An Amish man, Andrew Hertzler is suing in Pennsylvania because he is unable to buy a firearm without a photo identification.  Mr. Hertzler has a state issued identification card but it does not have a photograph, a state concession to Amish beliefs.  It seems that the Amish have a religious objection to Photo Identification.  To make matters more complicated this ban on photos varies from congregation to congregation.

In order to exercise is 2nd Amendment right ATF requires a photo identification under 18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(C): IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSFEREE (Law) 27 CFR 178.124: FIREARMS TRANSACTION RECORD (Rule).

I don’t know what Pennsylvania Law is but in Texas Mr. Hertzler could go to his local gun show and purchase the gun of his choice from a private individual with having to meet the photo identification requirement.

Between the Pennsylvania accommodation, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and the ability of private individuals to transfer firearms without requiring identification I think the government is on shaky ground.  I am not an attorney, I have never played one on stage and screen and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Lower courts have held:

“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.”

This seems to say that states can require photos on driver’s licenses, except Pennsylvania doesn’t and will give a religious exemption. Voting and  driving are activities controlled and regulated by the state which sets up the argument that the photo on the driver’s license is for a compelling purpose. Purchasing a firearm is not always regulated by the government.  Does this piecemeal approach to documenting gun purchases undermine the government’s argument that it has a compelling interest in requiring photo identification?