- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 49,651
- Reaction score
- 55,265
- Location
- Tucson, AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
New gun legislation proposes that anyone who wants to buy a firearm would need to submit their social media profiles and search history for review before buying a gun in New York.
Officials would be able to review up to three years worth of search history.
The bill was drafted by state Senator Kevin Parker and Brooklyn borough President Eric Adams.
IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY SOCIAL MEDIA
55 ACCOUNT OR SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY OF AN APPLICANT PRESENTS ANY GOOD CAUSE
56 FOR THE DENIAL OF A LICENSE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL, AFTER
S. 9191 3
1 OBTAINING THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS
2 SECTION, AND OBTAINING ANY LOG-IN NAME, PASSWORD OR OTHER MEANS FOR
3 ACCESSING A PERSONAL ACCOUNT, SERVICE, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS
4 DEVICE NECESSARY TO REVIEW SUCH APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AND
5 SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY, REVIEW AN APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR
6 THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR
7 AND INVESTIGATE AN APPLICANT'S POSTS OR SEARCHES RELATED TO (I) COMMONLY
8 KNOWN PROFANE SLURS OR BIASED LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE THE RACE, COLOR,
9 NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, GENDER, RELIGION, RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, AGE,
10 DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF A PERSON; (II) THREATENING THE
11 HEALTH OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON; (III) AN ACT OF TERRORISM; OR (IV)
12 ANY OTHER ISSUE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. FOR THE
13 PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, "SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS" SHALL ONLY INCLUDE
14 FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT, TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM, AND "SEARCH ENGINE" SHALL
15 ONLY INCLUDE GOOGLE, YAHOO AND BING. Upon completion of the investi-
16 gation, the police authority shall report the results to the licensing
17 officer without unnecessary delay.
It's fine because, according to many here...you don't need a gun anyway.https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
If it passes it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. The most they should be able to do in that regard is view their public pages.
Well, at least they're not requiring a semen sample. . .yet.https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
Not even that would serve as due process of law - the constitutional requirement to remove someone's 2A rights. That is even more silly than saying that one must provide a "good" reason to buy/carry a gun.
It sounds like a big F that.https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
That makes me think of something. It would NOT be a violation for them to view his public social media pages. It WOULD arguably be a violation of his rights if they REFUSED the sale based on the public social media pages. But then does that mean if law enforcement comes across such a post saying they are going to kill a bunch of people, that they can’t prohibit the sale?
Yes, that exactly what "due process of law" means. You are not presumed guilty simply because officer Joe thinks that you posted a threat on social media or searched the internet for "guns used by famous mass shooters". Only if one was convicted of a (felony?) crime, or (formally) adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others, can some of your constitutional rights be taken.
Ok, so,would it be unconstitutional to detain two high school boys that were overheard discussing their plans to shoot up their school?
Probably not, but based on that alone they could not be banned from buying a gun later (when they are old enough to do so). Arresting someone for "probable cause" is not the same as sentencing them to not having 2A rights. This proposed law is simply making it unnecessary to prove anything in court - if the "investigator" (officer Joe?) doesn't like your internet search history or you refuse to consent to its review then you are being denied a basic constitutional right with absolutely no arrest, trial or conviction being required.
Damn...I've never had a social media account. I wonder if they'd still let me buy a gun?
Ok, so what if the law gave police an option? If a person applies to buy the gun, they check his his public pages and see violent threats. Law enforcement then either has to authorize the sale OR dispatch a unit to detain and investigate him just like they would if we overheard him talking of such an attack? So he wasn’t technically denied the purchase, he was just detained for the online threats before the approval/disapproval was issued.
Would that pass Constituional scrutiny in your book?
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/...could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
A portion of the proposed legislation:
IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER ANY SOCIAL MEDIA55 ACCOUNT OR SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY OF AN APPLICANT PRESENTS ANY GOOD CAUSE56 FOR THE DENIAL OF A LICENSE, THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER SHALL, AFTERS. 9191 31 OBTAINING THE APPLICANT'S CONSENT PURSUANT TO SUBDIVISION THREE OF THIS2 SECTION, AND OBTAINING ANY LOG-IN NAME, PASSWORD OR OTHER MEANS FOR3 ACCESSING A PERSONAL ACCOUNT, SERVICE, OR ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS4 DEVICE NECESSARY TO REVIEW SUCH APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AND5 SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY, REVIEW AN APPLICANT'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR6 THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS AND SEARCH ENGINE HISTORY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR7 AND INVESTIGATE AN APPLICANT'S POSTS OR SEARCHES RELATED TO (I) COMMONLY8 KNOWN PROFANE SLURS OR BIASED LANGUAGE USED TO DESCRIBE THE RACE, COLOR,9 NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, GENDER, RELIGION, RELIGIOUS PRACTICE, AGE,10 DISABILITY OR SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF A PERSON; (II) THREATENING THE11 HEALTH OR SAFETY OF ANOTHER PERSON; (III) AN ACT OF TERRORISM; OR (IV)12 ANY OTHER ISSUE DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. FOR THE13 PURPOSES OF THIS SUBDIVISION, "SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS" SHALL ONLY INCLUDE14 FACEBOOK, SNAPCHAT, TWITTER AND INSTAGRAM, AND "SEARCH ENGINE" SHALL15 ONLY INCLUDE GOOGLE, YAHOO AND BING. Upon completion of the investi-16 gation, the police authority shall report the results to the licensing17 officer without unnecessary delay.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.
The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.
Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?
Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.
The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.
Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?
If it passes it will eventually be struck down as unconstitutional. The most they should be able to do in that regard is view their public pages.
Insofar as you need to ask, obviously not you....Seems to me that if the investigating officer has strong investigative and critical thinking skills -- the FBI special agents, administrators, and AFT agents I've met do -- the legislation should pose no problem.
The reality is that haters and other emotionally/mentally imbalanced and maladjusted individuals shouldn't be permitted to possess, let alone own, firearms. The noted legislation appears to be a means to suss whether a prospective gun buyer is such a soul.
Surely you think there are certain individuals whose personality militates against their having a gun?
Who gets to decide on someone's personality?
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
While I recognize that this is only in committee and that no vote is scheduled I do want to express that this is why "common sense" gun control is a complete misnomer.
Imagine, you're on a site like this and someone links to an article about "Proud Boys" or to a story about why some baker in Colorado won't bake a cake for a same sex wedding, that search could, if this legislation goes through, be used against you if you seek to purchase a firearm or renew a firearm permit in NY. It doesn't matter why you clicked on the link. You'd have to "prove" you had no bad intent.
https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/s9191
Note the "..any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer." Does that sound like "common sense" or does it sound more like "extreme overreach and invasion of privacy"?
It sounds like NY wants to violate law to enforce the law. Do they not realize that it is against contract to reveal your password to someone else? Do they not realize they can't force this? Do they not realize there is such a thing as a black market?
So the new "reasonable", "common sense", and any other idiotic misnomers of "gun safety" laws is to trample on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. :doh Yeah that will finally solve the problem
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?