Here we go - NYS to check social media before issuing gun licenses

Status
Not open for further replies.
RetiredUSNChief said:
And just how, exactly, are they going to verify you even HAVE any of you chose but to admit to any? Searches only go so far.

This kind of stuff is deliberately designed to clog up the court system, because they know it will be challenged.

"We need you to list all your social media accounts."

"Sorry, don't have any to list."

"We need contact information for any adults living at your residence."

"Sorry, that's private information I'm not privileged to give out."
Click to expand...

Would be an automatic denial, just like not signing that your carry permit is a revocable privilege at any time for any reason. That was what I had to sign to get mine 30 years ago. Otherwise was supposed to be lifetime now it has to be renewed.

RetiredUSNChief said:
Force through a change to include EVERYBODY ELSE who currently carries a firearm, or otherwise will be required to carry a firearm, in which EXACTLY THE SAME RULES APPLY.

Let's see how the works with the largest police force in the country.

And this includes the periodic, ongoing background checks required, as well.
Click to expand...

They never set the same rules for themselves because they think that they're above the law, and better than the general population.

I live in NY, I fly my American flag upside down, not yo disrespect those who've fought for our freedoms. But because our country. State is in serious trouble.

Several posts I've made concerning our 2a rights on this site would certainly be cause for got denial of a carry permit. Their intrusion is way overstepping their boundries.
 
Last edited:
stillquietvoice said:
Several posts I've made concerning our 3a rights on this site would certainly be cause for got denial of a carry permit. Their intrusion is way overstepping their boundries.
Click to expand...

Are you having problems with soldiers being quartered in your home? lol

3A "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Okay, I'll assume you meant 2A.
 
Speedo66 said:
Are you having problems with soldiers being quartered in your home? lol

3A "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Okay, I'll assume you meant 2A.
Click to expand...

Sorry fat fingers and little time to proof read.

I fixed it
 
Old Dog said:
We are speaking to authorizing the government to now be able to decide, based on recreational free-speech activities, whether or not we are suitable to be granted licenses or permits.
Click to expand...

That would be risky though maybe they don't care. It would be too easy to show a pattern of denials based on X-type of content on various social media platforms. It sounds to me like the real reasons to implement something like this is intimidation but moreso, to provide an excuse to bog down the process. In other words, issuing authorities can cite the immense amount of investigative work it takes to sift through an applicant's social media presence as the reason the permitting process takes so long. It's certainly a tactic I would use if I wanted to deny people access to their rights. "Look, the reason we have a ten year backlog is because we have to do sooooo much work to vet everyone".

In the long run, I don't believe that will stand up to a challenge.
 
Surely mentioned already... For YEARS potential employers have snooped through the 'social media' postings of potential employees. No hell was raised, and no fights in the court have ended that practice, so of course the same thought and speech compliance check will happen for NY gun license applicants.
NY's 'leaders' know that If employers can get away with it, surely they can and will screw the subjects they fear the most.

Some people choose to fight way past when they should have already fought.
 
I was warning people about this back in the 20th century. They laughed in my face. Nobody would *ever* do that.

And then they *needed* AOL and MySpace and Facebook and Twitter, for $REASONS.

I admit I use usenet, mailing lists, and later, forums, but I've always been careful not to say anything that might be used against me if anyone ever dug that deep. And it's a lot harder to sieve those for incriminating words than it is for most "social media."
 
So people with the same ideology of those who called the NRA a terrorist organization and label parents who show up at school board meetings to object to the garbage their kids are being taught domestic terrorists are going to decide what constitutes unacceptable social media posts in regards to denying 2A rights?
 
Walkalong said:
Businesses routinely check social media on potential new hires. People post all kinds of stupid stuff on the net.
Click to expand...

True enough but, something-something first amendment and all that jazz. However there's a big difference between not landing a job because you've said something outrageously stupid on social media (or elsewhere) and having your rights denied because of it. This is risky for NY if there's no objective standard, though I suppose they aren't required to reveal why they deny people either, so maybe that's their safety net.
 
mope540 said:
Surely mentioned already... For YEARS potential employers have snooped through the 'social media' postings of potential employees. No hell was raised, and no fights in the court have ended that practice, so of course the same thought and speech compliance check will happen for NY gun license applicants.
NY's 'leaders' know that If employers can get away with it, surely they can and will screw the subjects they fear the most.

Some people choose to fight way past when they should have already fought.
Click to expand...

TRX said:
I was warning people about this back in the 20th century. They laughed in my face. Nobody would *ever* do that.

And then they *needed* AOL and MySpace and Facebook and Twitter, for $REASONS.

I admit I use usenet, mailing lists, and later, forums, but I've always been careful not to say anything that might be used against me if anyone ever dug that deep. And it's a lot harder to sieve those for incriminating words than it is for most "social media."
Click to expand...

Walkalong said:
Businesses routinely check social media on potential new hires. People post all kinds of stupid stuff on the net.
Click to expand...
Even more concerning than being denied for proscribed/unapproved/offensive speech is the very real possibility of being denied for lack of sufficient social posting IN SUPPORT of the regime and their worldview. Silence or neutrality will no longer be on option in the Liberal World Order- if you aren't wholeheartedly with them, you are the enemy.
 
Last edited:
I think we can probably start listing each line they signed and how it is unconstitutional.

Extensive and expensive training and take time to meet with a licensing officer? Excludes minorities and other economically disadvantaged because you have to take days off of one of your two or three jobs or the busy middle and upper middle income worker who doesn't have time to take off paying the taxes paying the state's workers.

Social media? 1st A infringement acting as 2A infringement.

applicant must possess “essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself or others.”? vague much?
 
Excludes minorities and other economically disadvantaged because you have to take days off of one of your two or three jobs or the busy middle and upper middle income worker who doesn't have time to take off paying the taxes paying the state's workers.
Click to expand...
It will be interesting to see if the civil liberties organizations believe in their ostensible charters with enough conviction to argue the point.
 
JohnKSa said:
It will be interesting to see if the civil liberties organizations believe in their ostensible charters with enough conviction to argue the point.
Click to expand...

It worked for Knife Rights. They teamed with Legal Aid over all the service and low income workers that were being charged with carrying a gravity knife. True bipartisan multipronged attack waged by KR, LA, and other disparate "bed fellows" against NYC.
 
I have Twitter and FB accounts.

I am not sure I have actually ever posted on Twitter.

The last thing I posted on FB was a short video of some turkeys I saw this weekend.
 
I had a FB page strictly dedicated to following the fish bite in the Galveston Bay area. Somehow even that got too contentious because no one could stick to just fishing updates, where to find bait or the weather. So I closed my account over 5 years ago.

I think my cat* has a FB page where the ex-wife posts pictures of it and it rates pictures of other people's cats (even though we haven' been together for several years we stay cordial and have pet swaps and visitations). Don't ask me why its necessary for the cat to have a FB page. Probably about as necessary as why most people have one. What assessment would these social media checkers give to someone with a pet who has a FB or other social media page? Harmless or unchecked lunatic?


* the cat in my profile pic is not the one with a FB page. Profile pic cat has lived in my garage for 4 years and says people and the world can f*** off. She just hangs around for the temperature regulated shelter and abundant food.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Gun purchasers may need to submit social media history under proposed New York legislation
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Odd Job
Odd Job
Back
Top