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

[Wingnut]

Liberal Democrats set their sights on gun control



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."

https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-purchasers-may-need-to-submit-social-media-history-under-proposed-new-york-legislation

[mountaineer]

Oh noes, will they ban those who post kitteh pics from owning gunz now?

[txradioguy]

So in addition to taking a whizz all over the Second Amendment...it appears that New York wants to do the same to the 4th as well.

[Snarknado]

How do they plan to enforce? Do I have to somehow prove to them that I don't have FB or twitter accounts? Or that the account I give them is my only one? Seems like they'd have to subcontract the NSA to get the job done with any certainty...

[TomSea]

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

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."

Continued at: https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-purchasers-may-need-to-submit-social-media-history-under-proposed-new-york-legislation

Yikes! And state employees would actually read this stuff and judge?

Dan Bogino comments:

https://twitter.com/dbongino/status/1065978879523864576

Surely, something like this would be ruled against in a court of law.

[txradioguy]

Surely, something like this would be ruled against in a court of law.

Not if the initial case is heard in New York state.  They'll rule in favor of the social media searches.

Invasive anti 4th Amendment crap like this will lead to a cottage industry of "history erasers" or millions of new and clean fake accounts to try and get past the history checks.

[Oceander]

Not if the initial case is heard in New York state.  They'll rule in favor of the social media searches.

Invasive anti 4th Amendment crap like this will lead to a cottage industry of "history erasers" or millions of new and clean fake accounts to try and get past the history checks.

Why would this be anti-Fourth Amendment?

[240B]

Already had this done to me, for a job interview. They searched everything they could think of. I laughed when they told me, 'You don't exist.' We can't find a trace of you anywhere. And they are right. They couldn't.

I am a paranoid freak, and I never use my real name, my real phone number, or my real email, online. Even if they did ever get a line on me, it would only be partial. I have at least 6 online names that I go by. Good luck with your 'searching'. All you will find is whatever I want you to find.

[Oceander]

Already had this done to me, for a job interview. They searched everything they could think of. I laughed when they told me, 'You don't exist.' We can't find a trace of you anywhere. And they are right. They couldn't.

I am a paranoid freak, and I never use my real name, my real phone number, or my real email, online. Even if they did ever get a line on me, it would only be partial. I have at least 6 online names that I go by. Good luck with your 'searching'. All you will find is whatever I want you to find.

Do you use the same computer to access your “real” email and your non-real accounts?  Do you do so from the same IP address?  Have you been able to develop two different, distinctive ways of writing, one for use in the “real” accounts and one for use elsewhere?

[Sighlass]

Why would this be anti-Fourth Amendment?

Because of this...

Do you use the same computer to access your “real” email and your non-real accounts?  Do you do so from the same IP address?  Have you been able to develop two different, distinctive ways of writing, one for use in the “real” accounts and one for use elsewhere?

[Oceander]

Because of this...

No, that doesn’t form the basis for an explanation for why requiring disclosure of social media on an application for a gun permit would violate the Fourth Amendment.  Just as the requirement to file a tax return does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 

[txradioguy]

Because of this...

And I’d add because of this too:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There is no probable cause justification to search a persons browsing and social media history in order for them to legally purchase a firearm.

This is just another tactic by 2nd Amemdment hating Libs like Oceander to try and do an end run around the Constitution.

[Sighlass]

No, that doesn’t form the basis for an explanation for why requiring disclosure of social media on an application for a gun permit would violate the Fourth Amendment.  Just as the requirement to file a tax return does not violate the Fourth Amendment. 

"Requiring" is a funny word... or not so funny. Requiring an IP address (getting that via what means, seizing your computer or questioning your ISP) and perhaps requiring google submit all it has on that IP is unreasonable to me. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,.....

Even asking for your internet history is asking too much IMHO.... it can be used against you if you don't have a posting history to submit. Perhaps it shows that you have something to hide.

The whole things stinks.

[Oceander]

"Requiring" is a funny word... or not so funny. Requiring an IP address (getting that via what means, seizing your computer or questioning your ISP) and perhaps requiring google submit all it has on that IP is unreasonable to me. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,.....

Even asking for your internet history is asking too much IMHO.... it can be used against you if you don't have a posting history to submit. Perhaps it shows that you have something to hide.

The whole things stinks.

Well, if you don’t want to provide the information, you don’t have to; you just wouldn’t be allowed to purchase a firearm then.  That might be an undue burden on the Second Amendment, but it’s not a Fourth Amendment violation. 

[verga]

So in addition to taking a whizz all over the Second Amendment...it appears that New York wants to do the same to the 4th as well.

And the first as well. Apparently what ever you say on Social media will be held against you.

[240B]

China is doing the same thing. They monitor all their citizens online as well as in public and assign them a 'citizen score'. Just like the American communists are doing, the grade they get effects which privileges they get and how they are treated by the government.

Anonymous people judging your online behavior. If you don't pass the judgement of some gang of people somewhere, who knows who they are? You are not allowed to buy a gun. Yea sure, that sounds great.

[txradioguy]

China is doing the same thing. They monitor all their citizens online as well as in public and assign them a 'citizen score'. Just like the American communists are doing, the grade they get effects which privileges they get and how they are treated by the government.

Anonymous people judging your online behavior. If you don't pass the judgement of some gang of people somewhere, who knows who they are? You are not allowed to buy a gun. Yea sure, that sounds great.

@240B and Google helped build their search engine custom tailored for that purpose.

But they'd never use that programming here /sarc

[Fishrrman]

I'll reckon that this new "law" has a pretty good chance of gettin' passed in New York State.

With the November election, the democrat-communists have now won total control of the New York statehouse, and can pass anything they want.

And of course, lil' Andy Cuomo will sign it into law.

I wouldn't expect a high chance of success in subsequent NY state courts, either...

[Snarknado]

Once they get this through, they want to require a glucose test before you can buy a doughnut...

[Oceander]

And the first as well. Apparently what ever you say on Social media will be held against you.

Hardly. 

[Frank Cannon]

Hardly.

Always fascinated by what the forums Small Town Pizza Lawyer has to say on legal issues.

[Oceander]

Always fascinated by what the forums Small Town Pizza Lawyer has to say on legal issues.

Ok, King Solomon, explain how this law would violate the First Amendment.