Voter ID laws and firearm background checks. Two sides of the same coin?

[Tarheeler]

I was watching the news this morning, and there a quick blurb about local election fraud. Well, that go my mind wandering, and I ended up thinking about voter ID laws and federal background check requirements to buy firearms.

I see them as being related because they both involve individual rights and proving you are eligible to exercise them. But that's not the topic of the thread.

What I want to figure out is why both the Republicans and Democrats take hypocritical stances on both issues.

Typically, Republicans favor voter ID laws, arguing that only citizens have the right to participate and that the current system, by not verifying both eligibility and identity, encourages fraud. But, at the same time, they will call for reduced verification for firearm purchases by arguing that it restricts the right to keep and bear arms.

And many Democrats take the opposite stances, and argue that while the general public benifits from each gun buyer verifying his eligibility to own a firearm, a large part of the public is denied their right by having to show picture ID to vote.

It just baffles me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I was watching the news this morning, and there a quick blurb about local election fraud. Well, that go my mind wandering, and I ended up thinking about voter ID laws and federal background check requirements to buy firearms.
I see them as being related because they both involve individual rights and proving you are eligible to exercise them. But that's not the topic of the thread.
What I want to figure out is why both the Republicans and Democrats take hypocritical stances on both issues.
Typically, Republicans favor voter ID laws, arguing that only citizens have the right to participate and that the current system, by not verifying both eligibility and identity, encourages fraud. But, at the same time, they will call for reduced verification for firearm purchases by arguing that it restricts the right to keep and bear arms.
And many Democrats take the opposite stances, and argue that while the general public benifits from each gun buyer verifying his eligibility to own a firearm, a large part of the public is denied their right by having to show picture ID to vote.
It just baffles me.

Are you accusing parties of apply different standards to their pet likes & dislikes?
If I didn't know better, I'd accuse you of being a cynic!

 

[Tarheeler]

Are you accusing parties of apply different standards to their pet likes & dislikes?
If I didn't know better, I'd accuse you of being a cynic!

Guilty as charged.

 

[Tarheeler]

Thoughts? Comments?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My main thought is that those voter ID laws are seen by many (myself included) as a voter suppression technique. I think the intent behind them isn't so much to make it more difficult to vote for everyone as it is an attempt to reduce the number of people who can't afford cars or foreign travel - and therefore have little need for a driver's licence or passport, the two most common forms of government photo ID - who vote at all, since they tend not to vote Republican.

I don't see the same sort of intent behind background check rules for weapons. I think there, the intent really is to screen out people who would fail a background check.

In contrast, I DON'T think that voter ID laws are really about screening out people who are ineligible to vote.

 

[Tarheeler]

My main thought is that those voter ID laws are seen by many (myself included) as a voter suppression technique. I think the intent behind them isn't so much to make it more difficult to vote for everyone as it is an attempt to reduce the number of people who can't afford cars or foreign travel - and therefore have little need for a driver's licence or passport, the two most common forms of government photo ID - who vote at all, since they tend not to vote Republican.

I don't see the same sort of intent behind background check rules for weapons. I think there, the intent really is to screen out people who would fail a background check.

In contrast, I DON'T think that voter ID laws are really about screening out people who are ineligible to vote.

Would you be fine with voter ID laws if ID was provided?

And do you also feel that background checks and the ID requirements for purchasing firearms are equally restrictive?

 

[Revoltingest]

My main thought is that those voter ID laws are seen by many (myself included) as a voter suppression technique. I think the intent behind them isn't so much to make it more difficult to vote for everyone as it is an attempt to reduce the number of people who can't afford cars or foreign travel - and therefore have little need for a driver's licence or passport, the two most common forms of government photo ID - who vote at all, since they tend not to vote Republican.
I don't see the same sort of intent behind background check rules for weapons. I think there, the intent really is to screen out people who would fail a background check.
In contrast, I DON'T think that voter ID laws are really about screening out people who are ineligible to vote.

Well, of course you think that way....yer one of those commie Canuckistanians....just cuter than most.
I think voter ID is just basic security, same as a driver license, SS card or any other means of verifying someone is who they claim.
This is the 21st century, & we are identified for dang near everything. I've given my fingerprints several times for various licenses,
so why not expect that voters have more to ID them then just saying their name?
Gun licensing is the same. We should know that the licensed person is who he/she says he/she is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thinking about this more, I think I see a non-hypocritical take on this from the other side as well:

Under American law, the right to vote is vested only in citizens. Therefore, ascertaining if a voter is a citizen is a legitimate purpose for government action.

