bushmaster1313
Member
Any cases in whether it is Constitutional to require a photo UD to buy a gun from an FFL?
Is photo ID to buy gun Constitutional?
- Thread starter bushmaster1313
- Start date
- Status
Unistat
Member
I don't know if FFLs are required by the Feds to see photo ID, but if I owned a gun shop or was a home-based FFL, I would personally make it a requirement for CYA reasons.
bikemutt
Member
Page 5 of form 4473:
dogtown tom
Member
It's "constitutional" until a court rules it unconstitutional.
So far, that has not happened.
HankB
Member
I would think it's about as constitutional as requiring a photo ID to vote.
beatledog7
Member
Having to prove that you are who who say you are to buy a gun assures that you are of age, a resident of that state (or an adjoining state for long guns), and not a prohibited person (one who is either mentally disqualified or who has surrendered RKBA by some voluntary illegal act). The requirement that people present a legitimate photo ID as proof is both Constitutional and rational.
The idea that a person should be able to do things that are allowed only to a certain legitimized group of people without the need to prove that he or is in fact a member of that group is absurd. Granted, the "I can legally buy a gun" group is very large, but it is not all-inclusive.
The idea that a person should be able to do things that are allowed only to a certain legitimized group of people without the need to prove that he or is in fact a member of that group is absurd. Granted, the "I can legally buy a gun" group is very large, but it is not all-inclusive.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Where does the Constitution say anything about being a resident of the state in order to buy a gun there?
Sounds like an infringement to me.
Sounds like an infringement to me.
bushmaster1313
Member
Some People do not want photo ID's on personal grounds.
There are other ways to identify a person.
There are other ways to identify a person.
beatledog7
Member
That's an "incorporation" question. It gets argued continually: can a state manage any kind of affairs it wishes as long as such management is not precluded by the Constitution? Those who say yes use the Tenth Amendment as the basis of their argument.
Some argue (myself among them), that there are differences in Constitutional language that make some things subject to 10A and others not. Regarding RKBA, 2A says "shall not be infringed," which to me sounds like "not by anyone who is party to the Constitution." States ratified the Constitution, so they are party to it; therefore, the states can't disallow RKBA. However, they can control the details of how they manage it, right up to the point where such management becomes an infringement. Just exactly when management equates to infringement is an open question.
Then one might ask, does requiring a KY dealer to sell handguns only in KY amount to a violation of the vaunted commerce clause? On-line selling has pretty much gotten around that.
Back to the Constitutional language point. The First Amendment says that "Congress shall make no law" regarding an establishment of religion or freedom of speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and redress of grievances. Does that mean the states can make such laws? I would argue that it does, but what state legislature would dare try it?
Do the states have the power to manage RKBA, or do they not? By and large, federal courts have not struck down state regulations, so as of this moment they are officially Constitutional.
mgkdrgn
Member
Well, then gather yourself up a couple of years and a couple $million and make yourself a test case.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
Is it constitutional? No, "Shall not be infringed" is constitutional.
Has it been ruled un-constitutional? No, and it likely never will be recognized as so by the courts.
And beatledog, the adjoining state requirement went away in '86.
Has it been ruled un-constitutional? No, and it likely never will be recognized as so by the courts.
And beatledog, the adjoining state requirement went away in '86.
You walk in the shop and I don't know you... how am I supposed to prove your identity short of seeing government issued photo ID?
If you object to photos on "personal grounds" I can simply exercise my right to refuse to sell you a gun.
beatledog7
Member
GoWolfpack said:
It's not clear to me what you mean by this. Are you saying a KY resident can go into a shop in VA and buy a handgun? Or do you mean long guns?
JohnBT
Member
www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/licensees-conduct-of-business.html#out-of-state-resident
Rifle or shotgun. Look at the last sentence of the first answer.
Rifle or shotgun. Look at the last sentence of the first answer.
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
I didn't notice before you lived in Tidewater. I'm in the area as well.
When the '64 GCA was passed non-FFL interstate sales of handguns were banned and still are. Interstate non-FFL sales of rifles were restricted to adjoining states by the GCA but the '86 FOPA lifted that restriction. Now a resident of any state may purchase a rifle or a shotgun from an FFL in any other state.
