Patterico's Pontifications

10/27/2015

An Amish Man Went To Buy A Gun…

Filed under: General — Dana @ 8:41 pm



[guest post by Dana]

Caught between a rock and a hard spot:

In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy a gun without the required photo ID — and because getting that photo ID would violate his religious beliefs.

Andrew Hertzler, according to the suit, is from Lancaster County, Pa., and is an “active and practicing” member of the community; his “parents, grandparents, and siblings are all active and practicing Amish”; and he “has a sincerely held religious belief that prevents him from knowingly and willingly having his photograph taken and stored.”

“The Amish faith prohibits an individual from having his/her photograph taken,” the suit read. “This belief stems from the Biblical passage Exodus 20:4, which mandates that ‘You shall not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth,’ as well as the Christian belief in humility.”

But Hertzler’s humility caused a problem when, in June, he tried to buy a gun from a Pennsylvania dealer “using a non-photo, state-issued identification.” This wasn’t enough, according to the dealer — Hertzler was told he needed a picture ID.

Hertzler brought the matter to the attention to Senator, Pat Toomey (R), who took it to the ATF, but to no avail: he was told that a picture ID was required, no exceptions.

From the suit:

Mr. Hertzler confronts Hobson’s choice: either forego his constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and his home, or violate his religion,” the suit read. Yet: “The exercise of one Constitutional right cannot be contingent upon the violation or waiver of another.”

“By knowingly and willingly sitting for a photograph, even for a state-issued identification document, Mr. Hertzler would be violating his religion by taking a graven image of himself,” the suit read. “Thus, Mr. Hertzler’s religious freedom has been substantially burdened — in order to exercise his fundamental right to possess a firearm for defense of himself and his home, the Government is requiring him to violate a major tenet of his sincerely held religious belief.”

A local columnist observed:

“At a time when there’s been such a loud clamor to ‘do something’ about guns — and ‘doing something’ always involves more restrictions — if the courts agree with Hertzler, it will ultimately amount to fewer restrictions.”

Note: “While the Supreme Court has not ruled on photo identification religious exemptions for such purposes as drivers’ licenses and voter ID, lower courts have generally “been willing to recognize photo identification as a compelling purpose” that outweighs religious claims, according to a Congressional Research Service study of the issue, provided the photo requirement is “applied uniformly and without exemption.”

–Dana

59 Responses to “An Amish Man Went To Buy A Gun…”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. This is only a factor for Mr. Hertzler if he plans to worship the photograph of himself. See Exodus 20:3-5.

    Reading comprehension: a vanishing skill.

    navyvet (c33501)

  3. Religious beliefs do not exempt one from the law, especially unreasonable ones, especially ones that stretch the interpretation of one’s religion to new levels of extremism and absurdity, especially an interpretation that the massive numbers of followers of the same “holy book” do not even begin to agree with.

    If photo ID can be required for voting (as it should be, to ensure only US citizens that are entitled to vote, do so) then photo ID can be required to buy a gun (and it should be, to ensure that only US citizens, entitled to keep and bear arms, are easily able to do so)

    The Internet (c69c18)

  4. What goes ‘clip-clop, clip-clop, clip-clop, BANG’?

    An Amish drive-by shooting.

    Colonel Haiku (436b69)

  5. navyvet:

    This is only a factor for Mr. Hertzler if he plans to worship the photograph of himself. See Exodus 20:3-5.

    Wrong. The Bible forbids making any image of a person, regardless of its purpose. If Mr Hertzler understands that to include photographs, and he sincerely believes that this is what God wants, then the first amendment protects his right to exercise that belief, and RFRA requires strict scrutiny on any generally applicable federal law that would infringe it. Your opinion of the Bible’s meaning, or mine or anyone else’s, is utterly irrelevant. A court may inquire only into the sincerity of his belief, not into its validity.

    “The Internet”:

    Religious beliefs do not exempt one from the law

    In the case of federal laws RFRA says they do, unless the application of the law passes strict scrutiny.

    especially unreasonable ones,

    It is not for you or for anyone else, especially a court of law, to declare a belief unreasonable.

    especially ones that stretch the interpretation of one’s religion to new levels of extremism and absurdity, especially an interpretation that the massive numbers of followers of the same “holy book” do not even begin to agree with.

