Religious exemption from having photo on gun license? Really?

Do those same Muslims object to photographs for Driver's licenses ?

If a photograph is required for a Driver's license, and there is a random non specific religous objection, then perhaps a Driver's license is not so important.

What is next, a Religous objection to
Fingerprints ?

 

When you talk about a Muslim you are. It’s a hypothetical individual but an individual all the same. Most significantly, it implies it is how you would respond when dealing with an actual Muslim individual.

I know exactly what you’re saying, I’m trying to get through to what consequences and actions would naturally come from your argument though, consequences which may well influence how you approach this kind of question in the first place.

You’re essentially suggesting that it’s legitimate to fear Muslims (any Muslims) having access to guns, maybe even legitimate to seek to prevent them from doing so. The video is making a valid argument that allowing gun licences without photos increases the risk of people who haven’t been through the checks regarding gun ownership to get hold of firearms. The problem is that they only seem to be concerned if those people are Muslim.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they were in favour of special rights for religious people in general but their subconscious perception of Muslims is as alien “others” or invaders rather than just another religious grouping.

 

Actually, it turns out that it is the Hutterite Christian sect who this exemption was mostly intended for and I'm guessing that Canada has a photo exemption for any photo ID's if they have one for gun licenses. Regarding Muslim woman who are fully covered, I'm not sure how it would work with driver's licenses. If they are allowed an exemption because they can't show their face then that is also wrong too. Highway patrol should have what they need to verify that the person driving is the person on the license to prove that they are allowed to drive.

 

Absolutely not. If this is what you think I'm suggesting then you definitely do not know what I am saying at all. Any muslim should have the same right to a gun as a Christian or any other religion.

Yeah, its biased for sure.

 

Good, and that is the practical outcome of the statistical significance point earlier. It is true that proportionally, more Muslims commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims but we recognise that the actual numbers involved and scale of difference isn’t so much that Muslims in general should be treated differently as a result.

Some people don’t realise that and others are willing to play on their failure to do so for profit or political purposes. This video is an example of the latter and if we’re going to address any real concerns or risks relating to the actual topic of photos on ID, it’s vital to cut through that rhetoric.

 

Here is the rub, here in the U.SA. it us determined that Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, F.B.I.,
State Police Agencies, and Municipal Police Departments may ask for State issued I.D.
And other I.D. for firearms purchase or concealed carry.
There is no exemption for ancient religions, with hokey customs of covering their faces, if Identification is required.
Passports require photos and fingerprints.

The whole women covering their faces is a custom limited to a random religous belief, no longer observed by any but the most extreme.

 

The individual in question was also a licensed security guard, and authorized to carry a firearm.

Pray tell how exactly does a license requirement, in any way, prevent someone from engaging in terrorist-related actions, and killing as many individuals as they possibly can, in as short an amount of time as they can? What sort of investigative benefits does such a requirement serve?

 

Sure, but he didn't need to be a security guard to have a firearm did he? The US's fu**d-up-beyond-belief gun laws make it pretty damn easy for non-security guards too! And if what you mean is that he didn't have to buy a gun because he had one for his job, then sure, that would explain one of the two pistols that he used, but it wouldn't explain the second pistol or the damn MCX semi-automatic rifle! If he had the resources for a bomb, I'm sure he would've used a bomb.

Well in Canada, can someone get a license if they have a criminal record?

 

Yes.
As long as they repeat Oh Canada three times, and rub their tummy clock wise, whilst rotating their hand over their head in an anticlockwise fashion.....

 

On another forum which I am a member of, it has a ratings system. One of the ratings is "WTF?" and I desperately wanted to rate your post as that!

 

It was funny !
Canada is really like that anyway.

 

To so we're clear, does Canada allow people with a violent, gun related criminal history to have a gun license?

 

Correct. However the fact that he was indeed a licensed security guard does go on to demonstrate that these various proposals for licensing and registration do not actually accomplish what they are being sold as doing. Background checks for security personnel are significantly more involved than those for simply purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer.

Does the lack of a firearms license physically prevent someone in the nation of Canada from actually acquiring a firearm?

 

Nope.
Here in the US, we are not required to demonstrate to the state some "need" to exercise our rights.
Silly, I know, but freedom is like that.

It should be every bit as easy for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms as it is for them to exercise any of their other rights.

You didn't address the question.:
How, exactly, does a license to on a firearm prevent someone form commit a crime with said firearm?

 

Let me ask you this: you're focused on the gun, but can you tell me why the people in that night club all just cowered in place and waited to be killed instead of fighting back? Can you explain to me why they continued with that even when the shooter's rifle malfunctioned, and no one did anything while he actually used his smart phone to look up how to deal with a malfunction online, watched a video showing him how to clear the malfunction, and then went back to shooting people?

One of the values this nation was founded on was the belief that taking responsibility for yourself and your own actions was important to the preservation of liberty and freedom. We have a right to bear arms at least partially because we were expected to take responsibility for our own security. So, why was no one in that club equipped to stand up and shoot that bastard in the head while he stood in one place, trying to get his completely disabled weapon back into action again??

 

You mean the THREE HUNDRED people in the night club?

Not one of them possessed the "fight" gene.

 

But the background checks are involved enough to identify someone with a gun related, violent criminal past, right?

Of course it doesn't stop someone from acquiring a firearm and committing a crime with it. However, it does mean that it wasn't enabled by the state! And I'm guessing in the US it isn't OVERLY easy to purchase a firearm on the black market (unless you are gang affiliated), but that purchasing it legally presents a much more convenient alternative. And still no one has answered the question if in Canada, someone can get a license even with a gun related, violent criminal past. Most states in the US are this way right?

 

Any felony conviction, violent misdemeanor conviction or disqualifying mental condition, if the national database is correctly updated. Nothing is done to any of these who get caught trying to buy a gun from a legal source and fail a background check, however.

The most common source for a criminal to get a gun is through a straw purchase, where a friend or relative of the criminal buys the gun and sells/gives it to the prohibited person. That act has a $250,000 fine and 10 years imprisonment yet those don't seem to affect the willingness of straw purchasers to get guns for criminals.

 

Federal law already requires background checks for purchases.
Licensing of gun owners is unnecessary and violates the Constitution.

Only a couple US states require a license to purchase a firearm.

 

License to purchase a firearm.

New York City- licenses to purchase and possess and carry a handgun.
License to purchase / possess a rifle or shotgun, to purchase ammo in the 5 Boroughs of N.Y.C.

California requires licenses.
Massachusettes....
New Jersey.

 

Nothing is done? What should be done?

 

To even have the background check performed they had to acknowledge on the Form 4473 that they weren't a prohibited person, which includes felons. Over 34k told that lie, which is in itself a felony.

What do you think we should do with felons who commit a felony trying to get a gun?

 

I'm confused. My understanding of background checks in any aspect of life, not just guns, is that they check police records. From what you're saying, it seems that these background checks for gun licenses, people conduct on themselves.

 

Background checks for a gun purchase are conducted by licensed dealers using a national background check system.

 

Which checks police records?