"I'm not familiar with the gun laws in every state, but given that guns may be purchased freely on the Internet, "

That's what is known as a "self-confirming statement". Your given is flat out false, (As everyone who has ever bought a gun well knows; A matter of federal, not state, law.) and that's quite relevant, in as much as buying a gun IS a civil right, unlike flying, or buying cold medicine.

Unless you happen to be a licensed gun dealer, if you want to "buy a gun over the internet", you will have to have it delivered to a licensed gun dealer, where you can pick it up *after showing ID*.

You were on a roll until you spouted that one, though. But it was the most important one, because it is the most on point.

That's my personal indicator for whether somebody really cares about burdening civil rights, by the way. If you object to voter ID, but are fine with FBI background checks for a different civil liberty, I doubt your position is really as principled as you claim.

"[U]nder federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. And assault weapons have been fair game since the ban on them expired in 2004."

The DOJ refers to private sellers as "secondary market" sales that are "exempt from the requirements of federal law to show identification."

If you are well known at a given bank, most tellers would not ask for your ID. No Photo ID is required to use an automated teller machine.

Brett Bellmore @1, referencing such modest gun safety regulations as criminal background checks, states:

If you object to voter ID, but are fine with FBI background checks for a different civil liberty, I doubt your position is really as principled as you claim.

Setting aside the dubious proposition that the Second Amendment affords individuals with a "constitutional right" to own a gun, your comment ignores the fact that the exercise of the fundamental right to vote has never given rise to the unbridled carnage that has been unleashed when nut cases exercise their "right" to a wide array of firearms by carrying out mass murders.

Moreover, as noted in comment #2, there is nothing in the way of criminal background checks or even the need to furnish any form of ID when purchasing a weapon (including assault weapons) on the "secondary market."

My prediction is that the Supreme Court will pass on hearing this, on the legal principle that doing so helps the Republican Party electorially --- the legal precedent established in Bush v Gore and Citizens United. They've left out the words "irreparable" or "injury" just to UNDERLINE that there is no other principle involved. RULE OF LAW is a concept fascists* (e.g., John Roberts) don't believe in. * I use the term in its political science definition.

""[U]nder federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. "

This requires the transaction to be face to face, and intra-state. I generally don't regard two people an arm's length apart in the same room as being "over the internet".

So, Brett Bellmore @6, are you suggesting that the inability to purchase a firearm over the net amounts to a denial of your civil liberties?

Are you really suggesting that the ability to buy a gun is even close to being on the same level as the right to vote?

Really?

A big problem we have in this country is that talk radio continues to rule the conservative world and there's nothing we can do about it. Forget about Rush Limbaugh, a good chunk of local talk radio makes Limbaugh look like Walter Cronkite by comparison. And that's how talk radio fans see him, as a moderate conservative who explains the news, while their favorite talk radio host is their big brother or uncle who tells them what's really going on.

And these guys are professional talkers who have no expertise besides their ability to sound knowledgeable and convince their listeners that they're laying out the common sense that they all know in their hearts is true because it confirms their worldview as victims. I know people who listen to talk radio and it's difficult to even get them to consider the possibility that what they're hearing on the radio isn't gospel truth. Because hey, these guys dog on Republicans just as much as Democrats, so that can only mean that they're unbiased and only want to tell you the truth. And no matter how much you try, you can't convince them that all of this "independent" thinking is from a far-rightwing position designed to make you hate politics in general and Democrats in particular.

It's somewhat fortunate that the main thing these guys want to do is to convince people who should vote Democrat to not vote at all. But then we have politicians and judges repeating what they hear on the radio (while never citing their source), spilling it out like it's gospel truth and refusing to consider the possibility of any other position. And that's because talk radio has a direct line into their brains and repeatedly assures them that they're giving both sides of the story; and only one of the sides makes sense.

