
Social media password, search history could be required to buy firearm in NY - joeyespo
https://www.nbc26.com/news/national/social-media-password-search-history-could-be-required-before-buying-firearm-in-ny
======
Rebelgecko
If you like a side of irony with your gun control, the state senator that is
the author of this bill recently sent a tweet to someone telling her to kill
herself after she posted pictures of him parking his car illegally. He's also
had multiple road rage incidents.

There are probably reasons why it's a horrible idea, but I think that
legislators should be subjected to laws they write affecting other people.
Want to require drug tests for welfare recipients? Then we should also require
drug tests for congress. Want to add social media purity tests before gun
purchases? Don't let anyone vote yes on the bill without publishing their
private Facebook messages. Government employees furloughed due to lack of a
budget? Don't pay the people that failed to pass a budget.

~~~
spartas
It would be a horrible idea because it would be handled by laws and the
government. I take issue with your example of not paying the people that
failed to pass a budget. Government budgets are huge complicated enigmas full
of waste and overspending, and if you punish individuals personally for
failing to agree to pass a budget bill, then those individuals are no longer
incentivized to dissent on unnecessary spending provisions of the bill.

Understand that if a bill passes then all provisions and portions of the bill
are approved, including any riders attached to the bill (and there are often
many). For many people in Congress, the reason to vote NO on a bill is not
because the bill is an awful or terrible idea (many times the bill makes sense
and would be beneficial), but because the author of the bill added in
unnecessary restrictions or budget kickbacks to the bill or in riders to
unfairly benefit a group that is sponsoring the bill.

If you think our government's problems are bad, you should see their
solutions.

------
jdhn
It's very scary how social media access by government authorities is quickly
becoming a de facto requirement for people to exercise their rights, whether
it's coming into the country or buying a firearm. While I can't find the text
of this proposed law, I guarantee that the definition of bad speech (if it
even has one) will be quite nebulous.

------
pjc50
Good way to start from a valid observation - mass shooters tend to have a
social media profile covered in red flags, or perhaps none at all - and turn
it into a completely unreasonable request that will set back the cause of
moderate harm reduction by years.

------
csense
Someone needs to RTFC (Read The Fine Constitution)

------
smileysteve
Are states out of touch with MFA? How do I provide a useful password if I
follow good security choices?

At the rate Facebook is going, this should just be "Authorize with Facebook
and we'll do the rest"

------
Para2016
It's not going to be easy to pass this kind of bill. James Tresmond, a gun
rights lawyer, said it violates multiple constitutional rights.

"The first, the second amendment, the fifth amendment, the fourth amendment,
and the 14th amendment," Tresmond said.

~~~
i_am_nomad
The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th have been under full assault since the early 2000s.

~~~
cyphar
The only amendments in the bill of rights that are still somewhat protected in
the US are the 1st and 2nd (and maybe the 9th and 10th, depending on your
political view).

The 3rd is outdated (the US army has very expensive military bases), 4th is
clearly attacked through mass surveillance and border searched, 5th is
invalidated by civil forfeiture (which arguably violates the "just" terms),
6th is partially invalidated because of how overworked courts are and the
existence of secret courts invalidates public trials, 7th is somewhat outdated
because ignores inflation and thus further overworks the courts (requiring
6-member jury trials for all civil suits over $20), 8th is blatantly
disregarded by many courts who routinely place excessive bail (hence the need
for bail bonds) and cruel and unusual punishments are inflicted in prisons all
the time.

Depending on your political view you can argue whether or not the 9th and 10th
amendments are being attacked by overzealous government. But at the very
least, it's in dispute.

~~~
jdhn
>The 3rd is outdated

I don't care what century I live in, I'd rather have the military living in
bases than my house.

~~~
cyphar
The point is that the 3rd amendment is not _relevant_ anymore given that the
military has such an enormous budget they have no need to quarter in your
house.

The 3rd amendment has never been used in any Supreme Court decisions, and in
fact has only ever been used in a single appeals case in 1982[1] (thus there
is only one instance of precedence for this amendment -- not to mention that
the judge and appeals judge already accepted the Petitioners' argument under
the 14th amendment).

I think that a part of the constitution that has only ever been used once, and
was based primarily of a fear of a repeat of one of the Intolerable Acts in
the 18th Century is hardly a relevant amendment.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey)

~~~
lj3
Initially, I balked at your suggestion that the 3rd amendment is not relevant
anymore. Then I thought about it for a few minutes and realized you're right.
In the age of 4th generation insurgency warfare, housing your military in
private homes is a very, very bad idea.

------
Traubenfuchs
How and in which form is one even supposed to get ones search history?

