Pa. gun law violates federal privacy law

[gunsmith]

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20060228-024855-2184r
If we allready talked about this sorry, I don't remember seeing it here
Pa. gun law violates federal privacy law

PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- A federal judge struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring people who want to buy guns or get a concealed-weapons permit to list a Social Security number.

Judge Juan Sanchez ruled the Pennsylvania law violates the federal Privacy Act.

"This ruling is about privacy, not guns," attorney J. Dwight Yoder told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"We weren't looking to circumvent gun laws," Yoder said of the case brought on behalf of retired U.S. Army officer Michael Stollenwerk.

"A lot of state governments have blown off this law," said Stollenwerk, 42, now a Georgetown University law student. "Someone had to stand up to the government and say, 'I'm going to challenge this.'"

Pennsylvania State Police lawyers were reviewing the decision and considering an appeal, a spokesman told the newspaper.

© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

 

[Azrael256]

I have seen a great deal of debate about the use of SSNs for identification, and I'm wondering if somebody can cite chapter and verse about the legality of using a SSN for something other than a military serial number or tax ID.

I do seem to recall that the SSN is not required for a NICS check, but that it can clear up similar/identical name issues. I also seem to recall that my SSN was optional on my CHL application, but I could be wrong. This leads me to believe that it may be illegal to demand it for reasons other than the ones stated, even when it is a government organization requesting it.

 

[gunsmith]

I remember when

the ssn wasn't allowed to be used for ID, my 1st one said it wasn't to be used as such

 

[Byron Quick]

gunsmith,

The SSN prohibition as to identification has never been changed to my knowledge, gunsmith. The government is real good at sneaking things through in stealth mode at times, though.

The university I was attending used students' SSN's to post grades years ago. At the time, I managed a furniture retail store. This was before the Internet but I had a business account with Equifax. I showed the university administration a sample of just some of the information I could retrieve with SSN's. They dropped the practice quickly after perusing female students' addresses, license plate numbers, mortgage balances, credit scores, credit histories, etc. I also told them that all it took to gain access to criminal histories was a compliant LEO with access to NCIC. I redacted the names and SSN's of the information I gathered to make my case to the university authorities.

 

[alan]

I wonder about the following.

If the U.S. District Court ruling in this case stands, what happens to all the firearms related records currently held by The Coal and Iron Cops, oops, I should have said held by The Pennsylvania State Police, that contain the "sosches" of purchasers, and applicants?

Additionally, at the risk of dating myself, my original Social Security Card is circa 1948, and it reads on it's face, in quite large type face, as follows. FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION.

Regarding that seemingly simple 7 word admonition, as well as what some would describe as the Difference Between Things As They Are, and Things As They Should Be, I have long been curious as to the following. By the way, no matter how many times I have posed the following question, I've yet to receive an intelligent answer.

What is there in those 7 words that is seemingly so difficult for some to understand?

 

[BigRobT]

See the Privacy Act of 1974. I, too, recall when SSN Cards stated they were not to be used for identification purposes. (I'm not THAT old!!). Something changed when the military started using SSANs (social security account numbers) as member's service numbers. I'm not real sure of when that happened as it was before I joined up in 75. From that time on, everything I ever did was attached to my SSAN, credit cards, bank accounts, etc.

 

[STW]

I just checked my SS card and it still says not for ID. Of course I've had it for almost 40 years. I don't recall getting notice that the law changed but then they don't keep me in that loop.

 

[asknight]

That statement on your card simply means that presenting that card as a form of ID is not valid. It doesn't mean that the number itself is not an identifier. In other words, if you lose your wallet, someone can't take your SS card and impersonate you, at least theoretically. I've used my SS card countless times as ID.

 

[alan]

For whatever it might be worth, I have been bitching about the ABUSE of Social Security Numbers for a quite a long time. Of course, very few people listen to me, but more important, much more important than that is the liklehood that altogether to few people ever bothered to so much as ask questions, let alone to actually try to check the ever growing flood of crap that comes from government, at all levels.

Try obtaining an answer to this question some time. Social Security Numbers have been required on "recreational licenses", hunting and fishing licenses for some years now. I myself have never hunted, hunting is simply something that I'm not particularly interested in doing. I have no "emotional" problems with hunting, though some people do. Prior to the requirement for the SSN, I used to buy a hunting license every year, figuring that the small amount charged was a contribution to a worth while cause. The first time I was queried for my "sosch", was the end of my contributions.

In any case, re the requirement for your SSN on a hunting license, I was once told that it was used "to track down dead beat dads". Nothing was said about the possibility of tracking "dead beat moms", one of whom I once knew slightly. Anyhow, when I asked how many dead beat dads had been tracked via this ABUSE of Social Security Numbers, I got the verbal equivalent of some television anchor person "bouncing their papers". In other words, I got no answer. Try it yourself sometime, with regard to any number of situations.