    You hereby display your utter ignorance of the law and the constitution. None of these factors are in any way relevant. Even if Mr Hertzler were the only person on earth with such a belief (and he is not) it would be protected just as much as the most widely accepted religious principle of all. That is not up for debate; you are simply wrong.

    If photo ID can be required for voting (as it should be, to ensure only US citizens that are entitled to vote, do so) then photo ID can be required to buy a gun (and it should be, to ensure that only US citizens, entitled to keep and bear arms, are easily able to do so)

    The right to vote is not in the constitution; the right to arm oneself is. But in each case the question comes down to strict scrutiny. The ATF can only deny Mr Hertzler a gun if it can show that its compelling interest in ensuring that prohibited persons don’t buy guns can’t be satisfied in any other way than by making Mr Hertzler pose for a photo. And I don’t see how it can show that. There are ways for him to establish his identity that may be more onerous than a photo ID, but are just as sure, and if he is willing to provide such evidence what prevents the ATF from accepting it? “What if everyone wanted an exception” is not a legal argument.

    What I want to know is why he wants a gun in the first place. Amish don’t believe in using force, even in self-defense. I suppose, therefore, that he wants it for use against animals, or for target shooting. I don’t know what Amish doctrine is about that. Given that they shun moustaches and buttons because both used to be typical of soldiers, I can’t imagine it thinks highly of weapons. But it’s really none of my business, and definitely none of any court’s business, unless it causes the court to doubt the sincerity of his belief.

    I also want to point out that I remember a case from, I think Nebraska or Oklahoma, in 1976 or thereabouts, in which a woman successfully challenged the requirement for a photo on a driver’s license, on the same grounds. Now that would have been argued under her state’s constitution, and it was before Smith, but it’s still relevant.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  6. I thought the Amish were also pacifists. What does a pacifist need with a gun?

    I’m not saying he doesn’t have a legal right to own a gun, but I am suggesting that by trying to buy one he is already violating his religious norms. Having picture ID would be a lesser violation.

    In other words, I think this is a stunt.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  7. yes it sounds fishy, he doesn’t have any pictures of his family, or anything,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  8. What does a pacifist need with a gun?

    It’s probably for critters and such.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  9. I thought the Amish were also pacifists. What does a pacifist need with a gun?

    I’m not saying he doesn’t have a legal right to own a gun, but I am suggesting that by trying to buy one he is already violating his religious norms. Having picture ID would be a lesser violation.

    In other words, I think this is a stunt.

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1) — 10/27/2015 @ 9:49 pm

    They believe in nonresistance, so they won’t use force against another human being.

    But also many of them are farmers, and they and their religion has nothing against killing animals for food. They may be pacifists but they’re not vegetarians. So many of them do hunt with both guns and bows.

    Some Amish are against hunting but not for any of the usual reasons. Because they consider
    it a sport then it’s a useless waste of time better spent working or worshiping or something. And hunting equipment is expensive, and therefore a frivolous extravagance. Finally, if a hunter keeps the trophy then that’s prideful which is a sin.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  10. Apparently requiring the Amish to have photo ID is a relatively recent change in the laws of states with significant numbers of them.

    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/03/13/illinois-amish-concerned-over-new-gun-law/

    …Illinois Amish have been allowed to forego placing their photographs on FOID cards and other mandatory IDs. On Feb. 14, Illinois State Police Director Jonathon Monken, now the head of the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, decided that policy should be changed, meaning Amish gun owners face photographic identification requirements like other FOID holders in the state.

    …“A lot of the Amish hunt and they usually use squirrel or rabbit rifles to bring some food back home. Their big concern is this means they won’t be able to purchase guns or ammo. They have a religious edict against photographs,” said Douglas County Sheriff Charlie McGrew, who attended last week’s meeting with state Sens. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon, and Kyle McCarter, R-Decatur, and state Reps. Chapin Rose, R-Mahomet, and Adam Brown, R-Decatur, in an Arthur restaurant.

