Gun applicants in NY will have to hand over social accounts

[ElChupacabra]

Not really the same thing what-so-ever.

If you are buying a firearm and are going through a background check why should it not be an issue if you are posting violent posts, video, etc. on your social media account?

What doesn't make sense to me is how this won't stop people from simply deleting their social media accounts or claiming they don't have one. For example I don't have social media accounts, so I would not have one to claim. I suspect anyone who is interested in bypassing this law due to ill intent will have no problem lying about their accounts. Background checks make sense because that data cannot be altered or deleted in the same way social media accounts can.

 

[multivita-man]

Which, believe it or not, I’m also strongly against.

It doesn't matter if you're against it or not, though; it's pretty much baked into the cake.

If the rest of us are going to be subjected to living among every man, woman, child, and fetus with an assault rifle, I'd like to at least know who among us has disqualified themselves from gun ownership on the grounds of being unstable.

Gun rights activists are always deflecting attention away from guns and onto other things like mental health and mentally unstable people. Yet the moment you propose anything that might keep the mentally ill or otherwise unstable people away from firearms, they scream "Muh rights! Muh rights"

 

[bave]

It doesn't matter if you're against it or not, though; it's pretty much baked into the cake.

If the rest of us are going to be subjected to living among every man, woman, child, and fetus with an assault rifle, I'd like to at least know who among us has disqualified themselves from gun ownership on the grounds of being unstable.

Gun rights activists are always deflecting attention away from guns and onto other things like mental health and mentally unstable people. Yet the moment you propose anything that might keep the mentally ill or otherwise unstable people away from firearms, they scream "Muh rights! Muh rights"

Here's the problem.

You cannot violate one right to confirm another right.

Would you be ok if we did the same with voting?

 

[multivita-man]

Here's the problem.

You cannot violate one right to confirm another right.

Would you be ok if we did the same with voting?

Rights aren't absolute and don't exist in a vacuum. TBH, over the long term, concessions such as making sure the undiagnosed nutjob doesn't stockpile an arsenal is going to do more to preserve firearms rights than going to the extreme to protect gun rights in the absolutist sense. Not easy to see that now but it probably will be in hindsight.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Rights aren't absolute and don't exist in a vacuum. TBH, over the long term, concessions such as making sure the undiagnosed nutjob doesn't stockpile an arsenal is going to do more to preserve firearms rights than going to the extreme to protect gun rights in the absolutist sense. Not easy to see that now but it probably will be in hindsight.

Legally owning or wishing to carry a gun is not probable cause for a search. We should make the requirements to have 2A and voting rights identical.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If people don't like that, they can move to a state that doesn't require it.

Am I literally the only person on this forum who understands the 14th Amendment?

Individual rights that are protected by the Constitution are not subject to States' Rights. We fought a war over this.

 

[multivita-man]

Legally owning or wishing to carry a gun is not probable cause for a search. We should make the requirements to have 2A and voting rights identical.

It wouldn't be a wiretap, though; it's a consent-based search. You want a concealed firearm, okay, you can have one but we want to know just what kind of individual you are.

I agree that this provision may not survive the courts, but that's only by virtue of the fact that the republicans have stacked the judiciary with judges who've made up their own con-law and interpretation of history - because they can, not because it comports with reasonable interpretations of law and just plain logic.

 

[multivita-man]

Am I literally the only person on this forum who understands the 14th Amendment?

Individual rights that are protected by the Constitution are not subject to States' Rights. We fought a war over this.

"Equal protection" doesn't apply to consumer behaviors, though -- at least not traditionally. I do have to apply that caveat with this Supreme "Court."

 

[AliHajiSheik]

These social media companies scour their participants posts looking for the issues they care about, but they apparently didn’t do anything about the Highland Park shooter. Why would New York go after their own citizens when they could impose the duty to report on the social media companies.

If a mass shooter lied on their application in the “social media” section, what additional penalty does the law propose? Double secret probation?