 

[alan]

asknight wrote:

That statement on your card simply means that presenting that card as a form of ID is not valid. It doesn't mean that the number itself is not an identifier. In other words, if you lose your wallet, someone can't take your SS card and impersonate you, at least theoretically. I've used my SS card countless times as ID.

------------------

If that's what you think, fair enough, I don't agree with your evaluation.

You might find the following of interest. Prior to the system's adoption, one of the objections raised was that a requirement for peope to have a government issued number would become a device used for the registration/regimentation of the citizenry.

Perish the thought said FDR, who was then president, the Social Security Number would never be so used. Funny how things worked out, isn't it?

 

[RevDisk]

If the U.S. District Court ruling in this case stands, what happens to all the firearms related records currently held by The Coal and Iron Cops, oops, I should have said held by The Pennsylvania State Police, that contain the "sosches" of purchasers, and applicants?

Heh. Considering that the PSP handgun registery is flat out illegal under PA law?

Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 18, Chapter 61, Subchapter A (Uniform Firearms Act)
§ 6111.4. Registration of firearms.
Notwithstanding any section of this chapter to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to allow any government or law enforcement agency or any agent thereof to create, maintain or operate any registry of firearm ownership within this Commonwealth. For the purposes of this section only, the term "firearm" shall include any weapon that is designed to or may readily be converted to expel any projectile by the action of an explosive or the frame or receiver of any such weapon.


Also see § 6111. (b) v

Unless it has been discovered pursuant to a criminal history, juvenile delinquency and mental health records background check that the potential purchaser or transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm pursuant to section 6105 (relating to persons not to possess, use, manufacture, control, sell or transfer firearms), no information on the application/record of sale provided pursuant to this subsection shall be retained as precluded by section 6111.4 (relating to registration of firearms) by the Pennsylvania State Police either through retention of the application/record of sale or by entering the information onto a computer, and, further, an application/record of sale received by the Pennsylvania State Police pursuant to this subsection shall be destroyed within 72 hours of the completion of the criminal history, juvenile delinquency and mental health records background check.


And of course, Article I, Section 21 of the PA Constitution

"Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

 

[alan]

RevDisk:

Within the past few years, the Allegheny County Sportsmens League filed suit against the Coal and Iron Cops over their "illegal" action,

I do not remember how the cookie crumbled in the lower courts, Commonwealth Court, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the antics of the State Police. Go figure, or looking at some of this courts other rulings, are you surprised?

Re the court ruling that originated this discussion, the federal courts might rule otherwise, who knows. It might get "interesting".

 

[cortez kid]

If I recall corectly, I needed a birth cert. and a SS card to get my driver's license in Pa a few year(2) ago.
kid

 

[alan]

Re the news item linked in the original post, and the complainants remarks, the following comes to mind. Please see Mr. Stollenwerk's quoted comments immediately below. The first part is particularly germane to my question.

"A lot of state governments have blown off this law," said Stollenwerk, 42, now a Georgetown University law student. "Someone had to stand up to the government and say, 'I'm going to challenge this.'"

Pennsylvania State Police lawyers were reviewing the decision and considering an appeal, a spokesman told the newspaper.

--------------

While all this "blowing off" was ongoing, one wonders as to what our "elected things" might have been occupied with? Perhaps a long string of 3 MARTINI LUNCHES, or maybe the counting of campaign contributions? Perish the thought that they should have been concerned with the fact that some other "elected things" were playing FAST AND LOOSE with federal law, and the rights of us mere citizens.

 

[geekWithA.45]

I do not remember how the cookie crumbled in the lower courts, Commonwealth Court, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the antics of the State Police. Go figure, or looking at some of this courts other rulings, are you surprised?

The PA Supreme court held that the State Cop's antics was not a registry because it was not a complete listing of who owned what, due to the fact that there are several obscure circumstances under which a PA citizen could lawfully transfer a handgun without hitting the list. (IE: spouse to spouse, parent to child, or inheritance)

They also cited the precedent of the long history of the list, going back to the 20's or 30's.

Through some fairly tortured legal reasoning, they held that this was the consequence of flaws in the statutes which therefore required legislative remediation, and could not be corrected by the courts without causing a problem with the division of powers.

 

[alan]

Azrael256:

In-so-far as the feds are concerned, the 4473 requests the ssn of purchaser. It then goes on to note that furnishing of same is optional, but that providing this data could expidite the background check. I assume that this could relate to the possibility of multiple persons having the same name. That is just my supposition though.