    Well, at least we know it’s not a stunt, and Mr. Hetzler isn’t the only guy alive who believes what he believes.

    I imagine those Amish who are against hunting because it’s a sport, and if it’s a sport it’s for fun, and if you’re having fun you’re courting Satan, so get back to work, are pleased by these changes.

    But why these changes? And who made them? Because it blows me away that up until 2011 the Amish could buy guns in Illinois (Illinois!!!) without a photo ID. Clearly it was Obama, as Mr. Hetzler filed in Federal court, and the ATF told Toomey no photo ID, not gun, no exceptions.

    I guess Prom Queen is taking executive action to crack down on all those Amish school shootings we’ve been hearing so much about.

    What an @$$hole. Obama is such a petty tyrant he’s just got to f**k with the Amish. He’s so h3llbent on fundamentally transforming America he’s got to even transform the Amish’s little horse-drawn corner of it.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  11. I love Steve57’s rants. (“so get back to work” – lol)

    Our president is indeed a petty tyrant. Who wishes he could be a bigger one.

    no one of consequence (f4d463)

  12. Taking it to “new extremes” suggests the idiot who said that doesn’t know the age of the Amish belief. And completely discounts the rest of what the idiot had to say.

    Good day, sir.

    John Hitchcock (c5ba7c)

  13. The only compelling need for photo id is in the makers of the photo id machinery who then peddle them to government agencies. Can you spell g-r-a-f-t? “You want to to know who I am? Ask me, and if I think it’s any of your business I’ll tell you”, is one my remaining vestiges of libertarianism.

    On the other hand, the Amish can get around the ATF rule by sticking to pre-19th century technology for their guns just like they do for the other aspects of their lives. Guns made before 1898 or their replicas, for which fixed ammunition is not currently available, are not subject to federal controls. They can even get them, and the loose powder, caps, and bullets, through the mail. (Are they allowed mail?) If they insist on 21st century guns, they’ll have to put up with 21st century government contract graft and bureaucratic horsesh!t.

    nk (dbc370)

  14. Hey, if a dead black Democrat doesn’t need photo ID to vote, why should a living Amish man need one to buy a gun?

    Fred Z (5db617)

  15. Doesn’t the photo ID requirement discriminate against blacks? Why isn’t the Obama justice dept. suing to block it?

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  16. Just be become a Moooslem and problem solved.

    Obama loves him Moooslems.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ab8c0d)

  17. Alvin York was a pacifist too. just sayin’…

    however, since the person in question is a Christian, i predict that Obola’s “justice” system will reject the case out of hand.

    redc1c4 (e4c086)

  18. 13. …On the other hand, the Amish can get around the ATF rule by sticking to pre-19th century technology for their guns just like they do for the other aspects of their lives. Guns made before 1898 or their replicas, for which fixed ammunition is not currently available, are not subject to federal controls. They can even get them, and the loose powder, caps, and bullets, through the mail. (Are they allowed mail?) If they insist on 21st century guns, they’ll have to put up with 21st century government contract graft and bureaucratic horsesh!t.

    nk (dbc370) — 10/28/2015 @ 3:37 am

    Actually they’re not only allowed to use mail, they’re allowed to use email. And computers, and access the internet. They just can’t own a PC or laptop. But if they’re employed by non-Amish companies, and even some Amish ones, then they can use those things.

    They’re relationship with the 21st century is more complicated and can’t be summed up by saying they shun technology. Some technology they see as entirely harmless and even beneficial, others as always harmful, and some falls into a grey area. And if it falls into the grey area then they can use it, but they can’t own it. For instance, the Amish can’t own or operate cars because they believe that would mean more individuals would be able to spend too much time away from their families and their communities, go on too many long trips. You can only go so far, so fast, in a horse and buggy. But on the other hand sometimes its necessary so they can hire non-Amish (Amish taxis) to drive them. But the expense and the trouble of arranging the ride means they won’t use it too often.

    It’s against their religion to use public electricity. But they think battery powered devices like calculators and flashlights are great (now you know what to get the Amish people on your Christmas list). So are washing machines. And some Amish “clans” (if you will) allow people to install solar panels and battery storage systems so they can use modern devices that their groups have approved.