And while the internet has been a blessing for liberals, since it gives us a way of communicating and fighting untruths, talk radio remains out of our reach entirely. And as much as people can form bubbles online to only read what they want to read, on talk radio, the bubbles are forcefields that can't be penetrated. So conservatives go unchallenged and we end up with judges like this dude and Scalia repeating the same absurdities that are fed to them by talk radio, and they refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong since it made so much sense when the guy on the radio says it.

And I honestly have no clue how to fight it. But the next time you hear a conservative spouting out terrible absurdities that sound like they're discussing a different planet, just ask yourself if it sounds like the sort of thing a local radio guy would make up. You'll find it probably is and that the guy you're talking to is just a puppet for the guy on the radio who told him what to think. And it's pointless to debate puppets.

Oh, and for anyone who thinks you can't buy guns online, here's a Cracked article you'll hate. And most likely, you'll insist it's wrong or not a big deal, just like all the conservatives in the comments section there did. And of the comments I saw, not one actually admitted that they think it's great that you can buy guns online without a background check, since they don't support that policy. They just want to pretend it's not true.

But sorry, like it or not, people can currently buy guns online, including free shipping and you support those policies. And that's why it's so absurd that you guys talk about how criminals can buy guns through the black market, since that'd be a huge improvement over how things are now. Conservatives like to pretend the black market is like Walmart and we're just leveling the playing field by making it easy to buy guns. But in reality, black market guns are more expensive and harder to get, and it'd be great if we could limit criminals to going that route.

Brett Bellmore @ 6:

"[U]nder federal law, you can buy a gun through a private seller without even showing an ID. "

This requires the transaction to be face to face, and intra-state.

Just so I'm clear here. You are saying you concur that a gun can be legally purchased without a Photo ID, but you disagree with the general example I offered for doing so in the article above?

As counsel for the Indiana Democratic Party in Crawford, I share your outrage, as well as that of Prof. Hasen, over the 3-judge panel's cavalier decision in Frank v. Walker to reverse the district court's careful and completely correct decision, a ruling supported by copious expert and lay testimony, declaring the Wisconsin ID law invalid both under the 14th amendment and Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I too am aghast at Easterbrook's unconscionable references to myths and lies as "facts," and his dismissive attitude of the scholarly studies of renowned experts. We confronted similar hostility in Crawford, when the district court judge, also a Reagan appointee, trashed our expert's testimony about the number of voters lacking the required ID. What also caught my attention was Easterbrook's reference in yesterday's ruling to what he now characterizes as the "extensive record" in Crawford. I find this comment incredibly ironic, since we were roundly criticized by the original panel in Crawford (and implicitly by the 7 judges, including Easterbrook, who voted against en banc review) for presenting insufficient evidence to establish the law's discriminatory effects. To the extent I had any lingering doubts, Easterbrook's statements convince me that we lost in Crawford, not because of any real or perceived deficiencies in the record, but rather because of certain judges' (all of whom happen to have been appointed by Republican presidents) predisposition to approve any voter ID law regardless of the quantity or quality of the evidence of the severe burdens these unnecessary laws impose. Other than Judge Posner, who to his great credit now clearly understands the blatant political purposes of these laws, the judges who have upheld Wisconsin's law seem utterly impervious to any arguments against them. These judges parrot the bromide that since ID laws promote confidence in the system of some voters, they mustn't be disturbed. Of course, stationing armed guards at the polls might give some voters greater "confidence," as would requiring voters to give DNA samples to prove their identity. But I suspect that implementing these types of draconian measures would shock the consciences of even more voters. I, too, will be watching with keen interest SCOTUS's response to the Wisconsin plaintiffs' request to restore the stay. Our democracy and system of free elections hang by the thinnest of threads these days. For SCOTUS to allow the Wisconsin law to take effect prior to this year's elections could well signal the final triumph of the oligarchs.

Doctor Biobrain @ 8 said:

A big problem we have in this country is that talk radio continues to rule the conservative world and there's nothing we can do about it.

