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

[Aim1]

From the article:

"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."

"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. "We’ve obviously seen some of the mass shooters have a social media history that should have sent red flags," he said."





https://www.foxnews.com/us/gun-purc...a-history-under-proposed-new-york-legislation

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

By Matt Richardson | Fox News

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."

 

[dh1633pm]

That has to be the stupidest thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. Whats next, brain scan, lie detector test, or water board?

 

[Zaydok Allen]

I guess Facebook is going to take a big hit when gun owners start delegating their accounts.

 

[nettlle]

I was in an auto accident a year ago that was settled out of court. They wanted access to my social media history.

 

[Deanimator]

I was in an auto accident a year ago that was settled out of court. They wanted access to my social media history.

Did you tell them to go chase themselves?

 

[Deanimator]

If this is permissible for gun ownership, it's clearly permissible for voting...

 

[MidRoad]

Well if that's the case, the politicians search histories should be available to the public. It's a huge responsibility to create laws in which we have to fallow/dictate the way we live. We the people should know EXACTLY who we are electing.

But when the tables are turned they'll say that is unessecary and an invasion of privacy........

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

The Minority Report thing has been a long time coming.

It's weird though, the people wanting this type of thing must have not seen the movie in it's entirety.

Spoiler, it doesn't work out.

 

[AlexanderA]

One more reason to stay off of social media. (Including, perhaps, web sites like this one.)

This is going to have a chilling effect on free speech, just as searching psychiatric records of people seeking to buy guns will discourage them from getting needed psychiatric treatment. The adverse collateral consequences of such proposals need to be considered.

And it doesn't stop with just the prospective gun owners. Soon, somebody is going to suggest that anybody who lives with the prospective gun owners, and therefore might have access to the guns, also be vetted in this way. (Be careful whom you marry.)

I hope the ACLU gets involved in knocking this down.

Whats next, brain scan, lie detector test, or water board?

Yup. Some countries overseas require a psychiatrist's positive certification that you are mentally fit to own a gun.

If the red tape becomes so onerous, gun buyers will either forget the whole thing, or go underground to buy an illegal gun. Either way, the antigun agenda is furthered. "This is a feature, not a bug."

 

[hq]

Yup. Some countries overseas require a psychiatrist's positive certification that you are mentally fit to own a gun.

It didn't work either. It overloaded the mental health professionals and was abandoned once psychiatrists stated that it's totally pointless. The analysis was hysterical, though, I passed it a couple of times answering the questions in a totally random and arbitrary manner. The shrink told me to stop kidding and I asked or what? He pondered the situation for a second and confessed that or absolutely nothing.

Then again, I've avoided social media like a plague but there might be an instance in ancient history, late 90's I believe, when I've actually called myself a h*nky. Does that constitute hate speech?

 

[ar-newbie]

The solution for gun owners in NY state, is to permanently leave that place. It is probably the worst state of all when it comes to citizens rights.

 

[RETG]

And I'm sure that if they come across someone like me who has never been on facebook, instagram, etc., and has no search history, and except for some forums such as this and a few trailer forums, and I use a VPN and a Tor browser; they will say I am too secretive to have a gun.

 

[George P]

Well if that's the case, the politicians search histories should be available to the public. It's a huge responsibility to create laws in which we have to fallow/dictate the way we live. We the people should know EXACTLY who we are electing.

But when the tables are turned they'll say that is unessecary and an invasion of privacy........

Not just politicians but EVERY government worker from city level up to Federal. ANY use of gov't property for that should be grounds for immediate termination with prejudice, not for rehire.

 

[Sarge7402]

Nah

That has to be the stupidest thing that I have ever heard in my entire life. Whats next, brain scan, lie detector test, or water board?

