Isn't that their thing, not using tech from after like 1840? I appoligize if I'm wrong, I don't know that much about Amish culture.

Just lik how it's amazing the lengths to which "law" will distort for "religion"

Amish farmers use electric fences.

They won't serve in the military, but they do use modern firearms for hunting, varmint control, and self-defense.

They will use modern technology if it does not tempt a person into wrong conduct. For example, due to USDA regulations they will use modern dairy equipment but it must be run by their own generators, not by power lines connected to the outside world. So they would have no problem with modern rifles.

the Amish would certainly not be taking pride in any photo on a government-issued ID.

I hope to see the FOID requirement go the way of poll taxes some day.

When you stand before the law, it should not matter what religion you are. In other words, the laws of our nation should not involve a question of what religion you are.

Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before Sharia is allowed because the applicant, plaintiff, defendant, etc. is Muslim.

Otherwise, it's just a matter of time before Sharia is allowed because the applicant, plaintiff, defendant, etc. is Muslim.

"Allowed what?"

Allowed a different law or application of law, depending simply on religious affiliation.


"Do you have a problem with Muslims..."

My Muslim grandparents would say no, but their daughter (my mom) has jokingly said I'm too "American" sometimes when I criticize the fundementalists. I stand with my Muslim grandparents: I have no problem with Muslims. I am very Americanized however, and would have a problem with different laws or different applications of law based merely on one's religion, or any other discrepancy with the principle of separation of church and state. This issue of applying a different firearms-related law to the Amish, simply because they are Amish, is troubling. To illustrate, I simply included a hypothetical that I'm somewhat familiar with from my family background.

"...or just Muslims who own guns?"

Caring about a person having a gun and being a Muslim also, that would fall under having different law or application of law based on religion. I'm on record above as opposing that, so I have no problem with Muslims who lawfully own guns.


"Or is it Sharia law that troubles you?"

In this thread, I have taken no stance for or against Sharia. I am taking a stance against *different* laws or *different* application of laws based on a persons religion. My point is: *uniform* laws applied *uniformly*, no exceptions due to a person's religion.

Get rid of the FOID card, then nobody has to get a photo.

More to the point. I think your understanding of the 1st amendment is a bit wrong.

It says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So you are correct, that congress shouldn't be endorsing a religion, but the second part (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) means that people should be allowed to follow their religion as closely as possible, even if it means different treatment. (assuming the accommodation is reasonable).

Since the Amish don't want to get photographed, for religious reasons, requiring a photo to get a firearm would prohibit them from exercising their second amendment right, so I think a fingerprint is perfectly reasonable).

Ill admit, I'm biased in the fact that I think having an ID card to buy a firearm is stupid and a waste of government time and money.

...of course, where you say my understanding of 1A is a bit wrong.

"[1A excerpt] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

"...the second part (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof) means that people should be allowed to follow their religion as closely as possible..."

You are correct up to this point.

"...even if it means different treatment. (assuming the accommodation is reasonable)."

This is not in the 1A. It does not secure "different treatment", "reasonable" or otherwise, under the law based on your religion. It merely secures you are not prohibited from "the free exercise" of your religion, presumably so long as you are not violating other constitutionally-sound laws. In fact, the government creating your "different treatment that is reasonable" based on a citizen's religion absolutely violates the prohibition against making law "respecting an establishment of religion".

The Amish cannot be accorded special firearms laws, apart from other IL citizens, simply because they are Amish and have a list of beliefs tied to their religion. That requires that the state make a "law respecting an establishment of religion" which is clearly prohibited for Congress to do and, through incorporation, the states are prohibited from that as well.

Granting religious accommodations is most definitely not establishment of a state religion. Nobody is compelled to worship in any particular way, and there is no official declaration of particular faith. Establishment of religion would be more along the lines of requiring public officials to be Catholic or something like that.

I firmly agree.

I understand your disquiet about fitting it to a 1A violation, though I would raise it were I an aggressive lawyer.

Let's leave my 1A violation questioning as at least "debatable" between us.

Those ladies will have no problem keeping the rats out of the corn crib.

FOID cards are a bad joke pushed through before the NICS checks legislation, which they duplicate poorly.

But ... if anybody thinks a dead ass broke state like Illinois is, will ever give up even a "useless" $10 fee from 1.6 million citizens, they have another think coming.

Last edited Fri May 25, 2012, 05:33 PM - Edit history (1)

...seeing as how it NEVER happened the thousands of times they predicted it in the past as new pro-gun legislation freed up gun rights.

But, I'm sure there are plenty of new anti-gunners who aren't aware of or have ignored the failure of those kinds of predictions.

So, carry on educating them through satire using their own words.

He gets his shotgun out and goes downstairs to investigate. In the kitchen he finds a bugler putting the family silver onto a bag. Pointing the shotgun at him, and pulling back both hammers, he tells the thief " Sir I would not harm thee for the world, but thou are standing where I am about to shoot."

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

There is a small group of Amish families living 20miles north of me. They are great farmers and supply many local restaurants with fresh fruits/vegetables and herbs. As for "modern" conveniences, they plow with horse and mule, but have modern irrigation systems and hot houses.