That issue is one that we have been attempting to deal with, write about, discuss on radio and TV for years here, even as Dems and liberals and progressives (as you suggested in your comment) continue to believe that their presence on the Internet somehow outweighs the tens of millions who are brainwashed by Rightwing radio on the way to and from work every single day.

And I honestly have no clue how to fight it.

It's the most difficult battle with the most damaging consequences to our nation, in my opinion. So, yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We have covered just some of the fight to restore our public airwaves to the public, but it has been a very difficult battle, particularly with progressive public interest groups seemingly more worried about Net Neutrality than about the public airwaves which they've seemingly already ceded to commercial interests.

To see just some of the coverage and/or attempted legal battles to restore the public airwaves (and to hold the FCC accountable for failing to do their job) that we've covered over the years, peruse the "Public Airwaves" items in this BRAD BLOG search.

Doctor Biobrain @ 9:

Thanks for the link to the Cracked article. I've added a link to it in the story above, as well as another one there to help pre-bunk arguments akin to the one Brett Bellmore is attempting to offer above.

Oh, and welcome to The BRAD BLOG! Your input is excellent and much appreciated!

Bill Groth @ 11:

Your thoughts and insight above here are greatly appreciated. I know Ernie Canning (our legal analyst) certainly shares the bulk of your observations, concerns, and in particularly, the idea expressed in your last line: "Our democracy and system of free elections hang by the thinnest of threads these days. For SCOTUS to allow the Wisconsin law to take effect prior to this year's elections could well signal the final triumph of the oligarchs."

Bill Groth @11 wrote:

we were roundly criticized by the original panel in Crawford (and implicitly by the 7 judges, including Easterbrook, who voted against en banc review) for presenting insufficient evidence to establish the law's discriminatory effects.

Actually, Bill, there were only five (5) judges on the 7th Circuit who voted against en banc review. Those five included Easterbrook and the rest of the all-Republican three judge panel.

The other five (5) 7th Circuit judges voted to grant en banc review. Judge Posner, who rejected your appeal in Crawford, was one of the five (5) 7th Circuit judges who voted to grant review.

Thus, five (5) of the seven (7) 7th Circuit Judges who did not take part in the original panel decision would have granted review.

Brett @6

You seem to be grasping at straws (or strawmen) here; the point of the article is that Judge Easterbrook made gross errors of fact in both saying photo ID was required for numerous activities it is not required for, and in conflating activities which are privileges (such as air travel, or buying booze) with one that is not just a right, but the central right of a representative democracy - the right to vote.

While it may not be legal to purchase a gun via the Internet or across state lines, it is naive in the extreme to think in absence of actual regulation that such does not happen - routinely. You want to vacate Brad's entire argument, based on your perception of error or hypocracy in one statement - one that Brad himself admitted was a point he wasn't clear on. Which really reveals that you are happy to throw away millions of citizen’s rights to vote based on the false premise that getting a gun, which you equate as a comparable right to voting (I wouldn't, but hey, at least there is an argument there based on the 2nd Amendment) isn't easier than getting the required ID in states like WI. So who’s the phony who doesn’t believe all rights are worth defending?

Hasen now describes Easterbrook's argument as "chutzpah-filled."

Amongst attorneys, the classic definition of "chutzpah" is the little boy who murdered his parents and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan.

Ernie Canning wrote @ 15 to Bill Groth @ 11:

Actually, Bill, there were only five (5) judges on the 7th Circuit who voted against en banc review. Those five included Easterbrook and the rest of the all-Republican three judge panel.

Actually, Ernie, I think Bill was referring to the original Crawford case when it made its way through the 7th Circuit back in 2008.

Greg J wrote @ 16:

While it may not be legal to purchase a gun via the Internet

As it turns out, it's perfectly legal.

"Just so I'm clear here. You are saying you concur that a gun can be legally purchased without a Photo ID, but you disagree with the general example I offered for doing so in the article above?"

