Posted on 07/10/2022 5:02:13 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
As missed warning signs pile up in investigations of mass killings, New York state is rolling out a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits. People seeking to carry concealed handguns will be required to hand over their social media accounts for a review of their “character and conduct.”
It’s an approach applauded by many Democrats and national gun control advocacy groups, but some experts have raised questions about how the law will be enforced and address free speech concerns.
Some of the local officials who will be tasked with reviewing the social media content also are asking whether they’ll have the resources and, in some cases, whether the law is even constitutional.
The new requirement, which takes effect in September, was included in a law passed last week that sought to preserve some limits on firearms after the Supreme Court ruled that most people have a right to carry a handgun for personal protection. It was signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, who noted shooters sometimes telegraph their intent to hurt others.
Under the law, applicants have to provide local officials with a list of current and former social media accounts from the previous three years. It will be up to local sheriff’s staff, judges or country clerks to scroll through those profiles as they check whether applicants have made statements suggesting dangerous behavior.
The law also will require applicants to undergo hours of safety training, prove they’re proficient at shooting, provide four character references and sit for in-person interviews.
(Excerpt) Read more at al.com ...
So, what if a NYS resident doesn’t have any “social media” accounts? Is there a specific legal description of such things?
Email? Messenger? Personal communications likely wouldn’t meet any wild-azzed definition of “ social media”?
As a native NYer, but long time expat, I pity my generation in NY. I came to mo long ago, and fought for our very liberal( in a good sense of the term) weapons and self- defense laws.
Just say no. But don’t move to Missouri, stay there and fight ( legally, rationally and wisely).
Absolutely. I agree with you. There are a thousand defenses and things that can mitigate a charge. However probably better not to say much that is Public in the first place. I think you might agree.
Does this mean Twitter, Facebook, FR, DU, et. al. can’t kick you off their site because then the authorities wouldn’t have access to what you wrote that got you kicked off the site?
Respectfully: I do not agree. This would serve as an intimidation-tactic, cooling or denying of the First Amendment. Speak forcefully and without reservation..... although it wasn't me that spoke, so screw you, bureaucrats and your denials. Lawsuit time.
Not to mention the 4th amendment, Right to Privacy. Social media isn’t exactly private since it’s out there for every one to see, but it’s still your personal account.
I don’t like it.
But you are completely correct.
No jokes. No come backs. No objection. No social media is bad social media.
I appreciate your perspective. I agree they the freedom is speech is never infringed. I guess what i am honestly questioning is should there me judgment on what one places on the internet? Can a Facebook page be used to evaluate employment fitness for a private company. When something is voluntarily placed in the public domain is it fair game. The law provides for provisions against some privacies. What is the correct balance?
It is without question the government will overreach. But if I threaten someone on the web can that not be used to determine intent should I follow through? What is allowed to be discovered should I commit a crime? A civil tort?
I tend to think that social media is an awful thing. Firstly, I don’t think anyone particularly cares what I had for dinner last night nor. We’d they the thousand pictures of how it was presented. Secondly, if I am dumb enough to broadcast I am taking a 14 day trip, I just exposed my home to people who know I won’t be there. Thirdly, it is a bit narcissistic to assume that people want to know what I am doing every moment. I rather enjoy my privacy so I am not inclined to post things and why I don’t have internet.
I see social media as willingly sacrificing my privacy.
The founders always promote rights come with responsibilities. You have an absolute right to free speech comes the responsibility to govern yourself so you don’t run afoul of the law. The whole notion of rugged individualism is that the constitution and bill of rights limit what the government can do to the people. It also placed the responsibility of the exercise of the rights of the people on the people. It’s a brilliant system.
These political clowns who make these laws, and sign them into law, should be Turing over their own social media accounts, all bank/investment accounts, and all private correspondence, before being allowed to run for public office.
Are people seeking to vote required to do the same? If not, this is unconstitutional law.
But don't expect that to deter Queen Kathy and her Commissars. That train left the station long ago.
She got a A+ rating from the NRA back in the day. So she is an example of a real political whore. Also why you shouldnt join the NRA>
I have yet to read about any lawsuit.
Doesn’t sound like free speech to me.
If it comes at a cost, it’s not free.
“Eff you, That’s My Account!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.