Posted on 07/25/2022 5:07:20 AM PDT by marktwain
The New York State anti-Second Amendment law, enacted under an extraordinary session brought about by Governor Hochel, is blatantly unconstitutional under the terms of the recent Bruen decision by the Supreme Court. Several provisions of the law are likely to be struck down. This article focuses on the requirement to provide social media accounts and the practical mechanisms, which mean very few permits will be approved under this provision.
Those which are approved are likely to take an unconstitutional amount of time. From Bruen, page 30 of the opinion, footnote 9:
And they likewise appear to contain only “narrow, objective, and definite standards” guiding licensing officials, Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 151 (1969), rather than requiring the “appraisal of facts, the exercise of judgment, and the formation of an opinion,” Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 305 (1940)—features that typify proper-cause standards like New York’s. That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.
Here is Section IV of the bill:
(IV) A LIST OF FORMER AND CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS OF THE APPLICANT FROM THE PAST THREE YEARS TO CONFIRM THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE APPLICANTS CHARACTER AND CONDUCT AS REQUIRED IN SUBPARA-GRAPH (II) OF THIS PARAGRAPH; AND
Section IV appears to directly require the formation of an opinion, rather than “narrow, objective, and definite standards”, as required by Bruen. Bruen states if times to process are “lengthy” or if fees are “exorbitant”, shall issue regimes are likely to fail a Second Amendment test.
Authorities who are empowered by New York State law to issue permits face
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
If we still had an independent judiciary that would indeed be the case.
And what if someone does not use SM? No gun for you!
I believe they will consider your Freerepublic account to be social media.
How will they prove they are mine?
It is a huge invasion of privacy. And, even if it withstood Constitutional muster (which it won’t), I’m sure they would disqualify law abiding citizens they deemed to be “haters” — so probably anyone who ever said a cross word about a protcted minority. Meanwhile, the true nutjobs would continue to slip through the cracks.
Maybe NY should apply this to voting. Let’s see how that works out.
What Freerepublic account?
“I believe they will consider your Freerepublic account to be social media. “
Under what legal definition of social media?
Anyway, I do not self identify as a user of social media.
Sadly, I lot my laptop in a freak boating incident.
Free Republic is social media, no doubt about it. Free Republic might be among the oldest such forms preceding the now more popular others
If people like Hochul and Newsome keep it up, the SCOTUS may rule that all gun laws are unconstitutional.
We need a law to prevent activist politicians from passing frivolous laws.
We also need people willing to stop voting for micro managing tyrants.
The New York legislators need to familiarize themseleves with USCC Title 8, Section 242: deprivation of civil rights under color of law.
CC
Start arresting these jackholes for violation of USC 18 Title 242. That’d put a stop to this.
See my comment #15 above: such a law already exists.
CC
Hey, great minds and all that huh?
CC
Drat! If I wasn’t busy digging up the link, we’d have posted at the same time.
Just started sipping my coffee....
The libs like using that one against their perceived enemies. I say it’s about time we used it too.
CC
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.