 

[ttwtt78640]

It wouldn't be a wiretap, though; it's a consent-based search. You want a concealed firearm, okay, you can have one but we want to know just what kind of individual you are.

I agree that this provision may not survive the courts, but that's only by virtue of the fact that the republicans have stacked the judiciary with judges who've made up their own con-law and interpretation of history - because they can, not because it comports with reasonable interpretations of law and just plain logic.

It’s not consent-based if it is required to legally exercise a right.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

"Equal protection" doesn't apply to consumer behaviors, though -- at least not traditionally. I do have to apply that caveat with this Supreme "Court."

Not "equal protection", "privileges and immunities"; if the Constitution protects an individual right, the States are also not allowed to infringe upon it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not "equal protection", "privileges and immunities"; if the Constitution protects an individual right, the States are also not allowed to infringe upon it.

Yet many insist that it’s fine to have our 2A rights vary by state (even to the extent of becoming mere state issued privileges) while they demand that abortion “rights” become uniform throughout the nation.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Yet many insist that it’s fine to have our 2A rights vary by state (even to the extent of becoming mere state issued privileges) while they demand that abortion “rights” become uniform throughout the nation.

Constitutional rights aren't supposed to be multiple choice. They're supposed to be "all of them, all the time; get it right or pay the price".

Problem is, after we lost the Civil War, we were more worried about not humiliating the South than protecting American civil liberties and the descendants of the Confederate government have hollowed out our Constitution and have been wearing it around like an extra layer of white robes ever since.

 

[bave]

Rights aren't absolute and don't exist in a vacuum. TBH, over the long term, concessions such as making sure the undiagnosed nutjob doesn't stockpile an arsenal is going to do more to preserve firearms rights than going to the extreme to protect gun rights in the absolutist sense. Not easy to see that now but it probably will be in hindsight.

Again, your desire for a positive outcome doesn't justify violating the rights of innocent citizens. If you do this for guns, where does it end?

 

[multivita-man]

Not "equal protection", "privileges and immunities"; if the Constitution protects an individual right, the States are also not allowed to infringe upon it.

Fair enough, but as I posted here and elsewhere, I don't think the right (and thus, the privileges and immunities) to purchase a firearm is absolute, and it has to be balanced against the inherent police powers of government, as well as the "right" of a state to make reasonable laws to protect public safety - fully acknowledging this Court has already made it clear that it views gun rights (and a lot of other shit) quite differently - not only different from my own views but those of, well, pretty much the views Courts past.

 

[Paradoxical]

That is a ridiculous analogy. I expect my Constituional rights to be respected everywhere in the US, but nowhere in China.

You seem to be saying that states can convert exercising one’s Constitutional rights into a crime if they invent some ‘compelling state interest’ for doing so.

When in Rome………..you seem to be against states rights that do not violate the constitution

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Fair enough, but as I posted here and elsewhere, I don't think the right (and thus, the privileges and immunities) to purchase a firearm is absolute, and it has to be balanced against the inherent police powers of government, as well as the "right" of a state to make reasonable laws to protect public safety - fully acknowledging this Court has already made it clear that it views gun rights (and a lot of other shit) quite differently - not only different from my own views but those of, well, pretty much the views Courts past.

Basically every single word of this is false, and is the reason that keeping and bearing arms-- which requires purchasing them-- has to be a Constitutionally-protected right in the first place. The reason that we have a Bill of Rights is to establish that certain rights are absolute, and absolutely not subject to the "inherent police powers of government"; the 14th Amendment exists explicitly to say that the States don't have the right to make "reasonable laws" in contravention of these absolute rights.

 

[multivita-man]

Again, your desire for a positive outcome doesn't justify violating the rights of innocent citizens. If you do this for guns, where does it end?

Indeed, where does it end?

