New York Senate Bill 9191 – Destroying the Bill of Rights

 In 2nd Amendment

New York Senate Bill 9191 has set out to destroy the Bill of Rights in an effort to stop mass shootings. First Amendment,  Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights are in jeopardy from one bill.

The Senate Bill 9191 introduced by Democrat State Senator Kevin Parker mandates “social media and search engine reviews prior to the approval of an application or renewal of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver; requires a person applying for a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver or a renewal of such license to consent to having his or her social media accounts and search engine history reviewed and investigated for certain posts and/or searches over a period of 1-3 years prior to the approval of such application or renewal; defines terms.”

The bill stems from recent mass shooters who had social media histories that contained disturbing patterns. Fox noted that police could investigate “commonly known profane slurs used or biased language used to describe race, national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, disability or sexual orientation; threatening health or safety of another person, or an act of terrorism.”

In other words, you will be preempted from obtaining any kind of New York gun permit whether for concealed carry or possession if you say stupid things on social media.

The main problem arises in that they will require applicants to give logins and passwords for all social media accounts and the browser you use.

Search history without a warrant:

Take, for example, a person who searches information on different situations for their job. That search history will include things that look frightening to an outsider, but are necessary for research. What if  that person had to look up the accounts of killers or  on various social media platforms, and look up historical facts about a killer…would that keep them from obtaining a gun permit? Depends on who’s looking at it, don’t you think?

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that in general, law enforcement must have a warrant to obtain location information from the provider on a person’s cell phone.

Fox noted in that case:

The stakes were enormous, since this judicial precedent could be applied more broadly, including government access to Internet, bank, credit card and telephone records.

Roberts in his opinion said going forward, warrants are needed.

“We decline to grant the state unrestricted access to a wireless carrier’s database of physical location information. The fact that such information is gathered by a third party does not make it any less deserving of Fourth Amendment protection. The Government’s acquisition of the cell-site records here was a search under that Amendment.”

And that isn’t even personally owned information like social media and browser accounts.

Forcing gun owners to comply with the requirement to provide such information seems to be a violation of several amendments. Apparently New York continues to not understand the words “shall not be infringed.”


Showing 4 comments
  • Mangledman

    The very last line of your article says it all. “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. I just cannot grasp this madness. The Donald said “Take the guns first, then due process”. The pitchforks should have come out, and the hypocrisy should have been exposed far and wide. In less than a month Red flag law already had a victim. Did anyone say “You now have blood on your hands? Is anyone screaming repeal this idiocy immediately??
    These senatorial idiots in NY introduce an unconstitutional law like this, and the NRA and every other gun group remains absolutely silent! These people need to be prosecuted for violating Oath of Office, right. If I have said this once, I have said it dozens of times, “If we drug out the CONSTITUTION, and dusted it off, the House, Senate, and Oval office would be empty, and we wouldn’t be paying very many pensions either.

  • Cory Levine

    Cant be done legally. It goes against federal law. Article VI of the constitution sides with federal law when there’s a conflict between state and federal.

  • Chris Garvey

    Why would anyone think it’s Constitutional for NY to require a license to bear a pistol?

    Sullivan Law of 1911, which required pistol licenses, had several things to going for it:
    1. Sullivan represented a dock district, and many of his constituents were muggers. Sullivan was leader of a notorious Irish gang. Their criminal work was impeded by the fact that citizens were arming themselves before going to that bad neighborhood, thereby making robbery a dangerous business. Sullivan wanted to protect his criminal constituents from armed victims, and his law has made New York safe for robbers ever since.
    2. Tammany wanted to disarm Italians and blacks. The law served the same racist purposes that gun control served in Dixie: to disarm disfavored races. That’s why the pistol licensing agent has unbridled discretion to discriminate under the Sullivan Law.
    3. Tammany Hall wanted to be able to arrest political opponents.
    4. Sullivan was crazy anyway, and soon was committed to an insane asylum. He eventually committed suicide. The law is as insane as he was.

    The law was passed about 1911, and has protected NY muggers from their victims since then.
    It’s passage increased the murder rate in NY State.

pingbacks / trackbacks

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search

florida ballot