One of our new state senators introduced a bill to make permit holders give their login and social media accounts before renewal of a carry permit. Forget the fact it violates a host of constitutional rights many in the state government think it is a good idea. Don’t believe me just google it. However it is going nowhere but scary that elected officials have no sense of the constitution they swore to uphold. They want the government to review your posts to see if you are any threat. Forget free speech, right to privacy etc
NY bill
- Thread starter Dano4734
- Start date
Ok, just for the sake of argument, look at the other side. It's just an address. You ALREADY give them your home address (the one in the real world) AND your fingerprints, and other "personal information".
So, simply asking for it isn't any violation of our rights, that I can see. That being said, what they DO with that information could be a violation of something. Not privacy, since if you're on social media, you're (voluntarily) in PUBLIC, so you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Government monitoring what you say, in public, isn't any violation of anything. Doesn't affect your free speech rights, UNLESS they try to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then it becomes a free speech issue (censorship). A PRIVATE entity, such as Facebook etc., (or this forum) can set their own rules, and those are not any violation of your civil rights.
This could be an issue, BUT, you need to be clear on what issue it is, and that depends specifically on what the situation is, and who does what.
Monitoring your social media posts is not even remotely the same thing as a wire tap on your telephone. They don't need a WARRANT to read what you post in public chat. Just as they don't need a warrant to go through the trash that you have thrown away. AND its not violating any of our rights when they do it.
Now, here's the risk, suppose they get this (requiring your social media address & account #) as a requirement but don't have the foresight (or deliberately refuse) to set up the system with the flexibility to deal with someone (such as an old dinosaur like me) who does NOT HAVE a social media account.
I can easily see the glee on the faces of the anti-gun zealots when the permit system locks up and denies re-issue due to "failure to provide required information", when in fact you did provide it, but the answer was "none".
Sure, there will be a process for fixing that "technical glitch" but it will take time, probably cost additional money, and may not even exist until AFTER the first successful legal challenge.
Any of that is still a "win" for the anti gun crowd.
No, sorry, we have those in EVERY state. In NY and a few other places they have almost total control of the government, but they exist everywhere.
So, simply asking for it isn't any violation of our rights, that I can see. That being said, what they DO with that information could be a violation of something. Not privacy, since if you're on social media, you're (voluntarily) in PUBLIC, so you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Government monitoring what you say, in public, isn't any violation of anything. Doesn't affect your free speech rights, UNLESS they try to tell you what you can and cannot say. Then it becomes a free speech issue (censorship). A PRIVATE entity, such as Facebook etc., (or this forum) can set their own rules, and those are not any violation of your civil rights.
This could be an issue, BUT, you need to be clear on what issue it is, and that depends specifically on what the situation is, and who does what.
Monitoring your social media posts is not even remotely the same thing as a wire tap on your telephone. They don't need a WARRANT to read what you post in public chat. Just as they don't need a warrant to go through the trash that you have thrown away. AND its not violating any of our rights when they do it.
Now, here's the risk, suppose they get this (requiring your social media address & account #) as a requirement but don't have the foresight (or deliberately refuse) to set up the system with the flexibility to deal with someone (such as an old dinosaur like me) who does NOT HAVE a social media account.
I can easily see the glee on the faces of the anti-gun zealots when the permit system locks up and denies re-issue due to "failure to provide required information", when in fact you did provide it, but the answer was "none".
Sure, there will be a process for fixing that "technical glitch" but it will take time, probably cost additional money, and may not even exist until AFTER the first successful legal challenge.
Any of that is still a "win" for the anti gun crowd.
No, sorry, we have those in EVERY state. In NY and a few other places they have almost total control of the government, but they exist everywhere.
Spats McGee
Administrator
No. This is the L&CR forum. We deal in specifics, so you should have provided a link to the bill. That said, I'm feeling generous, so I'll do it for you this time: S09191. If you'll check the "Text" box below and to the right of the search box, it will reveal the whole text.
The scary part is not the social media review. What's posted on social media is effectively public domain. The frightening thing is that the bill requires an applicant to turn over log-in name and password and "consent" to a search before being approved for a firearms permit, and the social media review is specifically looking for grounds to deny a license.
So, let's summarize: (1) I have to waive my 4th Amendment rights to exercise my 2nd Amendment right. (2) The investigating officer may research whatever he deems "necessary" in looking for a reason to deny my permit. and (3) If I use Duck Duck Go instead of Google, my searches don't count.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Ssshhhhh ... don't tell "them" about DuckDuckGo.Spats McGee said:
Question for those who might know...
Realizing that I'm still more 20th century than 21st, how is this, the govt checking your social media, different from the govt demanding a list of all the books you read from the public library? Sure the tech is different, but isn't the principle the same?
And, hasn't THAT issue been dealt with already by court decisions? or, an I mistaken about that?
Realizing that I'm still more 20th century than 21st, how is this, the govt checking your social media, different from the govt demanding a list of all the books you read from the public library? Sure the tech is different, but isn't the principle the same?
And, hasn't THAT issue been dealt with already by court decisions? or, an I mistaken about that?
What if you say gee I really don’t like our governor he oversteps his authority. Now does that mean someone will get their permit denied because of freedom of speech. It’s a slippery slope. How about boy I don’t like republicans or I don’t like democrats. Now you get revoked for political views . Now what about the constitution and free speech. Is it gone if you want to keep your right to bear arms? Who will assure you that your login and passwords are secure. How about your private text to your kids or wife etc ugh
Last edited:
That is only if the person has social media. There are still plenty of folks who don't got 'em. If ya' got 'em, time to think about ditchin' 'em too.
