New York passes a law requiring concealed carry permit applicants to surrender their social media accounts to the state. Scott Ott calls it a classic case of DoSomethingAnythingIsm. The men of Right Angle demonstrate why it can’t work.
Right Angle is a production of our Members. Join us now.
Listen to the Audio Version
21 replies on “Background Check: Want to Conceal Carry a Firearm? Cough Up Your Social Media to the State”
Hi guys. There is no money to pay for the timely monitoring of every social media account of NYS gun permit applicants. But look at it this way-the communist party in China just passed a law requiring the government to monitor EVERY social media account of EVERY citizen-yes, all 1.3 billion of them Good luck with that….nelson
It took years to strike down NYC CCW law. That is the strategy of the politicians who just in a matter of days passed another lame unconstitutional law against CCW. It will now take years to wind thru the courts to be thrown out. We need to have these insane shoot from-the-hip road blocks have to pass constitutional muster first before they can be implemented.
The right to privacy might drop this without the help of any other claus. But many states have passed prohibitions to conceal carrying during demonstrations or protests, which really hurts local peace efforts against people who plan to riot after dark.
And these people don’t need human persona sifting through thousands of social media accounts when Lambda and other pattern recognition software can do it for them.
Question, is billwhittle.com a social media site? not that any of that stuff would happen here but just wondering.
Yes, this is also a social media site, we are engaged in social interactions here on this comment board, the forum, etc.
“Social media” is any sort of media where you interact with other people on a non-formal/informal level.
Interacting with the people at the DMV through the Dept. of Motor Vehicles website is not social media. That would be an example of a formal interaction with other people through the internet. As a rule of thumb, anything first degree transactional is probably not considered to be “social media”. I.E.; banking, chatting with a customer service representative about a problem or a refund, applying for a building permit or some sort of city, county or state services, etc.
Posting a comment here about what twits the people who work at the DMV are … Is social media.
Re Bill’s point about the idiocy behind not understanding that only the law-abiding would apply for such a permit – the ultimate aim is confiscation of all citizen-owned firearms as in Great Britain and Australia, but that’s a pretty heavy lift in the U.S., between the Constitution and the sheer number of guns in circulation.
A lot depends on who decides exactly what “whack stuff” is. All kinds of wackos out there, many of them work for hi-tech social media sites. I don’t want to depend on them to decide where threats are coming from when I get banned for posting church hours as “may offend.”
I haven’t read their legislation, but I can make a pretty safe bet that its vague enough so they can use it for whatever they want. Such as going after their political and moral enemies. Baby steps at taking away everyone’s weapons.
If not already, they will soon be able to instantaneously monitor ALL internet activity. We already see an early version of that with Fascist Book & Twit-ter censorship policies.
Considering the law of unintended consequences – I wonder if we will see a rash of people in NY State close / delete / cancel their FB/Twitter/Snapchat/Instagram/etc accounts.
This will not be the only instance of a government form stating to list those things on an application.
The appropriate response is eff-off, don’t bruise your hand unnecessarily in punctuating the statement, use only the level of emphasis needed to close the deal.
This is why, among many other very valid reasons, I don’t have any social media accounts that are in my real name and I do not use my real name anywhere I can avoid it on the internet.
The internet is wild and not domesticated. You have no idea what will develop and when it will crop up. People get “SWATed” by other people who don’t like them, don’t like what they have to say, or just want to beat them in an online game. People have been killed this way.
I’m pretty outspoken, a lot of people don’t like what I have to say. I can be pretty damn snarky about how I say it too. That’s just one reason among others that I don’t make it easy for people to find me. I have enemies both virtual and real who would love to do me harm. I have mortal enemies and that’s not something most of you can truthfully say. I have people who live around me that do not have mortal enemies and they don’t need to encounter mine either.
The last thing I need is for one of those enemies to stupidly put himself in a position where he ends up bleeding out on my carpet, which is the most likely scenario for anyone stupid enough to try to attack me. Carpets are a real Class A bitch to get blood out of, you generally have to rip up carpet and pad and replace both. That’s a headache I don’t need.
One of my neighbor ladies wanted to know if I had a FaceBook page. I told her I did and what name it was under. She said “Who are you hiding from?” I said “How do you figure that’s any of your business? If you knew what I know you would never expose your real name on the internet either.” She knows I’m an IT guy so that shut her up without having to provide the gossipy details she was really looking for.
Even Jordan Peterson, whom I admire greatly and respect immensely, has said that no one should be allowed to use anything on the internet without providing proof that they’re using their real name. Mr. Peterson is wrong about that. His reasoning is that people would be much less likely to post certain things if they had to do it under their real name and not “hide” behind an alias. That works both ways. People might not be snarky or snide but they also might not say what they really think either. For fear of retribution. Which we have all seen happen with cancel culture and it doesn’t stop there in some cases.
