In the opinion of just about everyone in the Democrat party, the idea of asking someone to display a photo ID in order to cast a vote is a thinly veiled racist attempt to intimidate and disenfranchise low income and minority voters. But ssk them whether you should have to show a photo ID in order to purchase a gun — which, unlike voting, is a Constitutionally protected enumerated right — they’re all for it. Somehow they don’t see that as a racist attempt to disarm low income Americans. Now, however, one Pennsylvania man is challenging that requirement on an interesting premise: he’s Amish, and having his photograph taken is against his religion . . .
From Penn Live:
Andrew Hertzler claims in a suit filed Friday in U.S. Middle District Court that the requirement is a violation of his constitutional right to possess a firearm and of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Defendants are the federal government, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, FBI Director James B. Comey and Thomas E. Brandon and Christopher C. Shaffer, acting director and assistant director of public and government affairs, respectively, for the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Explosives.
Hertzler states he is an active member of the Amish faith and community in Lancaster County with a sincerely held religious belief that prohibits photographs being taken of him.
The suit states Hertzler on June 2 was not allowed to purchase a gun for self-defense purposes at a Pennsylvania licensed firearms dealer with his state-issued non-photo ID.
He is not prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm, he notes.
This will be an interesting case to watch. There’s a definite double standard in the logic being used by gun control activists here. Requiring an ID in one situation is clearly racist, but requiring one for another (better protected, Constitutionally speaking) activity is perfectly fine. Given the way the courts are ruling these days the result on this case is up in the air thanks to the religious angle. If it were a straight challenge on the constitutionality of the process I’d see it laughed out of court, but the desire to bend over backwards to accommodate the “politically correct” culture of religious tolerance may give it a fighting chance. We shall see.