No brain scans, just a control chip in the brain to ensure right thinking (aka the Mark of the Beast)

 

[JONWILL]

I don’t do Social Media. I did Facebook for about 6 months 2 years ago then deleted my account
A couple of reasons. First was the amount of data they collected, with your permission. Conditions of setting up an account
Second was finding out how weird family and friends are. Example was how obsessive people were. Sister is an animal rights advocate. She believed animals should be treated like humans.
Third was a nephew who didn’t believe in God. He posted at the same time how believers are idiots for worshipping an invisible guy in the sky
Then you he showed a tattoo he got of the Virgin Mary on his arm. Several family members followed and liked his rants. I never looked at them the same again

 

[Jeb Stuart]

My God, sounds like something Joseph Goebels and the Nazi's would have come up. Do these idiots have any idea where there stupid crap will eventually lead to?

 

[jmr40]

If you are involved in a shooting regardless how justified there is a VERY good chance your history is going to be researched anyway. Be careful what you write here and elsewhere, not just Facebook. It is easily taken out of context by prosecutors or lawyers for a plaintiff in a lawsuit and this site would be searched before Facebook.

Almost every time there is a high profile shooting that makes responsible shooters look bad the police, or media comes up with information posted on social media that should have been a red flag. As a responsible gun owner I don't want to have the rights of myself or other responsible gun owners denied. But there are a LOT of people out there who should never have a gun in their possession. We all get upset when broad laws are proposed that would ban or limit guns to everyone. But we also get upset when laws are proposed that would only limit gun possession to those who shouldn't have them anyway.

Not saying I agree with this proposal. I don't know enough about it. But I do get tired of us always being reactive and just fighting to prevent ANY law from passing. If we want to preserve 2nd amendment rights we should be proactive and it is us who should be coming up with workable solutions to prevent guns from getting in the wrong hands. It is us, the gun owners, who know best what will work and still not be too burdensome for law abiding responsible gun owners. If we don't, then others will be making those decisions for us.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Here are the two clowns that submitted this crap. Need I say more.

The clown on the right with the Cheesy smile is the other.
The guy in the Middle looks like liberal Presidential hopeful.

 

[jamesjames]

If we could take a deep breath and stand down for a moment, the idea that our social media postings should be done responsibly and could be an indication of future terrible action is an idea worthy of discussion.

THR has standards about content and expression. Some may cry foul-first amendment infringement, but others will remember the toxic posts by mass killers before they committed their crimes. The idea of intervention rests on identifying mass killers before they act. When you are publishing your ideas on a public forum, you are exercising your 1A rights. You may also bear some responsibility for any venom you might express.

 

[JONWILL]

I guarantee these photos will be used to get legislation passed but will be used against law abiding gun owners instead. These photos are all of Felons with violent crime convictions. All were later arrested.

 

[ar-newbie]

Before you start discussing social media posts, you need to distinguish between what is posted and discussed among your immediate friends vs what is posted as a reply publicly on social media. Where do you draw the line? Before legislating social media of the people, perhaps we should be looking at the google search histories of those seeking public office? after what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[ar-newbie]

I guarantee these photos will be used to get legislation passed but will be used against law abiding gun owners instead. These photos are all of Felons with violent crime convictions. All were later arrested.

View attachment 813013 View attachment 813014 View attachment 813015 View attachment 813016

See, common sense would tell you not to pose with guns in gangster poses and situations. that's just asking for it.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

George Orwell's Nineteen Eight-Four (Thought Police) was regarded as political science-fiction when published in 1948, like Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932) before it and Ray Bradbury's Fahremheit 451 (1953) after it. It's been weird living to see the fiction become fact.

 

[Swifty Morgan]

None of this stuff surprises Christians.

 

[Deanimator]

If we could take a deep breath and stand down for a moment, the idea that our social media postings should be done responsibly and could be an indication of future terrible action is an idea worthy of discussion.

THR has standards about content and expression. Some may cry foul-first amendment infringement, but others will remember the toxic posts by mass killers before they committed their crimes. The idea of intervention rests on identifying mass killers before they act. When you are publishing your ideas on a public forum, you are exercising your 1A rights. You may also bear some responsibility for any venom you might express.

This isn't about finding killers.

This is about enforced conformity of political opinion and speech and persecution of anyone who's not an NPC.

They're not looking for the next Dylann Roof. They're looking for somebody who criticized Louis Farrakhan... or Nidal Hassan.