OTOH, also under American law, the right to keep and bear arms isn't vested only in citizens, but in "the people" as a whole. Since the law is broader as to who can bear arms than it is as to who can vote, it stands to reason that the tests of identity should be less strict for buying firearms than they should for voting.

I'm not sure I agree with this myself, but I think it logically flows from a certain set of premises.

 

[Revoltingest]

Thinking about this more, I think I see a non-hypocritical take on this from the other side as well:
Under American law, the right to vote is vested only in citizens. Therefore, ascertaining if a voter is a citizen is a legitimate purpose for government action.

It's nice to see an intelligent mind evolve.

OTOH, also under American law, the right to keep and bear arms isn't vested only in citizens, but in "the people" as a whole.

The Supreme Court & I disagree with you on that point.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you be fine with voter ID laws if ID was provided?

And do you also feel that background checks and the ID requirements for purchasing firearms are equally restrictive?

For voter ID, I think it depends how the ID is done. If there were some sort of easy-to-get free government photo ID, then maybe... but if people have to get -and pay for - driver's licences or passports that they'll never use except for voting, then I think it amounts to a poll tax.

For firearms... I've never done a firearms background check, but I've had criminal record checks for my volunteer stuff. Yeah, I suppose it's a hassle, but I can see the rationale behind it. I also don't think that the right to bear arms means that the gocernment is absolutely prohibited from doing anything that might make firearm purchase more difficult; if that were the case, there would be no sales tax on guns, right?

 

[Tarheeler]

For voter ID, I think it depends how the ID is done. If there were some sort of easy-to-get free government photo ID, then maybe... but if people have to get -and pay for - driver's licences or passports that they'll never use except for voting, then I think it amounts to a poll tax.

If the ID is provided, then it would be free of charge to the individual.

I'm thinking of Justice Steven's majority opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

For firearms... I've never done a firearms background check, but I've had criminal record checks for my volunteer stuff. Yeah, I suppose it's a hassle, but I can see the rationale behind it. I also don't think that the right to bear arms means that the gocernment is absolutely prohibited from doing anything that might make firearm purchase more difficult; if that were the case, there would be no sales tax on guns, right?

But that doesn't answer the question.

If requiring ID to vote restricts those who do not have ID, wouldn't logic also say that background checks, which also require a picture ID among additional fees, restrict gun ownership for the same group of people?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the ID is provided, then it would be free of charge to the individual.

I'm thinking of Justice Steven's majority opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board:

"The relevant burdens here are those imposed on eligible voters who lack photo identification cards that comply with SEA 483. Because Indiana’s cards are free, the inconvenience of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering required documents, and posing for a photograph does not qualify as a substantial burden on most voters’ right to vote, or represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting."

Okay. I gotcha.

Unless there were extenuating circumstances (e.g. the DMV office locations are so spread out that it's onerous to get to one without a car, or their hours are so restrictive that it's a burden to get to them when they're open), then sure - I think that sounds reasonable.

But that doesn't answer the question.

If requiring ID to vote restricts those who do not have ID, wouldn't logic also say that background checks, which also require a picture ID among additional fees, restrict gun ownership for the same group of people?

Oh... okay. I think I misunderstood you before. I gotcha now.

I don't think they do to the same degree because a firearm is already a pretty expensive piece of equipment, so it seems to me that buying a gun would be out of reach for most poor people anyhow.

And as I kinda touched on before, it seems that you're saying here that the expense of a background check (including the expense of getting the ID that a check would require) is what represents the obstacle. If that's the case, then wouldn't this apply to any government fee or tax attached to a firearm purchase like, say, sales taxes on firearms?



I think it comes down to another question as well: while voting and firearms ownership might both be legal rights, who's expected to pay the cost that go along with these rights?

In the case of voting, I'd argue that part of the right to vote is that voting should be free. OTOH, it's not part of the right to bear arms that guns be free. I think this means that the government (and by extension, all taxpayers) aren't obligated to pay for the cost of background checks for firearm purchases. However, since they do cost money to do, that cost has be shouldered by someone... so it falls on the purchaser.

I do think, though, that the government does have a responsibility to keep the background check fee at a level that provides only cost recovery. If the government is charging extra as a sort of special tax on firearm purchase, I think this would violate a right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Tarheeler]

Okay. I gotcha.

