might not know where he was born or even his exact birth date. More likely, some people wouldn’t have ready access to their birth certificates. Fine, if the person is elderly or has some other plausible excuse, then just take their fingerprints and run a print check to rule-out the possibility that the person is a felon or is falsely impersonating himself.
        The cost of such a program should be negligible compared to society’s cost of arguing about voter ID.
        The jeopardy imposed by uncontrolled access to the voter franchise is incalculable.

        Any applicant ought to be able to undergo an interview as to where he was born and where he lived during his life. Any legitimate applicant should be able to speak in a domestic accent and provide enough verifiable evidence. If an applicant is suspicious then the State can run an investigation; e.g., do the schools he claims to have attended have a record of a person so named? Do they have yearbook photographs.

        Felons and illegal aliens are not going to want to apply for such IDs at risk of being charged with a serious crime merely to cast a single ballot. Multiple voting under multiple registrations would become audit-able.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        I’ve heard very few Democrats who want no ID for voting — the objection is to the way it’s implemented. And they have a point; for some people, getting that ID can be very burdensome.

        And that’s a pile of bovine excrement.

        Getting oneself to a license branch to obtain a new/renewed photo ID is a minimal burden, at best. Most (all?) States will provide a non-driver’s license ID for free to those in financial need. Thus, getting to a license branch is no more burdensome than getting to the polling place. And for most of the impoverished, that same photo ID is required in order to avail themselves of government assistance – which means most already have it.

        On the other hand, the state interest in ensuring that the votes of eligible voters are not diluted by votes of ineligible voters is significant, if not compelling.

        1. avatar MarkPA says:

          “And that’s a pile of bovine excrement.” Of course it is; but that’s what politics is about.

          All you have to do is drag out a single example as a “poster child”. E.g., grandma in the old-folks home or Aunt Mae who can’t get out because she is trapped in her home in a wheel chair. Now, you have the pretext you need to justify your political ends. Usually works.

          Because the legitimate cases are so few in number the obvious counter-argument is a bill to publicly fund all those with a plausible excuse. Sending an employee of the DMV to old-folks’ homes or individual homes wouldn’t put a dent in State budgets and would clear this BS argument from the political debate hall.

        2. avatar Gary Schulze says:

          Chip, you clearly have no clue what it’s like to be old and disabled in some way. If you can’t drive, then you are totally dependent on the good will of someone who will go out of their way to drive you somewhere.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Well then, such a person is also completely dependent upon another to be able to vote, as well.

          Further, such a person cannot live alone and completely isolated, by definition. Thus, such a person must have some form of help available.

          I am absolutely sympathetic to such people; however, the minuscule increase in burden to such people does not outweigh the rights of the 99.999% of the voting populace to have their votes counted properly, and not diluted/defrauded.

        4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Getting oneself to a license branch to obtain a new/renewed photo ID is a minimal burden, at best.
          It is if you are deceased.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          I don’t see how you can survive, today, without an ID. The concept of free state issued Photo ID, which you only have to leave the house for once, should put the question to rest. Dems fight the concept tooth and nail, because they have won too many elections that dead people put them over the top for, to do without those absolutely reliable votes now. Some way to limit people to a single vote in each election would be a nail in their coffin.

  13. avatar Noishkel says:

    I suppose we really shouldn’t that surprised. If there’s two things that so called ‘progressives’ hate worse than gun rights it’s freedom of religion and freedom on conscious. With the Amish you’ve got all three in one.

    Hell I’m surprised that NY hasn’t started putting the Amish in reeducation camps yet.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      The Amish have thus far been successful at avoiding them. The rest of America has been forced into them for generations; compulsory education and the public school system. It’s not necessary to send adults to reeducation camps when government can so widely and successfully force the children into them. Government has been reaping the fruits of that reeducation for a long while now. It has fundamentally transformed America by indoctrinating the People.

  14. avatar Hannibal says:

    “Gingerich said his Second Amendment rights are being denied based on his religion.”

    …meanwhile the rest of NY has already found that the courts don’t give a shit about the second amendment part.

  15. avatar FUDD says:

    Does this mean al I need is a shemagh for my DMV photo and a claim to victimhood to get my 2A rights carve-out here in CA? Yaayyyy…the local Rez turned me down for the 1/760 of blood from the Sioux in the woodpile back home.