    There’s the rub. The Amish are organized into church districts. But they don’t have church buildings. Instead every two weeks they hold church services at someone’s home, followed by a communal meal. This duty rotates. If the cluster of families gets too large then they can’t fit everyone into a single home or even a barn. So the group has to split. But if its too small then the families have to host everyone once a month instead of ideally once a year. But the bottom line is everything in their lives revolves around their church district and more importantly the families that make up their church district. That’s why they don’t have church buildings; to make it clear the church is the congregation not a building.

    Each congregation votes twice a year on the rules every individual has to live by. They could vote to adopt a new technology. They could vote to allow individuals to travel by air in non-emergencies (they all allow individuals to travel by air in emergencies). These rules are called the ordnung.

    Which is why Mr. Hertzler is between a rock and a hard place. It’s conceivable that his congregation could someday allow people to be photographed. Some groups do allow it as long as it’s clear it’s not posed, from a respectful distance, and usually as long as they don’t show the face. But as long as its against his congregation’s ordnung he can’t do it or he’ll be excommunicated. Which means he’ll be ostracized, perhaps for life. The Amish, even those raised Amish, can’t be baptized into the community until they’re adults. It has to be an adult choice. And being excommunicated is a terrible fate for someone who chose to be Amish. It seems cruel, maybe, but at some point they have to put the spiritual health of the community over the individual. The Amish believe that any community where you can come and go as you please, pick and choose what rule you’ll follow and which ones you won’t, isn’t worth joining. It’s not even worth calling such a thing a community.

    To me the thing is I don’t see the reason for these rules. Amish aren’t pacifists. They reject the term because it doesn’t go far enough. They aren’t simply against war, or violence. They can be excommunicated for suing someone over a business or financial dispute, because if they win then the coercive power of the state will be used to enforce the ruling. And they think that’s unchristian. It’s why the Amish can’t run for or hold office. Because then they’ll be in control of the coercive apparatus of the state, and that they believe violates the principle of turning the other the cheek. So the prefer the term non-resistance to pacifism. It isn’t like the Amish never commit crimes but it’s rare. And violent crime is almost unheard of. If there’s anyone who should be able to buy a hunting rifle of any vintage it’s the Amish.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  19. I meant to say if anyone should be able to buy a hunting rifle without photo ID it’s the Amish.

    And I’m not expert on the Amish. It’s just that my aunt and uncle used to live in Maryland and there’s actually a relatively large Amish presence in that state. And I visited I used to wonder who those strange people were. I used to know a little about them, and I took this opportunity to refresh my memory and add to my knowledge.

    http://amishamerica.com/amish-online-encyclopedia/

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  20. 17. Alvin York was a pacifist too. just sayin’…

    redc1c4 (e4c086) — 10/28/2015 @ 7:55 am

    The Amish are beyond pacifist, red.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  21. I installed Amish kitchen cabinets. The salesman told me that the work-shop was powered by a single (diesel?) engine hooked up to a central shaft and from there to belts that powered the individual machines. But the most notable part was the delivery. Menonites brought them in a truck but that’s not the notable part either. The notable part was that it was to the minute as promised.

    nk (dbc370)

  22. Menonites brought them in a truck but that’s not the notable part either.

    The Mennonites have no issue with cars and electricity. They’re not the same as Amish. I attended a service at an air conditioned Mennonite church. There are even some Amish who drive cars. The ones who only use those buggies are the Old Order Amish.

    Gerald A (949d7d)

  23. Given that they shun moustaches and buttons because both used to be typical of soldiers,

    Since pants, shirts, hats, boots, knives and most notably among Amish, suspenders and horses were also typical of soldiers, I doubt that’s the reason they shun moustaches and buttons.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  24. There are even some Amish who drive cars. The ones who only use those buggies are the Old Order Amish.

    I don’t believe all New Order Amish allow their congregants to own and drive cars. In any case only 3% of Amish are New Order. Between the time they turn 16 until they get baptized somewhere between 18 and 22 all Amish can drive and own cars. But once they’re baptized they have to give them up along with all forbidden technology. But even Old Order Amish don’t only use buggies. They can ride bikes, for instance.

