No photos...for religious reasons.

[Onward Allusion]

Like someone else said, the Ordnung (order, authority) determines those rules. Either your guy lives is an ultra-conservative community, in which case, he shouldn't be handling a modern firearm or he's trying to pull a fast one. I know of no Blue State that allows for Niqabs (full face coverings...Hijabs covering hair ok). You can't get a passport w/o a photo and these days you need one (or a card) to go to Mexico or Canada.

[Dred]

I am in TX, but I wouldn't hesitate to help this young man. First, I would confirm that he is not prohibited from owning a firearm (by law or the wishes of his family). Second, I would lay out my ARs and figure out which was going to meet his needs. Third, l'd agree on a price, shake his hand and he'd have his AR. Fourth, I would shop me up a brand new AR.

Ok, in truth, steps 2 and 4 would intermingle 'cause my offer price would cover the expected cost of my replacement rifle if it needed replaced - for my trouble.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Dred

I am in TX, but I wouldn't hesitate to help this young man. First, I would confirm that he is not prohibited from owning a firearm (by law or the wishes of his family). Second, I would lay out my ARs and figure out which was going to meet his needs. Third, l'd agree on a price, shake his hand and he'd have his AR.

You'd be commiting a felony since you're not both residents of the same state.

[dahermit]

While I'm no expert on these matters, I'd be willing to bet they make a distinction between having their picture taken and getting their picture taken.

They object to having their picture taken...is someone asks to take their picture, the answer is always, "No."
We have a Saturday morning T.V. show called, "Calling Dr. Pol". He has a veterinarian clinic in Central Michigan. Whenever he makes a call to the farm of his Amish clients, their faces are always pixilated whereas his non-Amish clients are not.

[Armorer-at-Law]

Quote:
Voting is a right
Stop there. Everything you typed after that is a limitation of that right, turning it into a privilege rather than a right.

Limiting voting rights isn't something that free nations do, it's what dictatorships and authoritarian regimes do. Limiting and controlling who can vote is how those regimes maintain power. We're not Trumpistan.

Yet.

What? So you have a right to vote as many times as you want? Or as a different person? Or in a jurisdiction where you don't live? Or if you are 6 years old? Or if you are not a citizen of the country? Really? If there are NO controls or limits on voting, it becomes meaningless.

[lefteye]

There is a right to vote and a right to keep and bear arms. Neither is exempt from limitation. Convicted murderers do not retain the right to keep and bear arms and I doubt if they have the right to vote. Lawful limitations on voting rights IS something free nations do. Unlawful limitations on voting rights, e.g., racial discrimination, have been overturned, i.e., eliminated in the specific case, by courts.

[Mike Irwin]

"I'm not convinced of the religious aspects, it seems more cultural."

It's actually interpretational and how his particular order/group views the bible.

Stricter groups do not permit personal photography because they believe it violates the commandment against creating graven images or idols.

For some it can also tie into whether they believe they are posing for a photograph. A posed photograph (such as a driver's license or ID) falls back to the graven images or idols.

Most Amish, even stricter sects, don't have a problem with the pictures being taken if it's not a posed photograph.

My first job was with a newspaper in an Amish area in Pennsylvania (not Lancaster County) and only once did I have an Amish man ask me not to take his photo. I asked him if it was a religious thing, and he said no, I just don't like having my picture taken.

[dajowi]

"Some states, like Pennsylvania and Ohio, do issue nonphoto identification. Individuals must provide a form stating their religious objections, along with the bishop’s signature (see The Amish and the State for more)."

When it comes to driver's licenses / state I.D.s, some states allow non-photo identification cards.

Oregon became the first state to offer a "X" as a third gender option to Male and Female on it's driver's licenses.

Illinois offers Sharia compliant Driver's Licenses allowing Muslim women to cover their faces.

I had to take off my glasses for the facial recognition camera at the local DMV.

There is something wrong with the system.

