http://amishamerica.com/do-amish-use-guns/

http://amishamerica.com/hunting-not-just-for-amish-men/

The authorities have all sorts of ways to establish that he is who he says he is. Most Amish have their "English" friends buy firearms for them, but they should not have to resort to the straw man purchase. Their constitutional rights are the same as ours.

I've seen Amish families going into WalMart. WalMart has camera's. Stay out of WalMart's and any other store that takes your picture then. These religious nuts are just as bad as the gun nuts. And now they want to merge.

How can we continue to pay taxes if our government is willing to side with fairy tales and weak minded people that get to make the rules.

government REQUIRING him to have his photo taken - in spite of his religious objections. That doesn't happen in Wal Mart. And remember that the government is required to make reasonable accomodations for his religious beliefs - be they 'fairy tales' or not.

what one damn well pleases. It's ridiculous, ignorant and absurd!

I dare say there were probably some drive by 'stern looks', but mass murders?

I'm thinking probably not.

"Clip, clop, clip, clop ... bang ... clip, clop, clip, clop"

(Sorry, too good of a straight line to pass up.)

On youtube, theres a bit about an "amish drug bust" (that's the search term), from a radio morning show.

Its either funny, or offensive, or both.

... at least the Amish won't be calling the radio station to complain.

My brother lives in Eastern PA and is surrounded by Amish.

He says they do a lot of hunting in season and have the best Amish jokes.

I've heard many a "you idiot" or "you asshole" when I was up in Toronto. Some times I wasn't even driving

No electricity, no radio, no TV. I'd say if he wants to buy a muzzle-loader, we take those off the 'ID required' list.

the Gun Control Act doesn't consider muzzle loaders to be "firearms".

Of cartridge guns available prior to 1900, including revolvers, bolt action and lever action rifles, and I think, but not sure, semi-autos as well.

Other than modern inline black powder weapons.

For example, they can have a phone, but it would be located across the street from their house. If they need to make a phone call for business, they can, but they won't be temped to use it 24/7 like we do with cell phones.

Either way, I don't have a problem with this request. I'm sure it can be accommodated.

Breech-loading firearms using metallic cartridges date back to the 1840s. Twenty years later, you had repeating firearms: six-shot revolvers and lever action rifles at first, and later bolt-action rifles and pump shotguns. Semi-auto firearms popped up as prototypes in the 1880s but weren't introduced to the commercial market until the first decade of the twentieth century.

You can't claim to have a deeply held religious belief that forbids someone taking your picture, and use that as a means around a legal requirement to buy something which goes against that same religion's tenets. You can't exactly claim a deeply held belief if a religion has 10 commandments and you routinely break 3-4 of them.

From what I have read, beliefs among the Amish do vary widely and some actually use modern technology to a degree. 1900 was just a SWAG. The Amish have been in America since the early 1800's, and clearly, muzzle-loaders were available then and Uzi's were not. Whether not they would be allowed to use cartridges or magazines or revolvers, I don't know.

Maybe someone who is Amish can reply to this, if they happen to be browsing DU on their cellphone.

And I'm telling you that he's not going against his religion's tenets, at least not as you have defined them.

As I believe I did say earlier, all Amish don't believe the same thing. Some use telephones. Some use electricity. Some adopted phones early on, then rejected them. It is apparently up to the Ordnung to decide what is acceptable and what is not.

So if the Ordnung has determined Uzi's, or semi-automatic rifles or pistols, or specific types of shotguns to be against the Ordnung, and this person is using his status as an Amish person to justify a religious exemption to buy a weapon, the weapon has to comply with the Ordnung or he shouldn't be allowed to buy it.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/innovation/06/22/amish.tech.brende/

especially if we are talking about REAL Uzi and not the semi auto "pistol" that is kind of useless beyond beyond being a range toy. I'm not saying they should be banned, I'm saying I wouldn't buy one.

I found a photo of Amish girls shooting what looks semi auto .22s. Since PA is the only state that doesn't allow hunting with semi automatics, and they don't believe in self defense, I'm guessing they are bolt or lever action rifles. Maybe some type of single shot, but those are hard to find.

Since you have no idea what his community's Ordnung is, you have no idea whether he's violating it. Yes, it's possible he is, but it seems to me that he would be reluctant to push the issue and bring attention to himself if he were.

Should a person be able to be exempted from a legal requirement because of a religious belief.

I'm an agnostic Methodist, but if he can claim this, why shouldn't I suddenly claim to have a deeply held religious belief that doesn't allow me to get a photo ID and that I should still get to buy a gun. How about people who don't have photo IDs for voting? Can they claim to have a religious belief that prohibits a photo ID and still vote, even without proving that they actually are deeply religious? The right to vote is equally enshrined in the Constitution with the right to bear arms, and I certainly think it's a lot safer to allow someone to vote without a photo ID than to let them buy a gun without one.

We have an entire body of jurisprudence, both on the federal and state levels, on the nature and extent of accommodation for religious practice and belief under generally applicable laws, regardless of whether the issue is firearms, voting, drug use, health insurance and contraception, or anything else. It is a particularized and fact specific determination based on the beliefs of the objector and law itself. However, the general disdain of religious practice and/or gun ownership by you or others is not a determining factor in any analysis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/30/the-hobby-lobby-majority-summarized-in-relatively-plain-english/

http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/1a-religious-freedom-restoration-act/

http://volokh.com/2013/12/02/hobby-lobby-employer-mandate-religious-exemptions/

What makes you think there's an easy answer? Many factors have to be considered. You certainly can't claim, in the absence of an established religious community with a history of certain belief patterns, that your "deeply held religious belief" should exempt you from legal requirements.

It's a question of balancing the rights of the individual with the safety of society. There are certainly ways to establish identity without photo IDs. New York State driver's license didn't have photos until the 1990s. What did we do before that?

You were suggesting some kind of inconsistency of belief in your posts about the Uzi and the Ordnung. I don't see it, and you have not made a compelling case that it exists.