NY may allow conealed carry if your tweets are good & you're nice & have cool friends

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — New York would require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct” under a bill being considered Friday by the state Legislature.

The provision was part of a proposed redesign of the state’s firearms licensing laws hammered out by lawmakers after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down rules severely limiting who could get a permit to carry a handgun outside their home.....

Those applying for a license to carry a handgun would also have to provide four character references, take 16 hours of firearms safety training plus two hours of practice at a range, undergo periodic background checks and turn over the contact information of their spouse, domestic partner or any other adults living in their household.

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-gun-politics-legislature-kathy-hochul-38558a7dc679f01c213aea910da1ba88

[DaleCooper]

Should be a clear violation of the First Amendment.

[Horus]

So basically you need a good social credit score to carry in public? That's dystopian.

Better background checks? Fine. But by and large we should either let every non felon carry or no one. As I've said time and time again anything in between is totalitarian.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

This is why I oppose red flag laws. Expressing a socially/culturally conservative opinion would be a red flag to the lunatics in charge.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

So basically you need a good social credit score to carry in public? That's dystopian.

Better background checks? Fine. But by and large we should either let every non felon carry or no one. As I've said time and time again anything in between is totalitarian.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, my most radical position that's likely to make a Conservatives head blow off while discussing politics in person is repealing the 2nd amendment. It's gone too far and the way it's being interpreted by radical Conservative lawmakers makes it unfit for a 21st century society.

I'd even be in favor of passing a law afterward to allow personal possession for self defense and hunting; but at least this way, proper regulations could be put in place.

I'm aware this is 99.9% unlikely to happen in this country and no Democrat would ever run on this (and they shouldn't).

[kwabbit]

This law is pretty ridiculous. Probably not the case, but it seems to me that blue state legislators might be drafting laws that are guaranteed to be struck down by a conservative judiciary in order to rally the base. Lord knows that any and everything can be turned into some viral Instagram story activism.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

So basically you need a good social credit score to carry in public? That's dystopian.

Better background checks? Fine. But by and large we should either let every non felon carry or no one. As I've said time and time again anything in between is totalitarian.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, my most radical position that's likely to make a Conservatives head blow off while discussing politics in person is repealing the 2nd amendment. It's gone too far and the way it's being interpreted by radical Conservative lawmakers makes it unfit for a 21st century society.

I'd even be in favor of passing a law afterward to allow personal possession for self defense and hunting; but at least this way, proper regulations could be put in place.

I'm aware this is 99.9% unlikely to happen in this country and no Democrat would ever run on this (and they shouldn't).

I doubt repealing it would do a bit of good (and possibly some harm). The ammosexuals and those who profit from them will just come back with 9th Amendment and a right to bear arms in the common law. (Which, to be fair, is a much better place to approach it from than misinterpreting the 2nd.)

The core problem is not the 2nd Amendment, it's the people who ignore half of the words in it order to justify an imaginary right for every man in the country to carry a concealed semi-automatic pistol and an assault weapon at all times.  People who claims a couple commas let them ignore "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" don't actually need an amendment in order to get their way.

This is something we're seeing a lot with Republicans lately - the legalisms are just an excuse. The Right will do whatever it wants, or at least whatever we allow it to get away with, no matter what the law actually says. Searching for technical fixes is a waste of time and energy - the problem is Republicans.

[dead0man]

Remember last week when the gun control nuts were telling each other "everyone can walk around NY with a gun now" followed by insults aimed at people who disagree with them politically.  At least the writers of this stupid bill comprehended how the law is supposed to work...in theory at least.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Remember last week when the gun control nuts were telling each other "everyone can walk around NY with a gun now" followed by insults aimed at people who disagree with them politically.  At least the writers of this stupid bill comprehended how the law is supposed to work...in theory at least.

I can't say I understand how this law wouldn't be problematic in the exact same way as the law struck down in Bruen.  Only here they might have a 1st amendment challenge in addition to the 2nd.

[Hammy]

This seems like a violation of due process

[AGA]

🤡

[Middle-aged Europe]

Inaccurate, misleading thread title.

As for the measure itself.. better than nothing, I suppose, although a bit of a desperate subsitute for actual effective policies.

[dead0man]

Inaccurate, misleading thread title.

in what way?  A cite (or at least an explanation) would be nice when making proclamations that go against what everyone else in the tread believes to be true.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Well, I don't see any bad tweets here.