[44 AMP]

I had to take off my glasses for the facial recognition camera at the local DMV.

Could you explain this a little, please??

Did you have to take off your glasses for the software to recognize your face?
Or were you providing your face for the software without glasses, because??

What I'm getting is that the facial recognition wouldn't work if you were wearing glasses. That can't be right, can it??

[hdwhit]

WyMark wrote:
Stop there. Everything you typed after that is a limitation of that right, turning it into a privilege rather than a right.

Placing reasonable restrictions on a right does not abrogate that right. The Supreme Court - the people who get to say what the Constitution actually says - have repeatedly said (for example Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47) that rights are not absolute.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by hdwhit

Placing reasonable restrictions on a right does not abrogate that right. The Supreme Court - the people who get to say what the Constitution actually says - have repeatedly said (for example Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47) that rights are not absolute.

While this may be correct, I'm not sure it's even necessary to mention. Requiring proof of identity to vote, for example, in no way restricts the right to vote. The U.S. Constitution doesn't establish who can vote -- that was one of the powers left up to the states. My state's constitution says:

Every citizen of the United States who has attained the age of twenty-one years, who has resided in the town in which he offers himself to be admitted to the privileges of an elector at least six months next preceding the time he so offers himself, who is able to read in the English language any article of the constitution or any section of the statutes of the state, and who sustains a good moral character, shall, on his taking such oath as may be prescribed by law, be an elector.

So, constitutionally, there are four criteria to be a voter: The person must be a citizen of the United States,, the person must be at least 21 years of age, the person must be able to read English, and the person must have lived in the town where he/she intends to vote for at least six months prior to the election. That establishes who has the right to vote.

Does requiring identification in any way restrict that? I don't think so. Requiring identification only guarantees that ONLY those people who satisfy the constitutional criteria are allowed to vote. But those are the only people who have a right to vote, so ... where's the problem?

[JimPage]

What he ^^^^ he said,

[JimPage]

Aquila:
Doesn't your state submit to the Federal age of 18 for voters?

[cjwils]

I suspect the quote above about electors is about joining the electoral college, not about voting.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by JimPage

Aquila:
Doesn't your state submit to the Federal age of 18 for voters?

Yes. I quoted the original body of the state constitution. There was an amendment in 1976 that revised the age to 18.

Originally Posted by cjwils

I suspect the quote above about electors is about joining the electoral college, not about voting.

No. The term "electors" is used in discussing the election of state officials.

[dahermit]

My first job was with a newspaper in an Amish area in Pennsylvania (not Lancaster County) and only once did I have an Amish man ask me not to take his photo. I asked him if it was a religious thing, and he said no, I just don't like having my picture taken.

That was not his elder's opinion...that was his. His elders, if consulted may have a different interpretation...which is the only one that counts inasmuch as with the Amish, it is all about obedience.

[dajowi]

I argued with the DMV clerk after she instructed me to remove my glasses before the photo was taken.

My argument was that I have always worn glasses in all previous I.D. photo shoots and demanded to know why it was required that I remove my glasses.

She was telling me that I had no choice if I wanted the I.D.card.

I inflamed the situation further by demanding to know if this B.S. DMV facial recognition policy came from Obama. That really set her off...ha, ha, ha.

[Merad]

Could you explain this a little, please??

Did you have to take off your glasses for the software to recognize your face?
Or were you providing your face for the software without glasses, because??

What I'm getting is that the facial recognition wouldn't work if you were wearing glasses. That can't be right, can it??

Software engineer here. Facial recognition systems typically work by analyzing an image to capture the outline/shape of the face, as well as the size, shape, location etc. of major features like eyes, nose, and mouth. If the training image includes glasses, then the system might capture the frames as part of the facial features, so it's totally unable to recognize the face without glasses. If it's trained without glasses, however, it should be able to match the facial structure and ignore the glasses as extra info.