    By the way some flavors of Old Order Mennonites still have a problem with cars and other devices and drive horse drawn buggies.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  25. Does a fingerprint count as a graven image?

    How about a DNA code?

    What happens if An Amish gets arrested? Does he get a bye on the mugshot?

    Marc Wolfe (93549b)

  26. Stock up, there’s no 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to ammo. Just Sayin’

    ropelight (3f0535)

  27. I have long thought that Obama would try some executive order limiting ammo on his way out the door.

    JD (136c9e)

  28. C’mon, guys. I mean, it’s not like there’s an amendment that guarantees the right of the people to bear arms or anything.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  29. The right to vote is not in the Constitution, Milhouse? It’s mentioned five times in four separate amendments it states: “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged….”. That would be the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  30. 28. I have long thought that Obama would try some executive order limiting ammo on his way out the door.

    JD (136c9e) — 10/28/2015 @ 9:37 am

    He’ll probably have the BATFE drop the photo ID requirement for the Amish to buy guns, but then decree that if you want to buy ammo you have to become Amish.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  31. To assume one has the right to bear arms but not the right to ammo for those arms is like having free speech but not being able to use words. It does not specifically say “ammo” or “words” but it’s understood by all but idiots.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie™ (f4eb27)

  32. Photo for a driver’s license is one thing. You have no constitutional right to be licensed to drive on public streets. (You of course are perfectly free to drive whatever you want on your own property, license or not, and you are perfectly free to travel on public roads in vehicles driven by licensed drivers.) If your religious scruples say you can’t be photographed, oh well.

    But imagine a photo ID required for exercising one’s First Amendment right to free speech, or to petition the government. Journalists would be outraged about that (but, I suspect, wholly in favor of photo IDs required to exercise free press rights). That’s what is the difference here.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  33. If one must obtain permission to exercise a right, it ceases to be a right. If you must get PERMISSION from the STATE to purchase a firearm, then the clear language of the second amendment is being violated.

    Rorschach (6fc5f7)

  34. Virtually every state that requires a Photo ID to vote, offers a religious exemption. Texas does, although to date the number of people who have qualified for it can be counted on the fingers of both hands. They also offer an ID for voting purposes for free as well to the indigent. Therefore the right to vote is not being abridged

    Rorschach (6fc5f7)

  35. Gabriel Hanna, at 33: I agree wholeheartedly.

    ATF is in the wrong here, and I hope the courts interpret RFRA to apply to this situation.

    aphrael (ab3979)

  36. Mr. Hertzler confronts Hobson’s choice: either forego his constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of himself and his home, or violate his religion,

    Incidentally this situation is not “Hobson’s choice”. Hobson’s choice is “the horse nearest the door”, along the lines of “any color so long as it’s black” or “take it or leave it”.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  37. 33. Photo for a driver’s license is one thing. You have no constitutional right to be licensed to drive on public streets. (You of course are perfectly free to drive whatever you want on your own property, license or not, and you are perfectly free to travel on public roads in vehicles driven by licensed drivers.) If your religious scruples say you can’t be photographed, oh well…

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1) — 10/28/2015 @ 10:10 am

    Actually I would carve out an exemption for the Amish, Horse-and-Buggy Mennonites, etc., for one simple reason. They’ve been driving their horse-drawn carriages on public roads since before this was a country. Long before anyone came up with the idea of driver’s licenses.

    States didn’t require licenses until the automobile was invented and became popular. Some states, at least, then retroactively applied this license requirement to the Amish or anyone else who wishes to drive a horse and buggy on public roads. The rationale being that they’re sharing the road with motorized vehicles so they also need to know the rules of the road.

    Pony carts can be driven by younger children. Sometimes by women. These are topless two wheeled carts drawn by miniature horses and, obviously, ponies and no license is required.

    It seems to me to be a perverse result to require them to stop driving their horse and buggies unless they get licenses with photos.

    But I agree that if anyone wants to drive a motor vehicle but refuses to get a license with photo for a religious reason they can just pack sand.

