By David Codrea
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “A Republican state senator from upstate New York wants to make it easier for members of the Amish and Mennonite communities to buy a gun,” Gothamist reported Sunday. “Senator Catharine Young introduced legislation that would carve out a special exception in the firearm application rule, allowing members of an ‘established religious sect’ to forego the requirement of submitting a photograph along with their handgun application under certain circumstances.”
The photo requirement forces them to make a choice between adhering to their faith or being able to have a gun, the story elaborates. With the change Young proposes, they would be able to submit an affidavit. And existing exemptions on labor, building code and educational regulations have created precedents for accommodating alternative sets of rules.
While some Amish do have guns for pest control and hunting, beliefs in nonresistance and forsaking of technology would seem to an outsider to make ownership of handguns, particularly modern ones, problematic. Leaving their business to them, the focus of this article must be on laws that apply to all, and as such, several questions come to mind:
How does that fit in with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Wouldn’t requiring a doctrine to be “established” discriminate against new religions?
If someone can “identify” with the gender combination of their choosing, and if laws infringing on that are condemned as hateful and discriminatory, why would the same not apply to religious beliefs of their choosing? What valid mechanism do state bureaucracies have to read a person’s heart and to know if they’re sincere or just gaming the system?
Those questions expose the arbitrary nature of the rules, and how the more contradictory they get, the pettier they become. But like writer Thomas Pynchon observed:
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
Because there’s a more fundamental question than whether or not there’s a workaround to the photo requirement, or whether there ought to be such a requirement in the first place.
Where does anyone get off requiring a free citizen to get permission to exercise a right?
Who has legitimate moral authority to impose prior restraints on rights that, depending on your beliefs, are either “endowed by our Creator” or inherent to the condition of being human?
And where do they get off legally, since Supreme Court precedent acknowledges:
“This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed …”
The Cult of Statism is determined to impose faith in a monopoly of violence enforced by follower disarmament, even though all credible observations show its tenets to be superstitious nonsense. And we know what happens to non-believers, heretics, infidels…
And here’s another bit of hypocrisy from those who would force their will on those who would stray from the flock: Notice how, when it comes to Voter ID laws requiring government photo IDs, the same zealots scream “Disenfranchisement!” and “Discrimination!”
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.
In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Oldvet, I partially agree with you, except that to vote, you should have to prove citizenship in the jurisdiction in which you want to vote. To purchase and carry openly or concealed, you should ONLY need to prove U.S. citizenship. There are plenty of citizens who also vote illegally by voting across the state lines to influence a neighboring state’s election (see New Jersey same day registration and the problems inherent with that). Probably many also vote in more than one state, such as when they own a vacation home in another state, vote in person in one state as… Read more »
You never get censored here as far as I can tell. You just don’t seem to realize the comments aren’t posted immediately. Maybe stop accusing this site of censorship and be patient next time. Unless you enjoy looking foolish!
As for the care of an aged horse…..this is going to come off as callous but once they have served their purpose what would you do with them? The Amish are thrifty people. Having a horse that is no longer capable of working is a liability. It contributes nothing and requires care, food and shelter. All of which could be used on a productive animal. Quite basic really. Say what you like but if more people spent time with Amish they would be better for it. People today are raised to believe that we need to keep every living thing… Read more »
I live in South Central PA. For a time, I was attending up to 3 gun shows a month. Some were east of the Susquehanna River (toward Lancaster County PA). On more than one occasion, I encountered Amish Men looking at and purchasing firearms and Ammunition. My impression was that they were very knowledgeable with regard to firearms, within limits of personal experience, rather than exposure to any media resources. They seemed to know what they wanted, and how much it should cost. About the Amish,…. Rather than being completely inflexible about things like modern technology, they tend to be… Read more »
I’m going to chime in again about the LEGAL meanings of words, and the invisible or adhesion contracts we enter into – without full informed knowledge or, in many cases, consent. ALL of the statutes made nowadays are applied to the legal fiction called a “person”. If one simply thinks that means him (or her – and there are NO other ‘genders’ in the real world), then he should read a LEGAL dictionary for the true meaning of the word. It MEANS an ARTIFICIAL thing, as in a corporation (which is a legal fiction). It does NOT mean a living,… Read more »
@ All – Please read my comment under Common Sense Gun Laws. It really does cover any discussion about gun laws.