NY bill

NY residents must apply for this state license to purchase/possess/own a handgun.

Are they still required to go through a Federal NICS background check to purchase, or does this application include that as well?

I know some states the Permit to Carry, gives one the ability to bypass the NICS background check.
 
The permit and social media background check process outlines in the proposed bill is not tied to the point of sale background checks. We would still have to pass the NICS checks for every purchase.
As mentioned above, The bill has language that has a huge potential for abuse.
 
Things like this is why I moved from NY to the free State of Tennessee
Click to expand...

I perfectly understand the sentiments of the many who declared that they had "moved to a free state". I also understand why others would often suggest moving or relocating.

However, that does not do any benefit for the collective good that we are trying to fight for. We can move to "free states". For the most part, it offers only a solution for the person who move. Unconstitutional acts are still being committed. And some states that were formerly "free" have already seen drastic changes to their laws and public beliefs. Are we to keep moving and relocating until we are forced into one of the last remaining air bubbles, and keep waiting for that bubble to grow smaller until it strangles us?

Taking legislative action the minute such problems arise is a far better tactic. Post the proposed bill for everybody to read and see. Dissect the wording and pull out anything which are constitutional violations or can be used as such. Gather all of these together and challenge it on the state or federal level. If there are enough voices and emails getting through to the supreme court, the issue becomes elevated to that of public demand for action, and they have to give it an audience. That is how the Heller case progressed. And the people behind the #hashtag movements do the same thing to get heard and get people to pay attention.

We could also do the same: "Hey, you folks took an oath to protect and uphold the Constitution when you were elected/sworn in, right? Well, on this bill, this, and this, and this are blatant violations of the Constitution...Does that mean that the protections guaranteed by the Constitution only pertains to SOME parts of the pupulation?" Hmmmm.

The magic behind getting a lot of bills to be passed and approved is that people don't like to read. In general. And even more people do not like to read fine print. And when that happens, it is easy to get bills passed. When a lot of people start paying attention to a particular bill and discussions start popping up regarding that bill, resulting in a lot of communication being sent to the judicial parts of the government, it does a lot of good.

We don't have to stand in the streets and wave banners and signs to get noticed. That is one of the tactics used by a lot of the younger folks who think they are "politically active". That kind of thing is exhausting to one's health and body. The same results can be achieved by a lot of people using their mouse and keyboards.
 
Federal nics, fingerprinted full background checks we have it all. Approval by a judge, local police chief, and sheriff all have to say ok. The application process is extensive and expensive. So what does the bill provide other than harassing those of us that already passed all of the checks
 
The same results can be achieved by a lot of people using their mouse and keyboards.
Click to expand...

You'll need a LOT of emails. There is an open secret known by savvy politicians, Newspaper editors, and other people who deal with public opinions, and that is that e-mails are not as effective as people think.

Phone calls are a bit more effective, but the impact is more transitory. Once the phone stops "ringing off the hook", the effect diminishes.

Back in ancient times, when people actually wrote and mailed letters the politician, editors, etc., paid attention to them, and the volume of them, because they realized that for each person who took the time and effort to write and mail each letter, there were dozens to hundreds of people who felt the same way, (and would vote) but didn't make the effort to send a letter.

Handwritten letters were given more weight than form letters, as well. Same idea. Plus, there is the physical volume of letters. They take up space. And, they need to be stored, or disposed of, both of which require work and cost by the staff. This makes an impression that emails cannot.

Remember the key thing that decided the case of Santa Claus in Miracle on 34th Street? It wasn't the lawyer saying there were hundreds or thousands of letters, it was the physical paper burying the judge (who had demanded they be put on his desk..;)).

A million emails means you got a lot of people to make a couple mouseclicks. AND they all fit on your phone. The number is impressive, as a number, but its only a number, not a huge, unavoidable, constant physical presence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying emails aren't effective, what I'm saying is that those things that take more effort than clicking a mouse have a greater impact on those we wish to reach. A dozen people willing to stand in the cold and rain, waving banners means people committed to enduring hardship to get their message across. They may only be the tip of the iceberg, but they are proof the iceberg is there, and should not be ignored.
 
And so it begins...

Fourth Amendment US Constitution:

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.

I wonder if this new law impacts on the politicians who voted for it.
 
You'll need a LOT of emails. There is an open secret known by savvy politicians, Newspaper editors, and other people who deal with public opinions, and that is that e-mails are not as effective as people think.

Phone calls are a bit more effective, but the impact is more transitory. Once the phone stops "ringing off the hook", the effect diminishes.

Back in ancient times, when people actually wrote and mailed letters the politician, editors, etc., paid attention to them, and the volume of them, because they realized that for each person who took the time and effort to write and mail each letter, there were dozens to hundreds of people who felt the same way, (and would vote) but didn't make the effort to send a letter.

Handwritten letters were given more weight than form letters, as well. Same idea. Plus, there is the physical volume of letters. They take up space. And, they need to be stored, or disposed of, both of which require work and cost by the staff. This makes an impression that emails cannot.

Remember the key thing that decided the case of Santa Claus in Miracle on 34th Street? It wasn't the lawyer saying there were hundreds or thousands of letters, it was the physical paper burying the judge (who had demanded they be put on his desk..).