P5 Guy
Member
It has been argued that having to provide residence and identity verification unfairly burdens the poor, minorities and women.
Having to present a photo ID to vote is bad for the reason stated above, but for a gun purchase, just good common sense?
Another disconnect from logic that I will never understand. The inverse, not needing to verify identity to buy a firearm, but needing to do so to vote. I'm not getting it?
Having to present a photo ID to vote is bad for the reason stated above, but for a gun purchase, just good common sense?
Another disconnect from logic that I will never understand. The inverse, not needing to verify identity to buy a firearm, but needing to do so to vote. I'm not getting it?
bikemutt
Member
One involves pulling a lever, the other pulling a trigger. This occurs in all walks of life; I don't need a license to ride a bicycle on a pubic road, but I do need one to ride a motorcycle.
Look, I agree with you totally about voter ID requirements; it's absurd. When I was a LPR I could own a gun but not vote, presumably voting is so important it's a right of citizens only, and I agree with that.
But, just because the push-back on ID for voting seems misguided doesn't mean that strong ID requirements for gun purchases is misguided also.
Look, I agree with you totally about voter ID requirements; it's absurd. When I was a LPR I could own a gun but not vote, presumably voting is so important it's a right of citizens only, and I agree with that.
But, just because the push-back on ID for voting seems misguided doesn't mean that strong ID requirements for gun purchases is misguided also.
Neverwinter
Member
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2008
- Messages
- 1,049
Both voting and firearms purchasing concerns are perfectly congruent with the history of civil rights. Minorities and women didn't have the same level of access as they currently do. Some are fighting against that, and given the opposition's interest is not surprising at all. They hope to use isolated cases to enact electoral disenfranchisement on a large scale with effects turning back the clock on civil rights.
Was firearms fraud occurring at the same level as the current limited cases of voter fraud when the ID requirement was put in place? If not, was it just a part of the desire to limit the RKBA for the poor, minorities and women?
cyclopsshooter
Member
If someone is so paranoid to not want a gov i.d... I don't want them to have a gun-
Fine, but what you do, and don't want, has absolutely nothing to do with the question on constitutionality. I want everyone to prove citizenship before entering the voting booth, but thats been ruled an infringement on more then one level. If its an infringement on your voting rights, then its an infringement on your 2nd amendment right to keep & bear arms!
The state has absolutely no right to enforce these ID restrictions, they have absolutely no right to force you to submit to a background investigation period! But they do, and thats why these are not rights at all, everyone knows this to be true.
The only authority that the state is rightfully allowed, is to prosecute those barred from owning a firearm that have illegally obtained one!
SabbathWolf
member
I don't see this as a Constitutional matter anyways either way.
If I am the owner of a shop, then I have the right to refuse service if I want to if I suspect something is wrong...or just not quite right.
Just today, as an example, I was buying some beef jerky and potato chips at a Dollar Store.
There was a woman in line in front of me who was Amish or Quaker or Mennonite or something.
She was dressed in an all black dress with one of those bonnet hat things on.
She had some stuff in a basket and tried to pay by check.
She had "NO" I.D. of any kind at all, so the store refused to take the check and had a staff member go put everything in her cart back on the shelves....lol
I don't blame the store for that what so ever.
"My" question is how the heck did she get a checking account in the first place with no I.D.????
Things that make you go....Hmmmmm?
If I am the owner of a shop, then I have the right to refuse service if I want to if I suspect something is wrong...or just not quite right.
Just today, as an example, I was buying some beef jerky and potato chips at a Dollar Store.
There was a woman in line in front of me who was Amish or Quaker or Mennonite or something.
She was dressed in an all black dress with one of those bonnet hat things on.
She had some stuff in a basket and tried to pay by check.
She had "NO" I.D. of any kind at all, so the store refused to take the check and had a staff member go put everything in her cart back on the shelves....lol
I don't blame the store for that what so ever.
"My" question is how the heck did she get a checking account in the first place with no I.D.????
Things that make you go....Hmmmmm?
Last edited:
bushmaster1313
Member
Amish friendly bank?
- Status
