Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation

[Cathoholic]

What other Constitutional Rights will be added to “checking” you Google searches, Facebook posts, etc.?

Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation​

Matt Richardson FoxNews 22 Nov 2018

Those looking to buy a gun in New York may need to submit their social media profiles and search history prior to purchase if new firearm legislation in the state becomes law.

Under the legislation drafted by Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and State Senator Kevin Parker, both Democrats, up to three years’ worth of search history on social media would be able to be reviewed, ABC Action News reported.

Senate Bill 9191, according to WHAM, mandates “social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.”

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation . . .

Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation | Fox News

The goal of course is to frog-boil this INFRINGEMENT into all gun purchases. (But it won’t stop there if these people/ideas get their way.)

. . . “There should be more restrictions on how guns are purchased. We should have more background checks,” Paul McQuillen, director of the Buffalo chapter of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, said. . . .

 

[JonNC]

What other Constitutional Rights will be added to “checking” you Google searches, Facebook posts, etc.?

Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation​

Matt Richardson FoxNews 22 Nov 2018

Those looking to buy a gun in New York may need to submit their social media profiles and search history prior to purchase if new firearm legislation in the state becomes law.

Under the legislation drafted by Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and State Senator Kevin Parker, both Democrats, up to three years’ worth of search history on social media would be able to be reviewed, ABC Action News reported.

Senate Bill 9191, according to WHAM, mandates “social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.”

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation . . .

Hey Cathoholic,
Does this mean what I think, that the state could decide whether or not one gets to exercise one’s constitutional right to arms based on the state approving how one exercises the constitutional right to speech?

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."

The only category that does not fall under free speech rights is the part I bolded. The article doesn’t mention if the state must provide due process prior to.

The bill could be troublesome to push through as critics argue it violates multiple constitutional rights.

You think?

 

[Cathoholic]

JonNC . . .

Hey Cathoholic,

Does this mean what I think, that the state could decide whether or not one gets to exercise one’s constitutional right to arms based on the state approving how one exercises the constitutional right to speech?

Under the proposed legislation, law enforcement officials could investigate "commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism."

Hey Jon.

I just don’t know.

It is troublesome because even though it probably isn’t going anywhere (soon), it puts the “idea” out there. Ideas have consequences.

It also is so extreme it makes other less “anti-Constitutional kook-talk” look more “mainstream”.

The fact that they feel like they are in a position to “partner” with Facebook, Google, etc. against its own citizens suggests to me this may already be going on in other areas (but I cannot testify to that).

I don’t think the courts would go for this but what do I know?

commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation

Can mean pretty much whatever you want it to mean. Way too nebulous.

Imagine Facebook, or Google (and the SPLC) being able to decide (in effect) which Americans may purchase fire arms!!!?

Absolutely bizarre. (But people will probably come on here and support it. I’ve never seen a proposal-for, to step on liberties of Americans, that some liberals do NOT support. Liberalism tends to be very self-destructive.)

They LOVE BIG Government AND BIG Business and more citizen dependence upon these entities.

Got a problem?
Start another inefficient Government program (a problem which Government was never designed or intended to remediate).
Make MORE rules and regs.
Have more certifications needed. Renew them annually (the lobbyists PROMISE they NEED to keep “up to date” with this racket, er, I mean, re-certifications.)
Make more laws.
Need more enforcement for these “more laws”.
Jail more citizens then complain about jailing too many people. Etc. etc.
(Then sit around wondering WHY so many Americans are in jail.)
Do nothing to encourage citizen INDEPENDENCE from unneccessary Government.
Take lots of vacations on other people’s money er, I mean, have update “conferences” in Orlando Florida in January.

I just don’t understand that way of thinking.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think Kevin S. Parker’s proposal would be found to be unconstitutional.

I don’t think it will go far.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

What about people with no social media history? Guess that will be considered an extremist position, hence rejected.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Are they anti-woman? Several thousand women per year save themselves from assault because they have a gun. Trying to make it difficult to obtain a gun can be considered anti-woman.

 

[Inisfallen]

Are they anti-woman? Several thousand women per year save themselves from assault because they have a gun. Trying to make it difficult to obtain a gun can be considered anti-woman.

No, it just can’t.

There is no way on earth having a different position than you do on gun regulation makes one anti-woman.

But I’m open to persuasion.

How many women are killed or injured each year by someone using a gun? Does allowing a gun to come into the hands of someone who would kill a woman with that gun make one anti-woman?

You can’t cherry pick your data if you’re going to make a claim like that. You have to look at the whole picture.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Here is a small excerpt from the link below (few readers read the links):
Self-defense:
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

• As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
• Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year – or about 6,850 times a day.7 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
• Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
• Anti-gun Clinton researchers find an annual total of 1.5 million self-defense cases. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” – a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
• Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).12 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. https://www.gunowners.org/fs0101.htm

 

[Inisfallen]

Here is a small excerpt from the link below (few readers read the links):

I do read links, actually. And what you posted does not address the question I posed.

