Pennsylvania Amish Man Sues to Buy Gun Without Photo ID

As part of the larger Faith and Firearms Project, I regularly listen to a weekly podcast called, This Week in Guns, on the Firearms Radio Network. The podcast's format is a rotating roundtable conversation that includes a wide variety of members from the gun community--men and women alike--who bring a range of professional competencies and personal backgrounds. Their views on guns, while showing some diversity at times, are generally uniform. The head host, Jake Challand, is the President of the Firearms Radio Network.  This Week in Guns is effectively a commentary on news, politics, and events related to guns.

On episode 140, the hosts discussed a recently filed federal lawsuit, in which an Amish man sued the federal government over its requirement that he have a photo ID to purchase a firearm. Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for the Washington Post, describes the suit in this way: "In a suit that brings together the Second Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFPA), an Amish man filed a federal lawsuit in Pennsylvania last week because he wants to buy  agun without the required photo ID -- and because getting that photo ID would violate his religious beliefs" (link to the full story). It should be noted that there is diversity within the Amish community, and that not all members relate to technology and modernity in the same way. Generally speaking, however, the Amish, whose Anabaptistic religious roots can be traced by to 16th cent. Europe, generally refuse to have their photographs taken.

Interestingly, one of the hosts of This Week in Guns, Adam Kraut, Esq. is employed at the firm that is responsible for filing the suit (Prince Law Offices, P.C.). A regular commentator on This Week in Guns, You can hear Mr. Kraut's comments on the case by clicking on this link and fast-forwarding to 12:00. According to Mr. Kraut, this is a case that forces the man to choose between "either his religion or exercising his Second Amendment rights" (13:30). Around 17:27, the conversation evolves into a conversation about "sincerely held religious beliefs," and the criteria on which such beliefs are recognized in the courts. For better or worse, the religion of The Flying Spaghetti Monster did make an appearance.

It will be interesting to watch how the suit progresses. Whatever the result, this case is a notable instance where faith, firearms, individual rights, and federal regulation intersect in fascinating ways.