Gun applicants in New York will have to hand over social accounts

Welp. I knew this was coming sooner or later.
Now, in order to purchase a handgun or concealed weapon, the applicant must list his/her social media accounts so someone can "peruse" through their lives in an effort to deem them suitable for ownership. I wonder how many people would list ATS as their account?

NBC News Source

Check out the article:

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.”
...
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.

I am all for testing and safety training, but this is an entirely different level.

Better keep your social media accounts clean!

a reply to: havok

Anyone should have seen this coming.

Don't live in commie States.

a reply to: havok

Gun applicants in New York will have to hand over social accounts

There's your problem right there. Pretty sure that 99.99% of career criminals and psychopaths don't "apply" for much and certainly not for a gun.

a reply to: myselfaswell

Yep.

As always, gun control is only to control law-abiding citizens.
Because criminals will use anything for a weapon.
I.e., Japan's former PM. (RIP)

Unconstitutional.

#ing commies man.

a reply to: havok

There's no way to verify the legitimacy of accounts provided or accounts undisclosed.

A lot of people don't DO social media. The idea that EVERYONE is "hooked" is presumptively idiotic.

Talk about a hail mary...🙄

This will end up being tossed as well, it'll take time which is the reason they inact this BS in first place.

I honestly don't feel sorry for them. They voted for this, so it seems they're getting exactly what they wanted. My state doesn't even require a license to conceal carry anymore. I can also defend someone I feel is in grave danger with deadly force. It's called basic common-sense laws and the citizens of New York threw common sense out the window a long time ago. It's time New York started voting for politicians that will pass laws to help law-abiding citizens instead of their criminals.

What happens when the applicant doesn’t have a social media account?

From the article:

It will be up to local sheriff’s staff, judges or country clerks to scroll through those profiles

How many sheriffs, judges, and clerks have the time and resources to even think of taking this on? What a very bureaucratic “Here’s our big idea, now somebody else make it happen”.

Well at least this will be expedited to the SC. Gotta love the idea that federal checks are not good enough. Hochul is a useless waste of organic matter, she will most likely be thrown in the garbage can of NY politics after the election. Notice not a peep about the rapid decline of criminal cases involving illegal gun use? But heaven forbid a citizen in good legal standing try and exercise their constitutional rights. They haven't even revealed the criteria for refusal, so will a black man that made a rap video about shooting cops be denied? Or will it just be white folks that identify as conservative?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
I honestly don't feel sorry for them. They voted for this, so it seems they're getting exactly what they wanted. My state doesn't even require a license to conceal carry anymore. I can also defend someone I feel is in grave danger with deadly force. It's called basic common-sense laws and the citizens of New York threw common sense out the window a long time ago. It's time New York started voting for politicians that will pass laws to help law-abiding citizens instead of their criminals.

WRONG! You may want to stop interjecting in things you obviously know nothing about! Hochul was not elected, she is only governor because Cuomo resigned for his sexual harassment allegations. Even Cuomo wasn't this stupid.

Good business opportunity to create those perfect SM IDs and put em up for sale 😎

sad to see how authoritarian America is becoming in both red and blue states, its just different brands of authoritarianism.

Infringe...

"act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on"

How exactly is this not a violation of constitutional and civil rights?

originally posted by: hangedman13
Hochul was not elected...

She was elected Lt. Governor and that election comes with the understanding that if Fredo's brother bombed out, which he did, that she would take over.

a reply to: havok
Does that mean Jack Reacher, and anyone like him can't have a gun because they don't have an online footprint?


I wonder if they will televise the burning of the constitution.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: hangedman13
Hochul was not elected...

She was elected Lt. Governor and that election comes with the understanding that if Fredo's brother bombed out, which he did, that she would take over.

She was only elected because she ran with Cuomo, which isn't really her being elected. It's people voting for Cuomo and his clinger.

a reply to: VierEyes

Still elected.

a reply to: hangedman13

I’ll say what I want, thanks! So she is only there because the voters kept voting for a person like Cuomo, right? Seems I’m right and you’re wrong. I’ll never be silenced, nice try though!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: VierEyes

Still elected.

Not because she was wanted.

ny can't do that.


put these caveats on gun ownership/carry.

unlike abortion, the right to bear arms is right there in the constitution.
abortion which is not explicitly or implicitly in the constitution goes to the individual states to be voted on by the people and let their legislators decide how to deal with it.


we all know how the left loves it's legislation from the bench, but sorry, not this time with the 2nd.
and i don't think a lower court can over turn a sc decision. need the state legislators.