Unless there were extenuating circumstances (e.g. the DMV office locations are so spread out that it's onerous to get to one without a car, or their hours are so restrictive that it's a burden to get to them when they're open), then sure - I think that sounds reasonable.

I think it's reasonable as long as ID is provided as well.

Oh... okay. I think I misunderstood you before. I gotcha now.

I don't think they do to the same degree because a firearm is already a pretty expensive piece of equipment, so it seems to me that buying a gun would be out of reach for most poor people anyhow.

And as I kinda touched on before, it seems that you're saying here that the expense of a background check (including the expense of getting the ID that a check would require) is what represents the obstacle. If that's the case, then wouldn't this apply to any government fee or tax attached to a firearm purchase like, say, sales taxes on firearms?


I think it comes down to another question as well: while voting and firearms ownership might both be legal rights, who's expected to pay the cost that go along with these rights?

In the case of voting, I'd argue that part of the right to vote is that voting should be free. OTOH, it's not part of the right to bear arms that guns be free. I think this means that the government (and by extension, all taxpayers) aren't obligated to pay for the cost of background checks for firearm purchases. However, since they do cost money to do, that cost has be shouldered by someone... so it falls on the purchaser.

I do think, though, that the government does have a responsibility to keep the background check fee at a level that provides only cost recovery. If the government is charging extra as a sort of special tax on firearm purchase, I think this would violate a right to keep and bear arms.

My question was clear and specific, and your response doesn't answer it.

But I think your response is a clear example of the situation I described in the OP. Logically, both situations creates similar restrictions on the same groups of people, but you defend one while denouncing the other. Even if your argument does have merit, it doesn't negate the restrictions created by the legislation; since firearms are commercial goods, their cost is not a factor in a discussion about state or federal legislation.

For the record, I support both voter ID and background checks for firearm purchases. I also support providing the required ID in order to ensure groups are not unduly burdened in the process.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My question was clear and specific, and your response doesn't answer it.

But I think your response is a clear example of the situation I described in the OP. Logically, both situations creates similar restrictions on the same groups of people, but you defend one while denouncing the other.

I disagree that they're necessarily similar. The mere fact that both are rights under the law doesn't mean that the same approach must be followed when deciding who should pay for the mechanics of administering that right.

Even if your argument does have merit, it doesn't negate the restrictions created by the legislation; since firearms are commercial goods, their cost is not a factor in a discussion about state or federal legislation.

Why not? What does "the right to keep and bear arms" entail? If it doesn't mean the right to weapons free of charge, then why would it necessarily imply that the government can't attach moderate charges to their purchase?

For the record, I support both voter ID and background checks for firearm purchases. I also support providing the required ID in order to ensure groups are not unduly burdened in the process.

Personally, I think that it's legitimate to require voters to provide evidence that they're eligible to vote and that they're at the right poll, but I don't think that this necessarily implies that this evidence has to be in the form of a photo ID.

As for firearms, I disagree with the American approach. I think it's reasonable for the government to put restrictions on firearm ownership, so I guess this means I don't believe in anything approaching an absolute right to keep and bear arms. However, for the purposes of this conversation, I've been trying to look at things from the American legal context, taking it as given that a right like this is in place.

 

[Tarheeler]

I disagree that they're necessarily similar. The mere fact that both are rights under the law doesn't mean that the same approach must be followed when deciding who should pay for the mechanics of administering that right.

The issue isn't who's paying for administering anything; it's whether or not the government is creating a restriction that limits specific groups.

Why not? What does "the right to keep and bear arms" entail? If it doesn't mean the right to weapons free of charge, then why would it necessarily imply that the government can't attach moderate charges to their purchase?

Because, as I made clear in my OP and my other responses, I created this thread to look at the restrictions created by legislation.

Personally, I think that it's legitimate to require voters to provide evidence that they're eligible to vote and that they're at the right poll, but I don't think that this necessarily implies that this evidence has to be in the form of a photo ID.

As for firearms, I disagree with the American approach. I think it's reasonable for the government to put restrictions on firearm ownership, so I guess this means I don't believe in anything approaching an absolute right to keep and bear arms. However, for the purposes of this conversation, I've been trying to look at things from the American legal context, taking it as given that a right like this is in place.

Ok.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because, as I made clear in my OP and my other responses, I created this thread to look at the restrictions created by legislation.