    1. avatar FUDD says:

      J/k….fer chrissakes.
      Besides, its more of a Lakota vs Apache thing. Not Fed.gov or Sack-A-tomatoes deal.

  16. avatar SammyD says:

    You need to stop the damn audio playing in the f’ing ads! One ad playing in my office is bad enough, but now I’ve got two figting each other for my damn ear holes, you want me to stay on your site? stop the fricking ads!

  17. avatar vv ind says:

    Anyone else thinking what I’m thinking? The Amish as a whole are some of the finest craftsmen around. Why not introduce them to the concept of 80% lowers, ghost guns and shoulder things that flip up?

  18. avatar Vitsaus says:

    So… picture ID is too modern for them, but a forged aluminum gas operated automatic rifle with a scope containing and illuminated reticle is okay? Weren’t picture IDs invented before AR’s? I’ve got no sympathy for this. Also, lets be honest, if they were muslums getting pissed off about picture IDs everyone would be telling them to leave their backward hocus pokus back in the dunes and join America.

    1. avatar vv ind says:

      I don’t think they wanted your sympathy, they wanted guns.

      1. avatar Vitsaus says:

        I love how the point I made that you decided to refute was the one about sympathy… you must be quite an intellectual.

        1. avatar vv ind says:

          Nope. You’re intellectual enough for both of us.

    2. avatar MarkPA says:

      It’s based on a religious sentiment. Start down the path of encroaching on religon-based sentiments and practices and see where it ends. It’s not pretty.

      It would be VERY easy to accommodate the Amish. Let them identify themselves by fingerprints. Run the NICS on those prints. If they come up clean then they are 2A-able.

      We ought to be making an issue of this on behalf of the Amish in order to harass the NY State legislature.

    3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      So… picture ID is too modern for them…I’ve got no sympathy for this.

      Your ignorance is as glaring as your bigotry. It has absolutely nothing to do with how “modern” photograph IDs are. Try enlightening yourself through education.

      Also, lets be honest, if they were muslums getting pissed off about picture IDs everyone would be telling them to leave their backward hocus pokus back in the dunes and join America.

      The amish don’t drive automobiles. If they did, I would agree that they would have to obtain a valid driver’s license, complete with identifying photograph.

      Really, you should learn to get past your anti-theistic bigotry. It just makes you look foolish.

      1. avatar Vitsaus says:

        So let’s consider this for a moment. If the Amish religion (I’m asking you because you appear to be an expert on them) exempts them from certain things, and you can enlighten me, such as.. and again, these are my assuptions… military service? Jury duty? Certain taxes? Picture IDs, compulsory public schools, local laws and ordnances regarding keeping livestock, physical discipline of children, etc… then why am I ignorant for saying that if they are able to avoid certain BS that the rest of us deal with daily, why are they not expected to make sacrifices as well? If their religion is that important to them, they should should be happily bearing the burdens attached to it. god would appreciate their faith even more.

        1. avatar Vitsaus says:

          Also, if you’re going to call me anti-theistic, are you going to forget that the founding fathers made quite a point to ensure that religion was separate from government decisions? That the government was not to pass laws that favored any religion over another? Or are the founding fathers only sacrosanct when their position was in line with your own?

        2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Wow, your ignorance of the first amendment appears to equal your ignorance of the Amish.

          …are you going to forget that the founding fathers made quite a point to ensure that religion was separate from government decisions?

          All the first amendment establishment clause does is constrain the government from establishing a state religion. It does not require the government to ensure that religion was “separate from government decisions.” Perhaps you hold the mistaken belief that a personal letter written to the Danbury Baptists is legal authority?

          That the government was not to pass laws that favored any religion over another?

          Such a concept arose not from the constitution, which merely constrains the government from establishing a state religion, but rather from the judiciary. It is precedent case law, not constitutional law.

          Most critically for the purpose of this discussion, you seem to ignore completely the rest of the first amendment, which restricts the government from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

          Odd, really, how you anti-theist types always seem to gloss right over that part.

        3. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          No, sorry. I’m not going to debate the issue with someone who is admittedly ignorant on the subject. What point is there?

          You like your ignorance, because by remaining ignorant, you can more easily justify your bigotry. You’re welcome to enjoy the anti-intellectual bubble you have created for yourself, but I’m not going to facilitate or enable it.