Where do the privileges of anyone who's ****ing bonkers but doesn't have a criminal conviction to prove it yet to go out and buy weapons that can murder 50 people in under a minute end, and where do the rights of people who just want to go out and enjoy a music concert or a parade begin?

 

[Aurora]

If people don't like that, they can move to a state that doesn't require it.

I am perfectly okay with states making their own rules for this sort of thing. My state is convenient, at the moment it takes a day or so to buy your first firearm, then an hour or so for any other firearms. Next door in CA, they're probably going to institute colonoscopy tests and asking for the criminal records of your family going back 7 generations.

They will want your voting history and whether you were part of seditious groups like the Boy Scouts and do you have a U.S. flag displayed on your house.

 

[multivita-man]

Basically every single word of this is false, and is the reason that keeping and bearing arms-- which requires purchasing them-- has to be a Constitutionally-protected right in the first place. The reason that we have a Bill of Rights is to establish that certain rights are absolute, and absolutely not subject to the "inherent police powers of government"; the 14th Amendment exists explicitly to say that the States don't have the right to make "reasonable laws" in contravention of these absolute rights.

Nope, not correct. There is no right that is absolute; people can have reasonable debates about what exactly the 2nd Amendment protects in terms of your individual right to purchase "arms" (doesn't say anything about "firearms", "guns", "shotguns", or "AR-15s"). I personally don't think the average person has the unfettered right to keep hand grenades and suitcase nukes for the purposes of self-defense, but you're welcome to entertain that argument I suppose. Courts have historically debated what it means, and until fairly recently, there were plenty of laws on the books that regulated the manufacture, distribution, purchase, possession, and use of guns without a ton of controversy.

 

[bave]

Indeed, where does it end?

Where do the privileges of anyone who's ****ing bonkers but doesn't have a criminal conviction to prove it yet to go out and buy weapons that can murder 50 people in under a minute end, and where do the rights of people who just want to go out and enjoy a music concert or a parade begin?

Sure, that's a fine point. However with the 2A and the 4A you can't just do this. You need to amend the constitution if you want to enable this sort of power for the state(s). The slippery slope is ugly indeed. The second the left justifies this, the right turns around and goes after voting full bore, etc. The fundamental issue here that we have on a lot of topics is that no one in government wants to do things the right way. If you want to have a serious conversation about constitutional rights, then do it via an amendment. That's the process, you can't have courts and states just trying to constantly backdoor it because their politics disagree with a topic.

 

[KingLeo]

What doesn't make sense to me is how this won't stop people from simply deleting their social media accounts or claiming they don't have one. For example I don't have social media accounts, so I would not have one to claim. I suspect anyone who is interested in bypassing this law due to ill intent will have no problem lying about their accounts. Background checks make sense because that data cannot be altered or deleted in the same way social media accounts can.

I am not sure but there must be a way for someone doing a background check on someone to do a search to uncover any and all social media accounts someone might have. Could it take the cooperation of companies like Facebook, etc? Perhaps.

 

[ClaraD]

The key line here is NON public accounts, this one for example. My account here is “anonymous” in the sense I don’t have anything related to my irl life. So is my Reddit account as well as my twitter.

Under this law I’d be held responsible for not disclosing those accounts.

There is still a digital link to you.

 

[ElChupacabra]

I am not sure but there must be a way for someone doing a background check on someone to do a search to uncover any and all social media accounts someone might have. Could it take the cooperation of companies like Facebook, etc? Perhaps.

Sure but once people are aware social media will be added to these checks, they can modify their accounts. That's what makes this odd to me from a management perspective.

 

[ClaraD]

The key line here is NON public accounts, this one for example. My account here is “anonymous” in the sense I don’t have anything related to my irl life. So is my Reddit account as well as my twitter.

Under this law I’d be held responsible for not disclosing those accounts.

even if you don't have your real life name on them...because they are public accounts (even if you have it where only friends can see them) it is considered public...and out in the open.....