    Steve57 (a0050a)

  38. @Steve57: I am not aware that any state requires a driver’s license for a horse drawn vehicle. Some cities require licenses or permits for carriage drivers, analogously to taxis. My own state requires drivers’ licenses only for motor vehicles. I have never heard of a state that required driver’s licenses for non-motorized vehicles.

    What I said was not intended to apply to the Amish specifically, and I don’t believe it would apply to any of them at all; it was merely to distinguish when a right is being infringed.

    Gabriel Hanna (3fe5c7)

  39. Incidentally 13 states allow non-photo drivers’ licenses for religious objections. It’s nice that those states do that, but it doesn’t make sense to say they are obligated to.

    Gabriel Hanna (3fe5c7)

  40. Given that they shun moustaches and buttons because both used to be typical of soldiers,

    Since pants, shirts, hats, boots, knives and most notably among Amish, suspenders and horses were also typical of soldiers,

    No, they weren’t. Everyone wore those. Soldiers were known by their moustaches, and by their shiny buttons.

    I doubt that’s the reason they shun moustaches and buttons.

    You can doubt it all you like, but the truth will remain the same.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  41. The right to vote is not in the Constitution, Milhouse?

    That’s right.

    It’s mentioned five times in four separate amendments it states: “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged….”. That would be the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments.

    None of these amendments makes voting a right. They merely restrict the grounds on which states may deny such a right if they choose to make one generally available.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  42. Stock up, there’s no 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to ammo.

    Yes, there is. The 2nd amendment protects the right to buy ammunition just as the freedom of the press clause in the 1st amendment protects the right to buy ink and paper, and the freedom of speech clause protects the right to buy a bullhorn. And, for that matter, the right to buy both a flag and the matches with which to burn it.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  43. Photo for a driver’s license is one thing. You have no constitutional right to be licensed to drive on public streets.

    However no public benefit may be denied to someone for exercising his constitutional rights, or conditioned on waiving those rights. In any case, after Smith this isn’t a constitutional question, it’s a RFRA question, so your point isn’t relevant. Also see the case I mentioned earlier, which decided that the plaintiff was entitled to a driver’s license without a photo, though that was before Smith, and thus a constitutional case.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  44. But I agree that if anyone wants to drive a motor vehicle but refuses to get a license with photo for a religious reason they can just pack sand.

    Post-Smith, that’s correct in those states that don’t have a RFRA. But before Smith such a requirement was subject to strict scrutiny; the state could only deny such a person a license if it could show that there was a good reason why it couldn’t make an exception for them. And I distinctly remember a case being decided that way, in late 1976 or early 1977. And that’s still true federally and in states with a RFRA.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  45. I can see, under controlled circumstances and with appropriate qualifications, it could be that something other than photo id could be used — for example, with a couple different forms of alternate ID, such as a fingerprint and some other kind of reliable info.

    I am not a big fan of background checks in general, but this is more due to the propensity to save the information, rather than purging it “as they are supposed to do”.

    I can grasp that the state does have a compelling interest in terms of the public weal in making sure that criminals and the mentally unstable have a harder time obtaining guns.

    If the religious are willing to consent to the additional time/issue of fingerprint checks, and so forth, I can readily see how that might be a reasonable substitute.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  46. It’s mentioned five times in four separate amendments it states: “The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged….”. That would be the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments.

    None of these amendments makes voting a right. They merely restrict the grounds on which states may deny such a right if they choose to make one generally available.

    Ummmm… not that I can’t see the reasoning you’re applying, but…

    The right… to vote shall not be denied or abridged.
    That pretty much states that it IS a right.

    The prepositional clause does not change the statement with the elipsis above… It merely clarifies WHO has the right to vote and to whose right the amendment applies, the citizens of the USA.

    Q.E.D. Citizens have a right to vote, where voting is applied. THAT is your wiggle room, there. You can certainly argue about specific things one gets to vote on — some are called for in the Constitution (“elected representatives”), but many other things are not.