But you asked whether a difference in these restrictions between voting and firearms purchases was hypocritical. I think it's relevant to this question to ask just what the government is obligated to provide in each case: it's obligated to make sure people can vote for free; it's not obligated to make sure people can acquire arms for free.

Also, I think we have to consider the scale of the imposition.

In the case of voting, without some sort of free ID available, you're talking about forcing people to spend time and money to be able to pass their learner's permit exam (if not a full road test - I don't know if learner's permits have photos in every state - they didn't in Ontario when I had one) and then spend quite a bit of money to keep it current ($50 every 5 years here). This is quite a bit of expense. For many poor people, it represents a set of costs that are just too high to take on.

OTOH, consider the burden imposed by background checks: we're talking an extra couple of bucks (Virginia, the first state I was able to find the fee for, charges $2) on a purchase of hundreds of dollars. There will be very, very few people who would be turned away from a gun purchase over two bucks. Heck - if the background check is delayed so you have to wait to the next day to get the result, you'd spend more in gas going home and coming back than you'd pay for the background check.

BTW: until now, I assumed that the cost for a firearm background check was on the order of the cost for background checks I've done for my volunteer stuff: $50 to $60 or so. I just looked to see how much the cost is for the background checks you're talking about... $2?! You're complaining over two freakin' dollars?! In a lot of places, having to feed the city parking meter in front of the gun store would be a greater financial obstacle to gun ownership.

 

[Tarheeler]

But you asked whether a difference in these restrictions between voting and firearms purchases was hypocritical. I think it's relevant to this question to ask just what the government is obligated to provide in each case: it's obligated to make sure people can vote for free; it's not obligated to make sure people can acquire arms for free.

Also, I think we have to consider the scale of the imposition.

In the case of voting, without some sort of free ID available, you're talking about forcing people to spend time and money to be able to pass their learner's permit exam (if not a full road test - I don't know if learner's permits have photos in every state - they didn't in Ontario when I had one) and then spend quite a bit of money to keep it current ($50 every 5 years here). This is quite a bit of expense. For many poor people, it represents a set of costs that are just too high to take on.

OTOH, consider the burden imposed by background checks: we're talking an extra couple of bucks (Virginia, the first state I was able to find the fee for, charges $2) on a purchase of hundreds of dollars. There will be very, very few people who would be turned away from a gun purchase over two bucks. Heck - if the background check is delayed so you have to wait to the next day to get the result, you'd spend more in gas going home and coming back than you'd pay for the background check.

BTW: until now, I assumed that the cost for a firearm background check was on the order of the cost for background checks I've done for my volunteer stuff: $50 to $60 or so. I just looked to see how much the cost is for the background checks you're talking about... $2?! You're complaining over two freakin' dollars?! In a lot of places, having to feed the city parking meter in front of the gun store would be a greater financial obstacle to gun ownership.

At this point, I'll thank you for the conversation and be done with it.

This thread was never about the cost of the firearms, or the cost of the background checks. What you're ignoring is that the requirements of both the voter ID laws and firearm purchases require people to have valid picture ID. This places the exact same restriction on people who do not have such ID.

I was clear on the topic of this thread in my responses to you, and you insist on interjecting factors that absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

At this point, I'll thank you for the conversation and be done with it.

This thread was never about the cost of the firearms, or the cost of the background checks. What you're ignoring is that the requirements of both the voter ID laws and firearm purchases require people to have valid picture ID. This places the exact same restriction on people who do not have such ID.

I was clear on the topic of this thread in my responses to you, and you insist on interjecting factors that absolutely nothing to do with it.

Hmm. I think there was a bit of a disconnect, then. IMO, it was always about cost, since I think the voter ID laws are about imposing a financial cost on the poor in order to vote. Demanding a driver's licence from someone in abject poverty is a greater burden than demanding one from someone who has enough discretionary money that they can afford a gun.

But setting aside the issue of cost, the issues still aren't the same:

- how many people who would want to vote don't already have a driver's licence as a matter of course? Many, IMO.

- how many people who would want to purchase a gun don't already have a driver's licence as a matter of course? So few as to be negligible, IMO.

Also, consider that the address on your ID is relevant in a way that it's not for firearm purchase. In an election, they don't only have to confirm that you're eligible to vote at all; they have to confirm that you're eligible to vote at that particular poll. If you've just moved and haven't received your replacement ID with your new address, you could be denied the right to vote. OTOH, a person wouldn't fail a background check for this reason, would they? Demanding photo ID creates greater impositions for voting than it does for firearm ownership.