Gun permit process in NY could include social media check

Nothing on his social media violated the law or without a family member telling us about how ****ing insane he is would be enough for commitment.

His family called the cops on him for threatening to murder them and others, then refused to give statements at the scene.

 

Social media check by whom?

 

Gov. Kathy Hochul
What a shame, she was once an NRA-approved darling. Now, she had to go and do this.

But, my brain tells me that some people are sick in the head, and people who know them knew they were sick in the head years before they went on the attack.

And viewing a person's social media accounts would have let people know that such sick in the head people have no business going near a weapon.

Besides, the police go on social media and look at people anyway. Such social media accounts are public displays and open to everyone.

 

I doubt anyone who has seen your posts really believes that "reducing body counts" (other than dead criminals) is what motivates your constant anti gun nonsense.

 

You may not be disrespectful to me. So, either rewrite your post of don't quote me ever again. Your turn.

 

https://www.verifythis.com/article/...ings/536-cdc8cbaa-cf81-4db9-a861-05ea5fbcb05a

Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh didn’t say that they wouldn’t overturn Roe v. Wade during their confirmation hearings.


https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...edia-amidst-roe-v-wade-overturn-idUSL1N2YB1V3

 

Who gets to decide?

If a judge believes that the only purpose for owning an AR-15 is to commit a mass shooting, is a social media post indicating ownership of an AR-15 sufficient cause for such a judge to declare that person unsuitable to own firearms?

 

Give me the objective criteria for the condition you cite in the text that I have bolded.

 

@Rucker61 and @Reality

If someone is torturing kittens and burning down barns with livestock in them for fun, one must conclude that they are sick in the head and will one day move on to people.

 

Those would both be felony level offenses. That's a little bit different than what your line suggested.

 

Is that the only criteria? What if the judge or other decision maker feels that the only use for an AR-15 is to commit mass murder, and someone posts about owning one (or more)? Does that judge's opinion give them the power to declare that the gun owner's social media post are too violent for that person to own a gun?

 

Correct.
You are a prohibited person, or not, under the law.
Someone's subjective interpretation of your social media posts cannot make you a prohibited person.
This is just another attempt to turn gun ownership into "may issue".

 

You seem to have a very high opinion of yourself. It is shared by...nobody.

 

Who needs all those amendments anyway.

 

Almost every "mass killer" was a known threat, had interactions with the police, were under psychiatric care, and people were afraid of them. They broadcast their violent intent long before taking any violent action.

The problem is not that these people are in the shadows - they are not - but that nothing can be done to stop them.

The mother of the Sandy Hook shooter tried to get him involuntarily committed to a mental health facility but the law would not allow her to, or allow the state to do it.

The Aurora theater shooter told his mental health counselor what he was going to do, he sent a notebook to her with details of his plan, yet nothing was done.

The shooter of Gabby Giffords had been expelled from community college because the students and teachers were afraid of him, he was violent, it was a case of "everyone knew". But nothing was done to stop him.

The Ft. Hood shooter was a known threat but military people were afraid to report him because they would be labeled a racist or isamaphobe. One of his instructors did report him as being a threat and was censored.

And on and on.

Checking social media is not necessary to find these killers, they are right there in the open. The problem is not identifying them but taking action to stop them.

 

There are people who do not want them stopped.

 

Your social media content cannot make you a prohibited person.
So... no.

 

I mean, unless you're hunter biden posting his I'm currently a crackhead videos.