This “provide your social media accounts or we won’t issue you a CCW permit” is the same thing. Like cancel culture it’s a threat that has now evolved unanticipated. If they asked me to do that I would say I don’t have any social media accounts … and they can just go fish. I don’t have to worry about them finding my stuff on the internet because I wisely precluded that possibility. If they search for my name on social media they won’t find it.
So you might ask yourself, is this wisdom or paranoia? My response would be “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you.” “They” are out to get you. They will try harder and come up with new methods as time goes on. You’re not paranoid if you are taking steps to counter a genuine threat. This development in New York proves the validity of the threat.
It’s not “Red Flag” laws per se that I object to, but rather what may qualify as a red flag. I think documented history of police interventions, or of violent behavior made by school or social services authorities should count. All of these shooters had a history of profound mental disturbance noted by multiple authorities; the root issue that is routinely ignored (and don’t get me started on the dysfunctional parenting in most cases). Instead, police records are sealed & school records are scrubbed because authorities have become too lazy or fearful to intervene.
According to John Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at 1/6 of the rate at which police officers are convicted.” Among police, firearms violations occur at a rate of 16.5 per 100,000 officers. Among permit holders in Florida and Texas, the rate [of firearms violations] is only 2.4 per 100,000. That is just 1/7 of the rate for police officers.”
So, CDL holders are safer than police to be around.
I’m a law and order kind of guy. I support the police without idolising or lionizing them. All my life I’ve said there’s nothing all that special about being a cop, it’s a job and normal people are the kind of people you want doing that job. There is certainly nothing about them so special that only cops should have guns because they are magically more reliable and mystically less prone to the same faults that anyone has. Cops are just people too.
I saw this as true many years ago, I’ve known a lot of cops since then and my opinion hasn’t changed a bit. If anything I’d have to say from personal experience that the vocation of Police Officer has a tendency to attract a slightly higher percentage of dicks than most other common occupations.
I’m not saying all cops are dicks so don’t go there. The statistic you quote look to be about right to me in that department. Slightly higher percentage of gun incidents pretty much equates to the same slightly higher percentage of dicks that manage to get a badge and a gun. This is what prompted me to respond to you.
A cop carries a gun for one reason. To protect himself and others in gravest extreme. Due to his occupation he may run up against the need to do that at a higher rate than the rest of us, then again he may not. Many, many police officers, deputies, marshals and various agents go their entire career and never draw their service weapon let alone actually shoot someone. Most cops never draw and fire on a human being anytime during their careers. This is a good thing.
Cops carry weapons for exactly the same reason a non-LEO civilian would. Just in case it’s needed and hoping it never will be. Because the only effective counter to a villian with a gun is another non-villain who also has a gun.
What makes a police officer’s life more valid and more important than anyone else’s, that he’s allowed to carry protection and everyone else is not?
I used to teach motorcycle rider ed classes. One of the questions we would ask our students in the classroom was “Who is responsible for your safety?” You would be gobsmacked at the number of blank stares and answers like “the police” or “the county” or whatever.
Oh Scott. You haven’t been listening. New York governor has spoken about that subject. She said she doesn’t care. She said she doesn’t need any numbers. She just wants New York citizens to feel safe. Passwords buzzwords buzzwords.
The solution to force people to mingle and chat at an airport gate is a disaster waiting to happen. Many like me want to be left alone in such places, and this sort of policy will breed nothing but contempt and resistance on the part of those who refuse to play. Access to public venues should never be dependent upon one’s ability to mix-it-up with strangers.
Actually, you guys are all worng on this. There is one simple group that is mostly responsible for mass shootings, but for obvious reason politicians don’t have the courage to call out this group en masse and take decisive action:
https://www.floppingaces.net/2022/05/26/revisiting-a-simple-piece-of-common-sense-gun-legislation-the-will-actually-end-mass-shootings/
The problem with the proposal that “[a]ll Democrats shall be forbidden from owning firearms of any kind” is simple …
… when such a law is enacted, there will be no more Democrats and, once again, the problem is just masked and subsequently ignored.
Don’t misinterpret me on this. I am not an advocate of laws that restrict gun ownership in any way, but this simple proposal by the author is nothing but another shell on the table to conceal the real problems in society:
So, until people are no longer prevented from carrying their own means of defense wherever and whenever they deem necessary, the problems of mass shootings will continue.
Absolutely correct. I’m the first to admit that my idea is a bad one, but at least it diverts the conversation away from us law abiding Normals
Legal permit holders rarely run afoul of the law except when they inadvertently carry into a restricted area or have to prove self-defense to an overzealous DA. This is true even in states that have minimum requirements for carry permits. However, the estimates of civilian defensive firearms use range from 600,000 to 2 million per year. In most incidents, the gun is never fired or no one is injured and it goes unreported. I recall one incident in my former city in which a couple of hoodlums assaulted a young man’s mother right outside his house. He came out with a shotgun and fired into the air (like Joe said). The police showed up and took away his shotgun, leaving him defenseless if the perps returned. This is another reason people are reluctant to report this kind of encounter. Anyway, John Lott provides the best and most thorough research I have read on firearms use and crime. BTW, great show, as always.