        4. avatar Vitsaus says:

          I was not asking for debate, I was admitting my lack of knowledge to you so you could clarify for me since lets face it, you sort of came off like you knew what you were talking about when you made an ad hominem attack on me. So when I put the ball back in your court to show me how much knowledge you had, you backed down. For a guy that likes to throw “isms” out and call people ignorant, you sure back tracked quick. You also changed my wording as I never said they couldn’t practice their religion, only that, when one practices a religion in a secular society, then one must make certain sacrifices as part of that religion, that is all. I never claimed the constitution did not protect their right to HAVE a religion, or to worship it… you said that.

        5. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          I was not asking for debate, I was admitting my lack of knowledge to you so you could clarify for me…

          It’s not my responsibility to educate you. My point was that you disparaged the Amish without having any idea what you were talking about. If you want to educate yourself about the Amish, and then revise your beliefs, it is incumbent upon you to do so yourself.

          …since lets face it, you sort of came off like you knew what you were talking about…

          I know why the Amish do not have photographs of themselves taken.

          …when you made an ad hominem attack on me.

          Apparently, “ad hominem” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

          So when I put the ball back in your court to show me how much knowledge you had, you backed down. For a guy that likes to throw “isms” out and call people ignorant, you sure back tracked quick.

          It is not my responsibility to educate you, nor was it ever my intent to do so. If you want to address your ignorance, that’s on you.

          I’m not going down that path, because it’s irrelevant. The Amish hold sincere religious beliefs, and have a constitutionally protected, natural right to exercise those beliefs. Their rights are not dependent upon your understanding of their beliefs.

          You also changed my wording as I never said they couldn’t practice their religion, only that, when one practices a religion in a secular society…

          That would be a secular society of which 95+% believe in a Deity of one form or another…

          …then one must make certain sacrifices as part of that religion, that is all.

          No. You made the absurd assertion that it is reasonable that the Amish, because they, for religious reasons, do not obtain photograph IDs, must “sacrifice” their right to keep and bear arms.

          Also, no religious person is compelled by society or by the constitution to make “sacrifices” in order to exercise their right to exercise their religious beliefs.

          I never claimed the constitution did not protect their right to HAVE a religion, or to worship it… you said that.

          Nor did I claim you said that – ironically.

        6. avatar Vitsaus says:

          Ah, now it gets good….

          “Apparently, “ad hominem” doesn’t mean what you think it means.”

          An ad hominem (Latin for “to the man” or “to the person”[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person’s character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

          Using words like “ignorant, anti-theist, bigotted” are pretty much attacking my character. Next.

          “That would be a secular society of which 95+% believe in a Deity of one form or another…”

          95% of people believing in a deity has no bearing on whether or not our society functions as a secular one. For the most part, in public life religions are not on full display as a show or respect that we are not going to say that one particular religion is correct. Its the reason why some schools teach christian thought as well as evolution. Just because the majority of people in the US may have J walked, stolen cable, or run a red light does not mean that we are a lawless society.

          “No. You made the absurd assertion that it is reasonable that the Amish, because they, for religious reasons, do not obtain photograph IDs, must “sacrifice” their right to keep and bear arms.

          Also, no religious person is compelled by society or by the constitution to make “sacrifices” in order to exercise their right to exercise their religious beliefs.”

          What about fundamentalist Mormons and polygamy or marriage of girls under 18? Consent ages are arbitrary, any by law, the mormons are not allowed to practice their religion fully. Sure there are middle of the road mormons, but they have sacrificed certain elements of their religion in order to fit in with the larger society. What makes the Amish different? Is the right to marry and procreate less sacred than the right to keep and bare arms?

        7. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Using words like “ignorant, anti-theist, bigotted” are pretty much attacking my character.

          “Ignorant” means “lacking knowledge”, which not only is not an attack on character, but also is true by your own admission.

          “Anti-theist” is likewise not an attack on character. It means that you hold views that are contrary to those who hold theist beliefs. The statement is accurate, based on your statements.

          Likewise, “bigoted”, while perhaps reflective of character, is not an attack on character. It merely means “having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one’s own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.” You demonstrated this definition to be accurate, when you disparaged the beliefs of the Amish.

          What about fundamentalist Mormons and polygamy or marriage of girls under 18? Consent ages are arbitrary, any by law, the mormons are not allowed to practice their religion fully. Sure there are middle of the road mormons, but they have sacrificed certain elements of their religion in order to fit in with the larger society. What makes the Amish different? Is the right to marry and procreate less sacred than the right to keep and bare arms?