Precisely. Guns can not be purchased "over the internet" unless you are a dealer, who had to provide considerably more than just photo ID to achieve that status. They CAN be purchased without ID, but only in face to face transactions by residents of the same state.

And your clarification scarcely retracts the false component of your original claim.

Greg, I think it not incidental that the one point he was actually wrong about, was the only one of them which was also a civil liberty.

For the record, I think the case for photo ID for voting is better than the case for purchasing a gun. Because as a voter, I have the right to cast only one vote per election, in one place, and this clearly requires that I be identified when I vote.

But as a citizen I am neither limited in the number of guns I may purchase, nor where I may purchase them, so my identity is considerably less relevant to the transaction.

Brett Bellmore @21 wrote:

For the record, I think the case for photo ID for voting is better than the case for purchasing a gun.

1. The number of mass murders in this country amply demonstrates the need for not only a photo ID but complete background checks prior to anyone acquiring a firearm. (Unfortunate, that whackos can purchase guns at gun shows sans any ID)/

2. For citizens who have nothing to hide, a background check merely creates a short wait until they clear the background check. It doesn't stop the eventual "lawful" purchase from taking place. You may find that inconvenient, but that's a far cry from a deprivation of your questionable "right" to buy a firearm.

3. No one has ever made out a valid case for conditioning the right to vote on a state-issued photo ID. The only type of voter fraud that can be prevented by polling place photo IDs is in person voter impersonation --- a phantom menace.

Here, Wisconsin could not point to a single case of in person voter fraud having occurred at any time in that state's history. Yet, Wisconsin Republicans are asking the courts to permit them to disenfranchise 10% of the electorate?

So what exactly is this "case" for polling place photo IDs of which you speak?

3. Where a criminal background check only results in a temporary delay in the acquisition of a firearm, the prospect of 1/10 of Wisconsin's voters losing their right to vote in the Nov. 2014 election will have permanent consequences. Unlike the delay in gun ownership, the loss of one's ability to vote is a permanent loss.

But thanks for playing the mindless, right wing talking points game. Always amusing to watch a wingnut flame out because of their inability to apply simple logic, reason and accountability for what they heard on right wing radio and chose to repeat.

BTW Brett, if people have a right to purchase guns, do they also have the right to buy a grenade launcher? a bomb? If not, why not?

Brett Bellmore @ 20 & 21:

Sorry, Brett. You appear to simply be wrong about buying guns via the Internet. The links I added make that clear, as well as a 5 minute Google search revealing all sorts of guns being made available for purchase via the Internet. While it may be illegal for a licensed seller to sell w/o ID (in a few states) over the net, there are all kinds of folks selling guns, apparently legally, online. They will also ship to me, though I don't know if that's legal or not.

I might have bothered to figure out the specifics on that, but given your silly comment @ 21, I realize now you're not actually a serious person. Suggesting that you'd rather see a voter who has identified themselves when they registered to vote (the law in all 50 states) and identified themselves again in person when voting (also must be done before voting, and via ID, without a problem, in the majority of states) somehow jump through still another hoop that risks disenfranchising millions in order to prevent virtually ZERO cases of in-person fraud --- versus showing an ID when buying a gun, suggests you're not serious in the least. That you are more concerned with the imaginary idea that there are all sorts of people casting multiple votes in person, thus diluting your vote, but clearly couldn't give a damn about the tens or hundreds of thousands of legal voters not being able to vote at all under GOP state-issued Photo ID restrictions (and thus "diluting" MY vote) underscores your unAmerican, unConstitutional game here. Not interested in playing, chief. Good luck.

I am curious what readers of this site think about this statement: "What action you can take is more consequential to you, your family, your friends, your children and your grandchildren than voting? Since it is such a powerful function, with long-term consequences, why shouldn't you be required to prove you are the one and only person on the planet allowed to vote as you at that location for whatever/whoever is on the ballot in the manner you personally believe best benefits you, your family, your children and your grandchildren and even your friends? What better way to prove this than with a state/federal-issued photo ID, especially if obtaining one is often free if necessary?"