[John Dule]

Lol, I'd be interested to see if they could locate a single element of my online presence.

[Torie]

If a social media account is full of pugnacious comments, is that not relevant?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If a social media account is full of pugnacious comments, is that not relevant?

Not if people aren't making threats against others.

Keeping and Bearing Arms is my RIGHT.  It's not a privilege; it's not something that's OK for me if you consent to it.  It's my RIGHT and people here would do well to understand the differences between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES. 

LIBERALS understand the difference.  LEFTISTS seek to blur the difference to suit their own ends.  This, in a nutshell, describes how the Democratic Party "left" so many people.

[Torie]

If a social media account is full of pugnacious comments, is that not relevant?

Not if people aren't making threats against others.

Keeping and Bearing Arms is my RIGHT.  It's not a privilege; it's not something that's OK for me if you consent to it.  It's my RIGHT and people here would do well to understand the differences between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.  

LIBERALS understand the difference.  LEFTISTS seek to blur the difference to suit their own ends.  This, in a nutshell, describes how the Democratic Party "left" so many people.

SCOTUS has reiterated that it is not an unqualified right, but a right subject to reasonable regulation to protect health and safety. So then the issue becomes what is "reasonable" on a case by case basis. The law can be a complex and frustrating beast Fuzzy. It tends to be hostile to absolutes. It loves balancing tests.


Here is a list for you to ponder regarding what is deemed a "sensitive place" in the proposed NY law:

Carrying a concealed weapon will be prohibited in the following areas:

   Federal, state, or local government buildings, including courts;

   Places providing health or medical care, such as hospitals, nursing homes, adult care facilities, domestic violence shelters, medical campuses, behavioral facilities, mental health and chemical dependency facilities, and clinics;

   Places of worship or religious observation;

   Places where children gather, including but not limited to, schools, libraries, daycare centers, playgrounds, parks, and zoos;

   Any OCFS regulated locations that provide services to children youth or young adults;

   Any OPWDD, OASAS, OMH, and OTDA funded or regulated locations, including homeless shelters;

   Places used for public transportation or transit including, airports, train stations, subway and rail stations, and bus terminals;

   Establishments where alcohol or cannabis is consumed;

   Locations when being used as a polling place;

   Educational institutions including, colleges, universities, and private schools;

   Theaters, stadiums, arenas, racetracks, museums, amusement parks, performance venues, concerts, exhibits, conference centers, banquet halls, casinos, and venues for athletic games or contests;

   Any public sidewalk restricted from access for a permitted special event that has signage;

   Any gathering of individuals who are collectively expressing First Amendment rights of protest or assembly.;

   Times Square


Yes, Fuzzy, the courts have a lot to work with on this one. Some of the bullet points do seem excessively vague and problematic, and there is a procedural due process issue here perhaps. You happen to walk by a place where children (minors?) gather to smoke pot with a concealed gun. Have you just committed a felony? Know your neighborhood I guess, or else, if carrying a gun. What is a First Amendment assembly of individuals? Fuzzy and Torie standing on the street arguing about gun laws? If Fuzzy has a concealed gun (Torie does not like guns), is Fuzzy now a felon?

[Joe Republic]

It's important to know if somebody is a psychopath before you hand over a weapon capable of mowing down dozens of people, and social media is but one tool to enable the authorities to gauge that.  Is there a non-clumsy, workable way to go about it?  Probably not.  But apparently milquetoast half-measure legislation like this that inevitably get struck down anyway is all we're capable of passing these days.

[GP270watch]

 Whenever there is a mass shooter one of the first things everyone does is look at the online presence or past behaviors of the lunatic who just killed a bunch of people and there is always a "why didn't anybody see this person was disturbed" outrage.

[Badger]

Considering the extensive social media content of recent Mass shooters, I'm having a hard time disputing this proposal.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I have a better idea: let's ban concealed carry and also handguns.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Imagine having social media lmao

[Big Abraham]

LIBERALS understand the difference.  LEFTISTS seek to blur the difference to suit their own ends.

Actually, it's the other way around.

Sincerely, a Leftist.

[wesmoorenerd]

Terrible policy. The left needs to come to terms with the probability of a second civil war within the next few years and arm as many people in big cities as possible accordingly.