In Pennsylvania, the Coal and Iron Cops, a historic reference to the agency now known as the Pennsylvania State Police, REQUIRE the ssn on their paper work. In Pennsylvania, the State Police run the background check "system".

If one goes back a few years, it was in 1972 I believe, our federal "elected things" authorized the use of ssn's by local government agencies, city, county and state, for various purposes, not in any way related to the Social Security Act, or to claims for benefits thereunder. With that shove, things have gone downhill, as you might have noticed.

As to the ongoing misuse of ssn's by the private sector, perhaps a case of Monkey See, Monkey Do. I cannot site any specific authorization, though there might be one, regarding private sector demands for and use of ssn's.

Hope this helps.

 

[alan]

geekWithA.45:

Refering to your use of the phrase " Through some fairly tortured legal reasoning, ....", did anyone ever tell you that you had a way with words?

By the way, Commonwealth Court ruled for The State Police, as I recall, ergo the appeal to State Supreme Court, which once again, did it to the people of Pennsylvania.

What with the case now before the federal judiciary, who knows. Things might get "interesting", the spelling of "interesting" tending to revolve about MONEY, as with the significant costs of fighting the government through the courts. Funny thing about this is that the citizenry has to pay for both ends.

 

[Azrael256]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm still confused:

I believe, our federal "elected things" authorized the use of ssn's by local government agencies, city, county and state, for various purposes

Ok, I was enrolled in a junior college before I graduated high school. No, I'm not a genius, it's the dual-credit (aka concurrent enrollment) program. Think AP on steroids. Anyway, back then, my college ID was my SSN. There was a lawsuit, the details of which I did not really care to read at the time, and when I went to enroll for a class a couple years later, my student ID was a random number. In fact, another student had refused to put his SSN on the application. Without the slightest argument, the registrar promptly made up a number just like they do for foreign nationals. When I came to my present university, my student ID was again my SSN. The option to use a made up number exists according to the registrar, but I don't think many use it. So I'm wondering if that college was violating this privacy act. Anybody have a cite for it so I'll have a clue what's going on?

 

[RevDisk]

When I came to my present university, my student ID was again my SSN. The option to use a made up number exists according to the registrar, but I don't think many use it. So I'm wondering if that college was violating this privacy act. Anybody have a cite for it so I'll have a clue what's going on?

Did you ask your university if you could have an ID # that was not based on your SSN? A reasonable argument is identity theft.

The PA Supreme court held that the State Cop's antics was not a registry because it was not a complete listing of who owned what, due to the fact that there are several obscure circumstances under which a PA citizen could lawfully transfer a handgun without hitting the list. (IE: spouse to spouse, parent to child, or inheritance)

The law is surprisingly clear on the illegal actions of the PSP. I mean, what part of "no registry" and "destroy within 72 hours" do they not understand? I really do want to read the court transcript. Just so I can learn to completely ignore the law and Constitution, and still somehow remain legal.



Allegheny County Sportsmens League's website is http://www.acslpa.org but it has more than a few dead links. I plan on looking up the pro-gun rally in Harrisburg on the 14th. Might be interesting.

 

[alan]

Azrael256 wrote:

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'm still confused:
Quote:
I believe, our federal "elected things" authorized the use of ssn's by local government agencies, city, county and state, for various purposes

------------------------

I don't think you are being argumentative.

Re the quote you posted, see above, as I mentioned earlier, I belive this legislation dates to 1972 or thereabouts. Re that, the simple fact of legislative action contributes neither virtue nor legitimacy to the legislative action. Look at the number of laws found constitutionally wanting by appeals courts.

An example of legislative stupidity, for instance was the pay raise voted by the state legislature last summer, later repealed.

Re the educational bureaucracy, a number of years ago, I was on an assignment in South Carolina. I decieded to take a computer course at a local Jr. College. I simply wanted exposure, information and some actual hands on experience, I was not interested in "credits", and I wrote the college a check for the course fees. Naturally, the question of my SSN came up. I declined to provide mine, and suggested that if the registration people absolutely had to have some numbers in the appropriate box, that they might simply pick out some they were content with, and write then down. Essentially, that is what they did.

RevDisk wrote:

The law is surprisingly clear on the illegal actions of the PSP. I mean, what part of "no registry" and "destroy within 72 hours" do they not understand? I really do want to read the court transcript. Just so I can learn to completely ignore the law and Constitution, and still somehow remain legal.

-------------------

I believe that what we see working here is akin to the concept of OUR THING, often associated with The Mafia. This is what we do, because we want to do it. How dare any member of the Great Unwashed question our actions, the workings of Our Thing. The ultimate ending of the Stolenwerk case will likely prove most interesting, from any number of view points. Seems that there is some question as to how the Coal and Iron Cops have evolved.