Voter ID and Gun Rights is the title of the article. Mr. Cooke begins by pointing out how difficult it is for some to get a photo ID. Quite true.
I've had some experience with that myself in trying to help someone get a photo ID. If a certified copy of a birth certificate had not surfaced it might have been a fruitless effort. In Texas an applicant has a huge burden to overcome to obtain a photo ID if he/she doesn't already have a photo ID.
Back to Mr. Cooke. He presents both sides of the argument for requiring a photo ID to vote. Then he addresses the right to bear arms. Federal law requires a prospective gun buyer to present an ID and undergo a background check before buying a gun from a licensed dealer.
Then to obtain a concealed carry license an applicant not only has to present valid identification and undergo another background check, he/she must take a class, pass a test on the law, and prove proficiency with firearms. Here's Mr. Cooke:
This is to say that progressives who rail against similar requirements at the voting booth spend much of the rest of their time doing their level best to expand the use of identification requirements within the Second Amendment’s sphere and attempt to complicate the system of private sales — including between family members. Could we not fairly make the case here, as opponents make the case against voter ID, that these rules are going to limit — unfairly and disproportionately — poor, minority, and immigrant Americans’ access to what is an enumerated and recognized constitutional right? Could one not make the case, further, that this is particularly worrying given that the poor are more likely to be in need of the means of self-protection than are the rich? I rather think that we can.
If ID requirements for gun ownership are justified for that constitutional right, they should be justified for voting rights as well. Good point, Mr. Cooke.