    IGotBupkis, "Si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses." (225d0d)

  47. The right… to vote shall not be denied or abridged.
    That pretty much states that it IS a right.

    Not so. If it were a right it could not be denied at all. These amendments merely say it can’t be denied on the specified grounds. Suppose the 2nd amendment said “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied on grounds of skin color”; that would mean it can be denied on any other grounds, or it could be generally denied.

    As Patterico has pointed out before, if voting were a protected right, then the amendments you cite would not be necessary, because the 14th would already guarantee it. Instead the 14th amendment explicitly recognizes that states can arbitrarily deny or abridge the right to vote, because it’s not protected, and attempts to prevent this by penalizing states for doing so. When it turned out that some states would rather pay the penalty than let blacks vote, the 15th became necessary; it still lets states limit the right to vote however they like except by race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The other amendments you list further restrict the states, but leave intact the fundamental principle that the right to vote is not inherently protected, but is something states choose to grant to people, and the states can limit it in any way except the ones specified. For instance, literacy tests are still constitutional, though they’re (unfortunately) banned by the Voting Rights Act.

    Milhouse (8489b1)

  48. @IGotBupkis: I’m seconding Milhouse.

    There are any number of denials and abridgments of the right to vote in force right now. Used to be a property qualification–which is not forbidden by any of those amendments, by the way.

    Gabriel Hanna (64d4e1)

  49. Gabriel @39, you are correct as far as I can tell. No states require licenses for Amish horse and buggy cars. The only and entirely inadequate defense I can offer is that I relied on statements on several sites about the Amish, such as this one example:

    http://amishamerica.com/amish-buggy/

    Pony cart

    Popular among Amish children and youth is the pony cart, a sort of “training” buggy. Pony carts are powered either by ponies or miniature horses. Amish children (especially in more progressive settlements) can often be seen zipping around front yards or traveling down country roads in these carts, pulled by feisty little beasts.

    Amish adults sometimes ride in pony carts as well. Since no driver’s license is required, sometimes very young Amish children pilot pony carts.

    You’d think after 20 years in the Navy (“Your ‘command expert’ on TADIX-B and OTCIXS is full of s***, sir) I’d know better.

    What I know better is, I’ll continue to make the same mistake. In that, it’s impossible to live life AND verify every assertion being made on the internet. And I am not, as I said earlier, an authority on the Amish. I should try harder to flag information I haven’t verified personally. And acknowledge when I’m wrong.

    Thank you.

    Steve57 (79b135)

  50. Care to comment, Steve57???

    https://t.co/D4wasvgnJD

    Colonel Haiku (436b69)

  51. The Arab “migrants” are rushing into the open legs of Europe, coronello.

    There. I said it.

    Steve57 (79b135)

  52. enjoy the ride, Hadji al-Sheedmapanz!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  53. Speaking of guns …. Picked up my new toys yesterday – 1) Uberti Cattleman .357 magnum 7 1/2″ barrel and 2) Cimarron Wyatt Earp Buntline 45 LC with 10″ barrel

    JD (34f761)

  54. European wimmin, coronello, ain’t the the hottest thing ol’ Hadji has seen in yoga pants…

    https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mb42f3707a4a8e5f2be8bc390268addd4o0&pid=15.1

    …but they’ll do.

    Steve57 (79b135)

  55. Congrats, JD. Now that you have your cowboy guns maybe you need some belt leather or other accessories to go with.

    http://possibleshop.com/

    THE POSSIBLE SHOP

    CLASSIC WESTERN GUNS AND SHOOTING SUPPLIES

    Steve57 (79b135)

  56. My bad, the Possible Shop only caters to muzzle loaders and cap and ball revolver shooters.

    Steve57 (79b135)

  57. labiaplasties on the uptick in Northern Europe! as are clitorectomies!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  58. Coronello @58, I have it on good authority that just two gang rapes by Somali “migrants” will ruin all the good work those plastic surgeons have done to a woman’s labia. So, northern European wimmin, save the money on the labiaplasty and spend it on the counseling later.

    Oh, by the way! Speaking of Somali “migrants,” Denmark is cracking down on rapists. So now rapists can go to prison for three and a half years, up from two and a half.

    Steve57 (79b135)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1228 secs.