          Wow, that’s quite the straw man.

          First, I’ll say that if state-defined marriage (as opposed to religiously ordained marriage) must, on equal protection grounds, include homosexual marriage, then there remains no legal grounds to prohibit polygamous unions as part of state-defined marriage. And do you really think that people who adhere to such beliefs “sacrifice” anything? Do you really believe that those who desire to do so don’t merely live in polygamous relationships, outside of the imprimatur of government license?

          Second, those under the age of consent are, by definition, not old enough to contribute legal consent to contracts/relationships. Therefore, a marriage to someone under the age of consent is invalid, because the under-aged party cannot give legal consent to the union. Once they reach the age of consent, they may freely exercise their religion.

          Further, marriage is not provided explicit, constitutional protection from infringement.

          Ultimately, what do either of those have anything to do with Amish “sacrificing” their natural, constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms? What compelling societal or state interest is furthered by forcing such “sacrifice”?

    4. avatar John in Ohio says:

      It isn’t really about “modern” for the Amish. Mostly. it’s about community and that which will tend to draw the community apart. The photo thing is about graven images and idolatry. You speak from ignorance.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I think the AR was about 20 years old before my driver’s license had my picture on it. I had photo ID from the military, but I think most people did not.

  19. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    This is the metaphorical bomb that we need. The plight of the Amish in this case could lead to some serious legal upheaval in our nation. Why? Amish folks refuse to obtain a government issued card that supposedly identifies them. As a result, they don’t exist as far as government is concerned. And that, there, is the ginormous problem in our nation. Amish people do exist. They were born in our nation. Are they not part of “We the People”?!?!?!? And yet they don’t have any rights because they don’t have a government card? Do they not have a right to due process or free speech because they don’t have a card? Preposterous. This could be the event that dismantles the entire structure of government which treats us as subjects under government.

    Oh, and if New York creates a carve-out for the Amish, that will be a disaster as well. Any felon who wants to purchase a firearm from a dealer can simply grow a beard and then put on black pants, a white shirt, and large brimmed hat … and then walk into a dealer and purchase a firearm without any photo I.D. or any background check.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Amish folks refuse to obtain a government issued card that supposedly identifies them.

      Some Amish in my area have Ohio Identification cards but the photograph area is left blank. They use this as a government issued ID here; check cashing, etc. They also have Tax ID Numbers (TIN?).

  20. avatar Anon says:

    Does anyone honestly think that they’ll follow this law instead of just privately buying arms? Longarms in NY don’t require a licence, so how will they track rifles changing hands?

    1. avatar 7.62x54r says:

      This is how.

      S 17. The general business law is amended by adding a new article
      39-DDD to read as follows:
      ARTICLE 39-DDD
      PRIVATE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS
      SECTION 898. PRIVATE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS.
      S 898. PRIVATE SALE OR DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS, RIFLES AND SHOTGUNS. 1.
      IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO STATE AND FEDERAL LAW,
      ALL SALES, EXCHANGES OR DISPOSALS OF FIREARMS, RIFLES OR SHOTGUNS SHALL
      BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS SECTION UNLESS SUCH SALE, EXCHANGE
      OR DISPOSAL IS CONDUCTED BY A LICENSED IMPORTER, LICENSED MANUFACTURER
      OR LICENSED DEALER, AS THOSE TERMS ARE DEFINED IN 18 USC S 922, WHEN
      SUCH SALE, EXCHANGE OR DISPOSAL IS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THAT PERSON’S
      FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSE OR SUCH SALE, EXCHANGE OR DISPOSAL IS BETWEEN
      MEMBERS OF AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, “IMMEDIATE
      FAMILY” SHALL MEAN SPOUSES, DOMESTIC PARTNERS, CHILDREN AND STEP-CHIL-
      DREN.
      2. BEFORE ANY SALE, EXCHANGE OR DISPOSAL PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE, A
      NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK MUST BE COMPLETED BY A DEALER
      WHO CONSENTS TO CONDUCT SUCH CHECK, AND UPON COMPLETION OF SUCH BACK-
      GROUND CHECK, SHALL COMPLETE A DOCUMENT, THE FORM OF WHICH SHALL BE
      APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STATE POLICE, THAT IDENTIFIES AND
      CONFIRMS THAT SUCH CHECK WAS PERFORMED.

