Here comes the local media push to include social media as a way to deny someone a firearm permit. Note the very last line...

Should social media check be required to get a gun license?
https://www.wtnh.com/news/national/should-social-media-check-be-required-to-get-a-gun-license-/1638545479

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Should authorities be able to deny handgun licenses for hateful tweets?

A New York lawmaker is raising the question with a bill that would require police to scrutinize the social media activity and online searches of handgun license applicants, and disqualify those who have published violent or hateful posts.

State Sen. Kevin Parker says he hopes his proposal sparks discussion about how to balance public safety and online privacy. The Brooklyn Democrat noted that mass killers often provide warning signs through their social media posts, as in the case of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting suspect, who ranted online that Jews were "children of Satan."

"It's a new time. It's a new technology," Parker said. "It's time that we in fact start having that conversation about how we monitor social media in a way that we can create safety for our communities."

Free-speech watchdogs and even some gun-control advocates have raised concerns about the bill, which would require handgun applicants to turn over login information to allow investigators to look at three years' worth of Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter and Instagram postings. Google, Yahoo and Bing searches over the previous year also would be checked.

Licenses could be denied if investigators uncover threats of violence or terrorism or the use of racial or ethnic slurs. The process would be the same for five-year re-certifications.

The bill will be among many related to guns waiting for lawmakers when they return to New York's Capitol in January. While Democrats now control both houses, only a fraction of those measures are expected to make it to floor votes in the coming months.

Still, Parker has already succeeded at one of his goals of creating "fodder for discussion," including pushback.

At the American Tactical Systems gun range, a short drive from New York's Capitol, gun owners called the proposal unnecessary and intrusive.

"I don't think the government should have access to anybody's history, especially for pistol permits," Steve Wohlleber, who works at the range. "And the state police have enough to worry about besides checking everyone's social media."

Even likely allies raised concerns.

Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence staff attorney David Pucino said while he shared the legislator's goals, he thought there were better alternatives, such as another bill that would create a court order of protection to bar people considered dangerous from possessing or buying guns.

Civil rights attorney Norman Siegel said he believes bill language directing police to consider "commonly known profane slurs or biased language" is too broad to pass constitutional muster.

"A person could be prejudiced," Siegel said. "That doesn't mean he's not entitled to his Second Amendment right."

On a practical level, the measure would mean more work for police in New York who already check the criminal and mental health histories of handgun license applicants.

Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple, whose department processes a few hundred applications every year, said "it's definitely going to bog things down a bit" in a licensing process that already can take from 120 days to a year to complete.

Parker countered that states have the authority to limit hand gun use for public safety and that many employers perform social media checks on job applicants.

"We certainly want to make sure we're putting weapons in the hands of the right people and keeping them out of the hands of the wrong people," he said. "Now, if you're afraid of your personal privacy, don't apply for a handgun license."

Alternative solution...

Go fuck yourself

1st amendment rights are protected even on the boobtube.
It’s public information. Why not? It’s not invading privacy, you don’t need search warrants to search someone’s Facebook.
100% legal to do. Don’t post shit you don’t want people knowing. Plain and simple. YOU are choosing to put information out there on the internet for the world to see.
Not sure if NY is a shall issue state or a may issue state. If it is a may issue state, they state legally can decide if they want to give you one. Shall issue, they must, if you have a good record.

Who gets to determine what is considered disqualifying content?  Do pro-Trump or anti-open border or anti-Antifa posts offend the wrong reviewer and disqualify you?  The obvious answer should be no, but you willing to bet on it?  They were talking about reviewing your search history (not sure how that would work) as well.

I agree with you that you shouldn't post anything online that you don't want everyone to know though.

Uh not all of social media posts are "public information". It is possible, on some social media platforms, to limit some social media posts to groups that one has to be invited into so it's not viewable by the public at large. This would circumvent that by possibly having the person give up their login information and refusal to give up that information may be a reason for the state to reject the permit/renewal.

Plus what and who gets to decide if one's posts are offensive or dangerous speech? It is a very slippery road to go down for any number of reasons. It is at the very least a 1st Amendment issue as some faceless drone is going to decide based on the vague writing of the law what speech crosses the line so the state can reject one's pistol permit/renewal.

This is the first proposed incremental step targeted at handguns. They WILL, if this is successfully passed, move on to long guns.

This smacks of; "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" line of thinking from those who proposed this law or think such a proposed law is fine. "Shall not be infringed" once again is facing a potential hit by a proposed law by those seeking to disarm the law abiding and once again we see a few gun owners are fine with it. I'm sure there are already laws on the books to deal with threatening language so why do we need another law?

We don’t need another law.
It shall not be infringed.
But if they can look you up on their part, without your login’s, it’s public information. I don’t care if it’s a closed group that only some people can see, guess what, it’s still public information. Like those closed gun raffle groups. Guess what, it’s still publically known, public information. Kind of like a “secret club” that you only can get invited into. that private club you belong to outside of work is still PUBLIC. If your post gun pics like a gangster with drugs in the background, that’s probable cause of committing illegal crimes which would then lead to an investigation.
Guilty until proven innocent. That is how they will handle it.
It can be argued both ways. If you have no felony’s you should have every right to own a gun.
Let’s look at it like this. Us in ct already have to pass two background checks, federally and at a state level. Are they including social media into their background checks? If you post it online, you are opening the door for everyone to see shit. I have no issue with it. But again, it’s another way for big brother to look at you. I can argue against myself with this one, as it doesn’t bother me but yet it does.
Might as well run a credit check while they are at it.

What it boils down to is, don’t be posting dumb shit. Numerous cases across the country, people post shit on facefuck and YouTube, cops get involved due to someone reporting it, and shit happens. They are already incriminating people for this stuff. What’s to stop them from this? Facebook PD. It’s wrong but then again, don’t post dumb shit.
Employers look at it as well as run background checks and credit checks. People are fine with it. And if they aren’t, they won’t apply.

Which is a good reason to stop posting pics of crazy ass stuff that you may or may not own-

Lolz to social media. Not only is it now apparently news but also doubles as police reports. Good times. I should go tweet about this.

I'm 100% in favor.   In fact, we should extend this to Voting also, since we can all recognize that Civil Rights such as these have limits.

Noice

It is best to let politicians decide what constitutes disqualifying speech or posts. They are all honest and live they way they preach

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/12/19/new-york-senator-angry-tweet/2360521002/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomwashington-topstories

EXACTLY why I do not, have never, and will never engage in that SM shit. Just curious, is there anyone in the forum else here who absolutely does not have a social media account (obviously, except arfcom)? I'm referring more the the facebook twitter type shit, where people post all of their life's events and air their laundry and shit.

Besides five forums, I do not.  And even if I did not have my current job, I do not understand the need to let everyone know what you are doing all of the time.  But such is the new world now and it will only get worse.

I have friends ask me why I am not on FaceFuck.  "It's the best way to stay in touch with all of your old high school, college, work people."  If I wanted to stay in touch with you, I would have.  That I haven't reached out to you in 30 years is what we in my office call "a clue."

if we have to give ours...so do they....

Attached File