NY State Senate Bill S 9191

[500SNW]

Since I'm new to this forum IDK if State level legislation is permitted, but IMO I'd definitely say that proposed bill NY S 9191is a 2nd Amendment issue. Having read the text myself, it is so absurd I doubt it will ever progress further than one persons idea. IMHO it's requirements on Citizens violate..in the following sequence...the 4th, 1st and 2nd Amendments. In short, they propose that applicants for firearms licenses surrender their social media passwords so that their content can be reviewed and serve as a consideration for approval, or more likely rejection.

"Relates to requiring social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal."

https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2017/S9191

EDIT: Brought to you by Kevin Parker Kevin S. Parker | NY State Senate

 

[Watchdog]

The proposed law is absurd, of course. And I spotted some loopholes in it after only a cursory reading of it.

Regarding the searching of an individual's use of search engines...the only ones they'll look at are Google, Bing, and Yahoo. The workaround to that should be obvious to anyone...just don't use those search engines. Speaking for myself, I don't use any of them, and haven't for years. There are so many reasons not to use any of them, especially Google, that I couldn't even list them all.

The First Amendment may be violated in some ways, but posts on social media are basically public record. They're online for anyone to see.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, okay? Violation of the 4th Amendment? I don't know. Is it a violation if the individual gives permission to have accounts searched? Of course, if the individual doesn't give permission, he probably won't be issued a license or whatever it is they issue in New York in order to purchase/own/carry a firearm.

New York...just like New Jersey and California...is a hotbed of anti-gun/anti-2A sentiment. New York is well known for trampling on the rights of its residents when it comes to Second Amendment rights and other civil liberties.

Personally, I don't doubt this has a good chance to become law in New York. It just depends on who's backing it and who can be bought. We all know money talks. I mean, the SAFE act passed in 2013. I wouldn't put anything past them.

I consider myself lucky that I don't live up there.

 

[500SNW]

The First Amendment may be violated in some ways, but posts on social media are basically public record. They're online for anyone to see.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, okay? Violation of the 4th Amendment? I don't know. Is it a violation if the individual gives permission to have accounts searched? Of course, if the individual doesn't give permission, he probably won't be issued a license or whatever it is they issue in New York in order to purchase/own/carry a firearm.

IMO it does violate a person's First Amendment protections. Number one, by holding 2nd Amendment Rights for "ransom" it forces a Citizen to self-censor what they say online (or sanction them for things they have said...raising the question of who gets to decide what is acceptable or not?). If you can't speak freely out of fear of losing other rights...is that free speech?

IMO it also violates a Citizens 4th Amendment protections. True, it is consensual (in a way) and the individual can withhold permission...but like you said, in doing so they forfeit their 2nd Amendment Rights in the process. IMO, they would be consenting under duress. Further, there is ZERO probable cause.

The only part I'm not sure about is how the State vs. Federal will play out. Rather than stating what a Citizen can do...the Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties which states what the government CANNOT do. I'm no scholar in law and government but, given the above, I suppose that even if this bill passes in New York, it will quickly find it's way into the courts and will not progress very far.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

I'd be glad to tell any member of this forum what I think about that bill and what I think should be done about it. However, if I did so on this forum, I would never get any kind of permit from the State of New York. That by itself is no big deal, but there is some possibility that a further consequence would be that The Gorilla would no longer allow me post here, much like our friend feralmerril.

Use your imagination, for patriotic purposes.

 

[10ring]

I looked at the bill. It seems to suggest one may be denied a license for using or even searching for a "known profane slur or biased language" or saying anything that raises "any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer. It does not have to be crazy or violent or threatening comments, just something the "investigating officer" doesn't like.

Even in today's political climate where we are seeing the opening salvos in an all-out war on guns, this one leaves me stunned.

 

[American1776]

New York... following in the tradition of the corrupt Sullivan Act of 1911.

Sullivan was passed with the sole goal of Timothy Sullivan and pals to disarm and set up political rivals and members of ethnic groups that they believed to be inferior.

Bill 919 is just another way for the rulers of NY to be able to set people up and oppress those with whom they disagree. What better way to destroy one's rivals than to not only disarm them, but also set them up for illegal online activity in one fell swoop?