Let me ask you a question – since you see gun rights as a feminist issue, do you favor factoring in domestic violence charges in determining whether someone should be permitted to possess and/or carry a firearm?

 

[1cthlctrth]

Yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to keep guns away from those who are convicted on domestic violence charges. Good point.

 

[Inisfallen]

Yes, I agree that it would be a good idea to keep guns away from those who are convicted on domestic violence charges. Good point.

How about people subject to restraining orders because of domestic violence? Should they be prohibited from possessing or carrying firearms (at least during the term of the restraining order)?

And what level of conviction? Felonies only, or misdemeanors (of domestic violence) as well?

 

[1cthlctrth]

Here are some average yearly death statistics to consider:

• 32,885 auto accidents
• 10,839 drunk driving
• 1,817 knives
• 674 blunt objects
• 453 rifles
• 18 military style assault rifles
  Guns are safer than many things we use every day. For example, nobody would say we should ban automobiles.

 

[Inisfallen]

• Guns are safer than many things we use every day. For example, nobody would say we should ban automobiles.

No, nobody says that. You’re right about that.

Interesting analogy, though. People do say we should regulate the right to drive. One needs a license.

And people do say we should ban, for example, drunk or otherwise intoxicated driving. Or driving too fast. Or incompetently (i.e., weaving, etc.) And we do say that people who have driven drunk should lose their licenses, for a period of time or forever.

And we do prohibit driving a car that has not passed a safety inspection (and an emissions inspection, as far as I know, at least in most states).

And we do ban driving certain kinds of motor vehicles on public roads.

 

[1cthlctrth]

I’ve never heard of a gun just “deciding” to kill or maim. Misuse by the USER is the problem with guns.

 

[Inisfallen]

I’ve never heard of a gun just “deciding” to kill or maim. Misuse by the USER is the problem with guns.

Nor have I. And I agree with you that guns themselves don’t just decide to kill someone.

However, unfortunately, people do decide to kill other people. With guns. All the time.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is a small excerpt from the link below (few readers read the links):

Of course we can definitely trust conclusions from www.gunowners.org, right???

Self-defense:
A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

This statement is not supported by the statistics that follow. (And it doesn’t even pass the smell test.)

• As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

“Use” does not mean it was needed. Not every instance of sexual abuse ends in death. So the 200,000 number is meaningless in supporting the main thesis.

• Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense.

Not every self-described “defensive gun use” results in saving a life. So the 2.5 million uses may be ignored as support for the main thesis.

Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year – or about 6,850 times a day.7 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Same problem, equating every gun use as a life saved.

• Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Still doesn’t advance the main thesis.

• Anti-gun Clinton researchers find an annual total of 1.5 million self-defense cases. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” – a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

Just because you call them anti-gun that does not mean they are going to be biased in the performance of their duties. And the definition of “self-defense cases” still includes things like scaring away teenage pranksters that are turning over garbage cans. Unless the statistics are examined in detail, you have absolutely no idea how many lives were saved.

• Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police.

“Crooks” does not mean “murders”. Armed citizens are not as careful as police so that is why they kill more often. As we have seen in the news lately, sometimes these “citizen uses” are very racially biased.

Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).12 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal.

There is “innocent” and there is “guilty of something, but not deserving to be shot.”

So while a lot of statistics can be carefully curated and presented to tell a story favorable to the gun worshippers, those statistics don’t bear close scrutiny.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here are some average yearly death statistics to consider:

• 32,885 auto accidents
• 10,839 drunk driving
• 1,817 knives
• 674 blunt objects
• 453 rifles
• 18 military style assault rifles
  Guns are safer than many things we use every day. For example, nobody would say we should ban automobiles.

Automobiles are much safer than guns when measured according to the number of person-hours of use. Of course more people are killed by cars because so many more cars are being driven so many more hours per year!

And your list left off handguns. And did you count suicides? Or just homicides?

 

[Cathoholic]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Automobiles are much safer than guns when measured according to the number of person-hours of use.

If a guy carries at work and in the store etc. he usually uses a firearm 50 plus hours a week.

Are you including non-trigger pulling gun-use time too?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle . . . .

Automobiles are much safer than guns when measured according to the number of person-hours of use.

1. The number of citizens carrying guns is much less than the number of citizens who own cars.
2. Carrying a gun around is like having a car in the garage. It is unlikely to cause an accident until it is accessed and used.

 

[JonNC]

1cthlctrth:

I’ve never heard of a gun just “deciding” to kill or maim. Misuse by the USER is the problem with guns.

Nor have I. And I agree with you that guns themselves don’t just decide to kill someone.

However, unfortunately, people do decide to kill other people. With guns. All the time.

Exactly. It is people that are the issue, not the guns. To the extent that we can keep guns out of the hands of those who would commit crimes without infringing on the protected right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms, I think we should take those steps.