      1. avatar MarkPA says:

        There you have it! Don’t you see that the Amish can just look it up and read the law on the internet.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      They will need to drive their carriages out of state to do it.

  21. avatar Ken says:

    Im betting the state of New York will use the opportunity to collect sales tax on the sale as well as do a background check. Im sure that is the primary motivating factor rather than safety as they know it will not keep criminals from getting guns.

  22. avatar Rick K says:

    Problem is that the agenda drive, ego maniac cuomo doesn’t give a ratzass about the Amish. If they don’t like it they can move out of state. In fact, I’m sure he’d prefer that.

  23. avatar cawpin says:

    I don’t understand how this is a Safe Act thing, except for personal sales. How did they buy new guns before? You need to have an ID to buy a gun from a dealer anyway.

  24. avatar Gregg says:

    The Constitution says that Citizens have the right to vote. I wonder how the Left is going to ensure that only Citizens vote.

    1. avatar meadowsr says:

      They’re not the least bit interesting in ensuring that only Citizens vote. Those most likely to vote, but shouldn’t be allowed to, are most likely to be illegal immigrants, and most likely to vote Democrat, so why would they want to ensure that?

  25. avatar JoeVK says:

    If they’re Amish, wouldn’t they be limited to flintlock firearms? Seems to me that they would consider anything more recent than that to be modern technology. I’m not trying to be funny, I’m seriously wondering how modern they can go as far as firearms. Maybe only as modern as revolvers, pump-actions, and lever guns? Anything semi-auto seems like it would be too modern to be allowed by their beliefs. I don’t know much about them, only that their religion, or whatever you want to call it, seems to limit them to late 1800s technology. I know Mennonites are similar, but aren’t technologically limited.

  26. avatar Canon says:

    “People of the Gun” would make for a great religion, can we get a religious exemption from the Safe act as well?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I casually looked into that when I was reading alot about Sikhs and the Kirpan. My religious beliefs already include protecting the innocent so I considered writing up religious tenets in support of bearing arms as central to a religious movement. Perhaps something like, “It is a believer’s righteous duty to protect the innocent, therefore, carry always at least a sidearm everywhere, at all times.” I mean, so many of us POTG can legally officiate (solemnize) a marriage in Ohio that it wouldn’t be a far reach to make a modern “religion” out of it here. There are stranger religious practices and beliefs out there than being always armed, IMHO.

      If anyone in the US has done this, give links please. I still haven’t given up on the idea… 😉

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And there is the encouraging factor that prisons are a hotbed for new religions, you will be able to spread the word while you’re there.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          lol

          Seriously though, the fact that I won’t attend a religious service where I must be disarmed indicates to me that being armed is on equal footing in my beliefs with some of my other deeply held “religious” ones. I’ve written here before that I find disarming someone to be immoral. That all adult individuals (and perhaps some minors) ought to be at all times armed is more to me than a personal opinion and, indeed, nearly (or is) one of my religious beliefs. I’ve held such a view for almost as long as I’ve held my belief in a Creator; since early childhood.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          From a legal perspective, here’s a starting point for thought about the definition of religion:

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Religion

          The Supreme Court has interpreted religion to mean a sincere and meaningful belief that occupies in the life of its possessor a place parallel to the place held by God in the lives of other persons. The religion or religious concept need not include belief in the existence of God or a supreme being to be within the scope of the First Amendment.

          My belief in the individual believer’s duty to be always armed is of depth and persistence enough to qualify as a basic tenet of my own religious beliefs. Seriously. That might be the case for many who sincerely believe, from my cold, dead hands. That statement indicates a belief for which they are willing to die, if necessary.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I’ve raised my children with the same beliefs and have “converted” some POTG in the sense that they are far more likely to be armed most of the time than not afterwards. The only thing I haven’t done is write it down. Perhaps a specific book is the key to starting a religion? The thing that has prevented me from hammering out a written record of belief isn’t the armed portion of it. It’s the more supranatural part. I’m clear about my beliefs regarding the individual being armed. I’m less clear about the specifics and nuances of my Creator. It’s the latter that is more difficult for me to pin down in written, precise, more absolute terms.

          Here’s more from that definition link:

          The Supreme Court has deliberately avoided establishing an exact or a narrow definition of religion because freedom of religion is a dynamic guarantee that was written in a manner to ensure flexibility and responsiveness to the passage of time and the development of the United States. Thus, religion is not limited to traditional denominations.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email