New York state is rolling out a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits.

[elleng]

People seeking to carry concealed handguns will be required to hand over their social media accounts for a review of their “character and conduct.”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gun-applicants-in-ny-will-have-to-hand-over-social-media-accounts?

[AndyS]

1. It's about damn time.

This is no invasion of privacy! If you post something on a public forum it's because you want others to see it. It's just a relevent to a background check as an arrest record.

I'm damn tired of seeing that a mass shooter has a 'manifesto' on facebook for all to see!

[MineralMan]

2. Yeah, but on Facebook, for example, you can set

your account so that what you post on your feed can only be seen by Facebook friends. Other social media sites may have similar settings.

You can't see any of my Facebook posts, because you're not someone I have added to my friend list.

[AndyS]

7. Well goody for you.

So why do we see so many gun nuts, er I mean law abiding citizrns turned turned murderer with PUBLIC social media threats and manifestos?

I pretty much don't care to see any of your posts anyway.

[MineralMan]

8. Why the snark? I just pointed out that people can

limit who sees their social media posts. That's going to make it very difficult for states to see many people's postings. Now, if they require a person to make the State of New York a friend, that might work, but I don't think they can really do that.

[AndyS]

9. Wher, exactly, did you read any of that? nt

[elleng]

10. Thanks

[Kaleva]

15. How many mass shooters needed a CWP in order to commit their crimes?

[AndyS]

16. How many were "law abiding citizens " until

they opened fire? How many bought their guns legally?

I think it's about 80% but I'm sure you can me exactly.

[Kaleva]

17. I'd like to find out how many needed a concealed gun permit before they could massacre people

[AndyS]

18. Not interested in a conversation about red herrings.

Come back when you have something constructive to add.

[Kaleva]

19. You're not interested in discussing if the law would have prevented any mass shootings anywhere?

And if it wouldn't have prevented any, what chance will it have of preventing future mass shootings?


A person who is denied a concealed weapons permit because of what they posted on social media will still be allowed by this law to purchase as much ammo and as many guns as they can afford.

[AndyS]

22. First, that's typical gunner logic or lack there of.

"It wouldn't have prevented this so it's not worth doing." I contend that every opportunity to reduce gun violence is worth pursuing.

Followed by:
"That's such a small number that it's not worth spending time on." I suggest you explain that to the survivors and the loved ones left behind.

Then there's:
"Suicide was a choice so it's not gun violence." Ever cleaned up after a gun suicide or even an injury? Ever talk to the wife, child or other loved one who found the mess left by a gun suicide?

So, no, I'm not interested if screwing around with a gunner intent of perusing a red herring but while you're attempting to lionize Concealed Carry Holders (people too afraid of life to leave home without a loaded gun) I'll suggest you follow this link: https://concealedcarrykillers.org/.

Seems that CC holders are no less violent than the average gun humper.

For the last time, I am not interested in 'debating' this further. Now post a last word, declare victory and go away or just go away. I don't really care.

[Straw Man]

23. According to your linked source ...

... CCW holders are responsible for 2,240 deaths. With 2,500,000 CCW permits in the US, that's a rate of .0009, or less than one tenth of a percent of CCW holders that go rogue.

"It wouldn't have prevented this so it's not worth doing." I contend that every opportunity to reduce gun violence is worth pursuing.

It's not clear that it would do anything to reduce gun violence, but why should you care? It's not your right to privacy that you're so blithely giving away.

[Kaleva]

24. I asked a question as to how many mass shooters needed a CPL

in order to carry out their plan. Nobody has been able to answer that. I imagine if one is scanning an applicants social media, they are looking for indications that the person is an extremist, violent or unhinged. If that person is planning on going on a shooting spree, they probably aren't too concerned about lawfully carrying their weapons to the kill zone and won't bother applying for a CPL.

This law does not prevent anyone deemed too dangerous , because of their social media posts, to legally conceal carry from buying guns and ammo.

[MichMan]

3. Race and political affiliations too ?

All those can be determined from social media. Wait until other states start doing it too.

[Timewas]

4. Sure

I'm sure no one will go and sanitize their accounts.....

[usonian]

5. Suggestion: Ask them one question, as soldiers did in WWII

Who is President of the United States?
Don't be surprised by the number of wrong answers.

[sanatanadharma]

6. Social media has been used to screen travelers arriving at customs for "character and conduct"

Just saying.

Apparently “character and conduct.” are considered important to some.

[ripcord]

12. Not legal according to SCOTUS

Show cause was struck down because it was subjective, determining conduct and character is also subjective.

[SYFROYH]

11. This will be interesting to see how it plays out

Historically, government has been a poor judge of character and conduct when it comes to BIPOC folks.

For some that will be a feature and not a bug.

[sarisataka]

13. Important caveat

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.

Sheriffs haven’t received additional money or staffing to handle a new application process, said Peter Kehoe, the executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association. The law, he asserted, infringes on Second Amendment rights, and while applicants must list their social media accounts, he doesn’t think local officials will necessarily look at them.

I have evolved somewhat on this and agree that checking public social media posts is not invading anyone's privacy. Denial can and should be made if a person has made online threats. The "character" part is ripe for abuse if no objective criteria are established.

However it doesn't matter what requirements are put in place if there is no one looking. It is simply security theater that annoys people. Some may say that is the point however...

[Leith]

14. I'll just tell them that I don't have any

Only my LinkedIn account is in my real name (and I'm going to delete it soon). I had a FB account years ago, but I forgot the login and password. The only reason I can still post on Twitter is because my computer holds the pw. And, obviously, I was not named after a city in Scotland (I came up with the name because I was listening to the album Sunshine on Leith when I created an account on another message board).

[Polybius]

20. What if you don't have a social media account?

Then no gun for you?

[ripcord]

21. Why pass a law that will allow another gun case to go before SCOTUS?

They will probably extend gun rights further, when this case that directly violates their last decision, comes before them they will be foaming at the mouth to teach New York not to ignore their decisions.