To use a gun analogy, imagine that you know nothing at all about guns and I show you an AR decked out with optics, foregrip, suppressor, and basically every accessory possible. Then later I show you a basic AR with nothing attached and ask you what it is. Your response will probably be "it sort of looks like an AR, but it's missing a lot of things so I'm not sure." OTOH if I show you the basic AR first then ask you about the one with accessories, your answer is probably going to much more confident, like "there's extra things attached, but I recognize the AR underneath."

[44 AMP]

Thanks, that does make sense. So, despite decades of computer advancement, the principle of GIGO still rules. Probably always will.

[Tom Servo]

So, I was in southern Illinois earlier this week and I stopped in an Amish restaurant. We got to talking, and I asked about photo ID. Two of the gentlemen had driver's licenses since they occasionally had to use a communal truck to move stuff on the highway. In their particular interpretation, it's OK to get the picture taken since it's a means to a particular and necessary end.

That said, it all comes down to how your friend's particular group interprets things.

[dahermit]

So, I was in southern Illinois earlier this week and I stopped in an Amish restaurant. We got to talking, and I asked about photo ID. Two of the gentlemen had driver's licenses since they occasionally had to use a communal truck to move stuff on the highway. In their particular interpretation, it's OK to get the picture taken since it's a means to a particular and necessary end.

That said, it all comes down to how your friend's particular group interprets things.

Exactly. The elders make the rules for each local group. "My" Amish do not drive. They have a communal van that is driven by a non-Amish employee.
The young (21) Amish guy who hunts my land has a $600 game call (he is heavily into varmint calling). He came to my house and had me download from the internet, the program that programs his game call with the free library of calls from the manufacturer. I am convinced that he nor anyone else consulted the elders about that device...I am sure that he just did not tell them and as long as they do not forbid its use (or amend the Ordnung), he will continue to use it. In short, what they do not know about, they cannot prohibit.

[natman]

Originally Posted by dahermit

Exactly. The elders make the rules for each local group. "My" Amish do not drive. They have a communal van that is driven by a non-Amish employee.
The young (21) Amish guy who hunts my land has a $600 game call (he is heavily into varmint calling). He came to my house and had me download from the internet, the program that programs his game call with the free library of calls from the manufacturer. I am convinced that he nor anyone else consulted the elders about that device...I am sure that he just did not tell them and as long as they do not forbid its use (or amend the Ordnung), he will continue to use it. In short, what they do not know about, they cannot prohibit.

I'm going to guess that an AR would fall in the same category.

[dahermit]

I'm going to guess that an AR would fall in the same category.

Being hunters my Amish neighbors possess many guns. They also are avid varmint shooters inasmuch as they almost all have chickens, ducks, geese, sheep and goats (and cows), that are subject to predation vis raccoons, fox, and coyotes. The groundhogs dig holes in which cattle or horses could break a leg. So, they see guns as tools to control the threats to their livelihood. The guns they have are modern guns although they generally have muzzle loaders also, to take advantage of Michigan's Muzzle Loading Deer Season (and bows for bow season)...they are big on harvesting all the resources available while wasting none...they harvest deer with much enthusiasm.
As an example, my closest neighbor has a .17 caliber rimfire that he uses on varmints. He also has a .357 Ruger Blackhawk. Therefore, I do not think the local Ordnung would list an AR15 as a prohibited item even if the elders knew what it was...it is just another varmint control rifle for them.

[natman]

Makes sense when you explain it like that.

[SIGSHR]

When I renewed my driver's license last fall the clerk asked if I wanted to keep the same picture-I told her no as I no longer had that pair of glasses. In NJ they ask you "With or without glasses?"
We have no "System", not with 50 states plus territories and the Federal Government.
A friend of mine -a black girl-is two different people, depending on when she's made up or not.
I have been told in some of those groups the prohibition against posed pictures has more to with notions of modesty and strictures against vanity. A Muslim girl told me they had lectures which told them that many gestures in our society had to do with our concepts of gentlemanly and ladylike conduct and should not be seen as "putting the make on."