Darold Mergens,

I'm curious about people who can't be bothered to find the answers to their questions right in the very post they're commenting under before dropping their fly-by shit.

"Photo ID is essential to...enter Canada or any other foreign nation"

Perhaps. It's also "essential" to prove you have been vaccinated for malaria for the privilege of going to certain foreign nations. Would Easterbrook be okay with a vaccination requirement before exercising the right to vote on that basis as well? It's a silly argument.

This is actually a correct fact, though quite unrelated to the discussion at hand.

The reason why it is required though is because after 9/11, the United States government, as part of PATRIOT USA, required that anyone and everyone would require a passport or some other form of authorized biometric ID in order to enter the United States. This is equally applicable to US citizens as it is to NON US citizens.

In response to that, foreign countries, because they are generally required to ensure that people can get back to the United States if they leave, now require that one has a valid passport or other suitable ID, all of which have photo identification.

In most of these situations where you claim you don't need "a photo ID", you do need to confirm your identity. Tell us how you can confirm your identity positively at a polling place without showing ID?

And when you're done with that, show me where it says voting is a right. Don't bother with the Bill of Rights; it just says voting can't be denied because of sex or race, but it doesn't say voting is a right.

jwoop66 @ 27 asked:

A majority of states already require ID when voting, and it's no problem, because they allow for many different documents, such as Drivers License and other forms of Photo ID, but also bank statement, utility bills, pay stubs, social security cards, Veterans IDs, student IDs etc.

Also, federal law already requires ID when registering to vote in all 50 states. You already knew that, right?

Beyond that, addresses, signatures, names, etc already help to identify voters and it has proven to be no problem. I say "no problem" because every single state that has had to defend their Republican Photo ID voter disenfranchisement scheme has so far failed to show voter fraud that might have been deterred by the type of strict Photo ID restrictions they are attempting to institute.

As Judge Lynn Adelman said about WI's version of the law, which threatened to keep 300,000 legally registered voters (10% of the electorate) from voting this year, the new restriction on voting there would "prevent more legitimate votes from being cast than fraudulent votes."

I'm sure you can't justify that, can you? Because, so far, nobody else has been able to.

Hope that helps you understand what you didn't previously.

Well, you might want to read any state or U.S. District Court ruling that found Photo ID restrictions to be both unconstitutional (14th "Equal Justice" and 24th "Poll Tax" Amendments) and a violation of the Voting Rights Act, which enforces the 15th Amendment.

You may also wish to read the several state court rulings on Photo ID (in WI, MO, PA, AR, etc.) which found such laws in violation of state Constitutions that guarantee the right to vote to all, unlike the U.S. Constitution, which only allows that it can't be abridged due to race, etc., and a few other specific situations.

The fact that you also don't seem to know about the rulings that have found these laws to disproportionately affect minorities (thus, violating the U.S. Constitutional right against discrimination in voting), means you really have a lot of work to do in order to understand voting rights in this country. So I hope all of this helped. You're welcome!

I haven't attempted to cash a check at a currency exchange lately, so can't speak to that. But, again, cashing a check in that way is a privilege, not a right, just like the other items, other than voting, mentioned here.

Why are you under the impression that voting is a right? Where in the constitution does the "right" to vote exist?

Andy S. @ 29 asked the same tired question:

Why are you under the impression that voting is a right? Where in the constitution does the "right" to vote exist?

Looks like you are unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution, as well as many state Constitutions, such as in WI, PA, MO, etc.

But, so that I don't repeat myself, please read my response on this issue @ 28, directly above your comment on the exact same issue, in response to the earlier commenter who suggested same @ 27.

Thanks! Feel free to let me know if you have any more questions!