A million emails means you got a lot of people to make a couple mouseclicks. AND they all fit on your phone. The number is impressive, as a number, but its only a number, not a huge, unavoidable, constant physical presence.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying emails aren't effective, what I'm saying is that those things that take more effort than clicking a mouse have a greater impact on those we wish to reach. A dozen people willing to stand in the cold and rain, waving banners means people committed to enduring hardship to get their message across. They may only be the tip of the iceberg, but they are proof the iceberg is there, and should not be ignored.
Click to expand...


That sounds even better:)

Before the Text Messaging age me and all the friends I knew wrote snail-mail letters. And the art is never lost. I can see how a massed and organized reaction in this manner to a particularly offensive bill can generate results.

It takes around half an hour to draft and write up a very eloquent and well-explained letter. A couple of minutes to seal, address and stamp the letter. Now all folks got to do is pass by the post office and drop it off. Or at one of the local neighborhood boxes if these are more convenient.

I can see some issues may be present for some folks with mobility issues or due to inclement weather, but if we can get a good amount of snail-mail response to those outlandish and ludicrous bills, then we will be achieving something. We have a Firemission section on this forum already, the L&CR is perfect for exposing those more nasty pieces of script that some extremist antis would try to stealthily sneak past their voters' noses.
 
The most important influence nowadays is the money campaign. Be a big donor and you have influence.

Letters are read by interns and classified as pro or con an issue. The odds the legislator reads your brilliant prose are very, very low.
 
My daughter worked on capital hill for a senator for a short time.You are lucky if they even read the bill in front of them before voting. No way they will read any letters or email. Only if you donated a million to their campaign maybe
 
I hope you New Yorkers fight this.

Information requiring your log on and password is by definition NOT public. It would require a judicial order to be monitored. You are already a trusted and known entity as per the background checks. Even in depth background investigations for our highest security clearance levels do not require such information.

While it seems such a small thing to give up, it is significant loss of privacy to secure a constitutional right. While that right is not "unlimited" it most certainly does come with a reasonable expectation to defend oneself as well as "bear arms".

The Supreme Court has definitely frowned upon any limitation of that right that seeks to restrict the meaning of "bearing arms" to just moving from your kitchen to the living room.
 
Just an off the wall question, IF the state requires you to give your social media address(s) and log in information, can someone else get that info from the state via a Freedom of Information Act filing??

And. would you be informed if they did????
 
Just an off the wall question, IF the state requires you to give your social media address(s) and log in information, can someone else get that info from the state via a Freedom of Information Act filing??

And. would you be informed if they did????
Click to expand...


They could most certainly request it.
 
Is there anything in the bill that prohibits the state from keeping, copying (e.g.: screenshots) personal data including data thats not pertinent to the background check ?
 
No. It’s basically designed to have a reason to deny the permit especially from those who have one. My guess to disarm law abiding citizens the right
 
Here is some thoughts straight from the Bill authors mouth:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/597609066...#sp=show-clips
Click to expand...
So ... another lawmaker who doesn't really understand the fundamental principles of equal protection, and what's the difference between a "right" and a "privilege." He wants the government to be able to look at social media, but that's a very slippery slope. Who determines what in a social media post constitutes a disqualifying factor? What are the objective criteria, and what are the qualifications of the reviewer to make the determination?

I particularly enjoyed how he evaded Tucker's request for his passwords.
 
I have no problem with the Government LOOKING at social media. They can do it the same way everyone on social media does.

Government logging in to your account and going through all your history? No, sorry.

Government ACTING on your legal rights based on what they see on social media? Really, really BAD idea.

Beyond the simple fact that the government has no business with any of that information, (exception being posts that meet the legal definition of a threat), who decides what is, and isn't "actionable"?? And what kind of UNIFORM standard is to be used. You might get on a "to be denied" list just because the reviewer thinks you are one of those "deplorables" and therefore a threat to their vision of the correct society.

Will there be public disclosure if you are put on that list? Will YOU be notified? or will you find out only when you go to renew your permit, or buy a gun??? IS there, or will there be any kind of challenge/appeal process???

And here's another point, if the govt has your account(s) login password what stops some individual in govt with that info from posting anything THEY want in your account, PRETENDING to be YOU!!!

Slippery slope? How about a nice high cliff they can push you off???
Consider this situation, they've got access to your social media, they can post the most disgusting, deplorable, possibly even criminal stuff, AS YOU, and then use that as the basis for denial.

PROOVE that YOU didn't post that? How??? (assuming there is even a mechanism for you to challenge it...)

Oh, and wait till they decide that you must be denied because you don't have a social media presence that they can monitor...If they get to take that first step, then that will be the second step.

I understand the basis they are using, it is the "ancient" requirement that you be a "person of good character" in order to be issued a permit. This was the reason they required 3 "character references" on the NY permit application back in the 70s. People (not relatives,) who knew you they could (and would) check with. I don't know if that is still the case today, it probably is, requirements never seem to be reduced...
Now they want to add your social media comments as another source of "testimony" about your character.

Social media, and everything else on the internet, cannot and should not be relied on as factual. Remember the Columbine killers? One of them had a webpage that was full of "peace, love, brotherhood" and "can't we all get along" slogans, which turned out to all be lies.

It seems the proposed NY bill would make internet hearsay a valid legal standard for denying your rights. I don't think that's a good idea at all.
 
yeahthat.gif


44_AMP said it much better than I did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top