We got cellphones with text capability already. Family and friends are always one push of a contact button away. For people who are interested in the same hobbies, careers, sporting activities, etc..., there are forums like this one, also accessible with today's data phones. There is no need for facebook or twitter drama. Life is too busy to let that idiocy get in the way.Last time I got asked about social media presence, my reply was an honest and earnest "Ah' ain't got one buddy"
Spats McGee
Administrator
As an interesting aside, the local library system around here is ferociously protective of its patrons' privacy. They won't tell anybody what someone else checked out unless there's a court order to do so.
I'd have to go looking for the court cases, but it's certainly suspect when the government goes looking at whether someone is "right thinking" (what book they read, what they post on social media, etc.) before deciding whether that person will be allowed a permit to exercise a fundamental, individual constitutional right.
That said, there's a conceptual difference to be noted between: (a) what you check out at the library; and (b) what you post on line. In the first instance, you've gone to a source of information (and it was likely the only source in pre-internet days), and checked out some books. The information made public would have been the title of the books, your name, address, etc. While your opinions and beliefs may be inferred from what you've checked out, you have not openly stated them. In the second, you've taken an affirmative step (posting) towards making your beliefs and opinions known to the public at large.
Actually, after 2001, they started using National Security Letters to demand library records for (they claimed) suspected terrorists. Librarians had to comply, and they risked prosecution themselves if they even told anyone they'd received such a letter.
You know, "national security" and all.
And that's the same idea they're pushing here. "Gun safety" and all.
Can I be sure there's nothing in my social media history that could be taken out of context? Did I post something about the 2nd Amendment being absolute? Did I "like" something on Facebook without knowing that it was a repost from an account of a white supremacist or someone with questionable political views? What are "questionable political views?" Who determines that?
Better yet, what about people who don't do social media? Will they be denied for lack of pertinent data?
We need to see the difference between laws that seek to protect us (even if founded on ignorance) versus laws that simply seek to punish us through attrition. This is an example of the latter. It's just way to set up arbitrary gatekeeping to the exercise of a right.
ligonierbill
New member
I certainly agree that NY is trying to overstep government's granted-by-the-people authority. But this might serve as a reminder that anything you post, including on this forum, might be seen, passed on, etc. by someone with ill intent. My old OPSEC guy absolutely hated social media. And folks post the most foolish things.
Sometimes it reminds me of a long ago Boy Scout campout. Since they were in a tent, they thought no one could hear the jokes they were telling. (Not the Einstein Patrol)
I don't like that Big Brother is watching, but he certainly is. Sometimes, that "Preview Post" button is worth a try.
Sometimes it reminds me of a long ago Boy Scout campout. Since they were in a tent, they thought no one could hear the jokes they were telling. (Not the Einstein Patrol)
I don't like that Big Brother is watching, but he certainly is. Sometimes, that "Preview Post" button is worth a try.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Spats McGee beat me to it, and he's a lawyer and I'm not. That said, I think it's clear that reading is, simplistically, a "passive" activity. Posting in/on social media is an "active" activity. You're not simply reading other people's opinions, you are expressing your opinion.44_AMP said:
Isn't it the same for sales records from a gun shop? Needing a court order? Since that's really the only place it's really recorded? Name and serial number, type of gun, etc?
As for investigations of 'social media', I'd bet 'they' have search engines or logarithms that key on certain words or phrases, now..
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I'm pretty certain the BATFE can examine an FFL's bound book(s) and 4473s at any time, without needing a court order.USNRet93 said:
Been to California lately?
Ok, this part, I kind of get. Actual threats have legal consequences, and could be prosecutable offenses. And I can understand "acts of terrorism", IF they are talking about how to commit one, where and when, and who, etc. But, checking all posts and searches "related to"??? that's going to generate a huge mountain of data that needs to be sifted through. It's NEW YORK, for goodness sake. "related to an act of terrorism" would, I would think include every post that mentions anything about 9/11 or even current world news...
And, here's the blank check, drawn on your personal account....
Ok, NY is a "MAY" issue state. Always has been, since the requirement for permits was put in place, generations ago. And like some other places who's governments go all the way back to British colonial rule, there are some "requirements" that are either not directly stated or are stated in vague terms, requiring proof that you are a citizen "of good moral character" in order for a permit to be issued.
I've heard of cases where an applicant was denied due to "too many" speeding tickets, or even parking tickets. The rest of your life may be pure as the driven snow, but a judge can look at a "large" number of traffic tickets (as one example), and decide this pattern of behavior indicates you are an irresponsible scofflaw, and therefore NOT someone who should have a legally licensed pistol!
They can deny you if they don't like your haircut, the color of your shoes, or because it's Tuesday, and that is legal under NY law. (now if they do deny you for a reason like that. its barking rare they will admit to it, they will come up with something else as justification if they need to, and they'll only need to if you take them to court over their decision, which is often not an option)
I got a NY permit in 1975. It was a royal PITA back then, but having grown up in NY, it was just the system, we didn't think it was oppressive. Moving out of NY to a state where no permit was required for ownership, was an eye opening experience, proof that all the crap NY required simply wasn't needed. But, that was then, and this is now, and so many ways, we live in a different country than we used to...