New York Isn’t The Only State Looking To Target Your Guns Through Social Media & Internet Search History
New York Isn’t The Only State Looking To Target Your Guns Through Social Media & Internet Search History by Tim Brown for Freedom Outpost
There have been several stories that have covered New York Democrat’s Kevin Parker’s unconstitutional targeting of people to deny them purchase for a gun to keep and bear under the protections of the Second Amendment through social media analysis and internet search history, even though this is a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment. However, have you heard that this is starting to take hold in other states as well? Illinois is also considering this unconstitutional attack on the freedoms of Americans that it is supposed to protect.
In November 2018, it was reported:
According to WCBS radio:
Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Sen. Kevin Palmer’s [sic] proposal would allow authorities to review three years of social media history and one year of internet search history of any person seeking to purchase a firearm.
“A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a fire arm,” Adams explains.
The two are hoping to identify any hate speech on social media profiles, which are often revealed only after someone is arrested in a mass shooting.
“If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation,” Adams said.
There are some logistical concerns as free speech and gun rights complaints are likely to come up. Though, Adams and Palmer [sic] say it is doable and needed.
First, nevermind that Parker is a violent man who couldn’t pass this test himself.
As was pointed out in November 2018:
If New York Democrat Kevin Parker had his way, you would have to turn over your social media and search history to the authorities before your allowed to buy a gun. This requirement is to make sure the buyer isn’t a “violent” person.
The question is, would Parker be able to buy a gun because a search into his background shows he might be that same violent person.
Kevin Parker has a history of losing his cool and roughing up people so much so that the courts ordered him to seek anger management counseling.
The courts in the past have put Parker on a 3-year probation after being found guilty to 2 criminal mischief in the third-degree. The incident stems from a May 2009 confrontation with New York Post Photographer William Lopez.
Lopez was covering a story about Parker’s home facing foreclosure in his Brooklyn neighborhood. After Lopez took the picture and his flash went off Parker became enraged. He proceeded to chase down and attack Lopez by punching him. Parker then when onto breaking Lopez’s expensive camera and attacking Lopez’s car.
The police were called to the scene of the scuffle and arrested Parker on charges of felony and misdemeanor criminal mischief, assault and menacing. He was later also charged with attempted grand larceny. The damage Parker did to Lopez’s property was more than $1000.
Not only did Lopez lose property in the attack, but Lopez had to seek treatment at the hospital for cuts, bruises, and a broken finger. Parker was able to beat most of the charges by using the “politically motivative charges” defense.
Parker did end up having to pay $672 in restitution to the New York Post for damage to the camera. Parker also had to pay Lopez $1194 for the damage to the photog’s car. The courts also ordered Parker to stay away from Lopez.
In September of 2008 campaign aid Lucretia John accused Parker of pushing her causing her $300 glasses to be knocked off her face. John told police that Parker proceeded to stomp on the glasses. John then called the cops on Parker.
Parker confirmed to police that he did push John and crush her glasses below his feet,…
Even before that incident, Parker had a violent reputation. In Parker was indicted on an assault charge and faced seven years in 2005 for punching a New York City traffic agent in the face. Parker escaped with a mandatory 6-month anger management class.
Parker’s anger might have to do with the amount of back taxes and unpaid utility bills he has racked up over the years.
This is the kind of hypocrisy we face when criminals are in positions of legislation wanting to dictate to others and not themselves.
However, Illinois is pushing the same kind of legislation that Parker is.
Not only did the Illinois Senate push bills to attack your Second, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, but they also pushed House Bills 888, 899, 892, and 174.
As Guns In The News reported:
House Bill 888, sponsored by Representative Daniel Didech (D-59), would require Firearm Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) applicants to provide a list of their social media accounts to the Department of State Police (DPS) and for DPS to conduct a search of the accounts.
House Bill 899, sponsored by Representative Kelly Cassidy (D-14), would punish victims of repeated losses or thefts of their property. It would revoke FOID cards of those who suffer and report losses or thefts of their firearms in three separate incidents within a two year period. Law-abiding gun owners who have the misfortune of being targeted by criminals too often would be left completely defenseless by the state against those same criminals.
House Bill 892, sponsored by Representative Michelle Mussman (D-56), would go above and beyond the existing federal law that already bans undetectable firearms and would instead ban many commonly owned firearms with some components made with modern materials that are not actually undetectable.
House Bill 174, sponsored by Representative Rita Mayfield (D-60), would create a one-size-fits all requirement of how and when lost or stolen firearms must be reported, further victimizing gun owners who suffer a loss or theft of their property.
Dagney Taggart also pointed out that there is more to House Bill 888 than meets the eye and the implications attached to it.
FOID cards also require your photograph, height, weight, address, birthday, hair color, and eye color. That is pretty basic information for a government-issued ID card.
But that isn’t all that Illinois requires.
In order to be granted a FOID card by the overlords in Illinois:
…you have to answer a questionnaire that asks if you’ve ever been convicted of a felony, whether you are addicted to narcotics, whether you’ve been treated in a mental institution or are “intellectually disabled.” Other questions ask about convictions of some specific crimes, whether you are an illegal alien, whether you’re named on a current order of protection that prohibits firearms. (source)
As you can see, being granted a permission slip to exercise a Constitutional right in Illinois is already a tedious and invasive process. If this bill becomes law, the process will become a lot more complicated and intrusive.
What kind of social media content will police be looking for?
In addition to the obvious problems with the new bill, here’s something to really be concerned about: Exactly what kind of information found on social media accounts would be used to “disqualify” people from getting a card, or lead to the revocation of FOID cards?
That seemingly important detail is not specified anywhere in the bill (which can be read here).
Will decisions simply be based on the thoughts and feelings of individual police officers who are assigned to evaluate social media accounts?
Will there be specific, objective guidelines to follow or will decisions regarding who gets to exercise their Second Amendment rights be arbitrary and subjective?
What else will the information collected be used for?
Some groups are already voicing opposition to the bill, including gun rights groups and the ACLU.
“When people look at this everyone who has a Facebook account or email account or Twitter account will be incensed or should be,” said Richard Pearson with the Illinois State Rifle Association.
But the ACLU is opposed as well.
Rebecca Glenberg with ACLU Illinois says the bill “doesn’t say anything about how that list will be retained and for how long and what uses it might be put to.”
The first amendment group worries police scanning social media may show bias.
“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg said. (source)
This bill is another example of pre-crime legislation, and it is terrifying.
Just days ago, we reported on a new study that found the privacy of those who have deactivated all of their social media accounts – or never had any in the first place – is not guaranteed.
A team of researchers from the University of Vermont and the University of Adelaide wanted to find out if fundamental limits exist when using information from social networks “to predict the activities and interests of individuals, and to what accuracy such predictions can be made using an individual’s social ties.”
This may not sound like a big deal, but think about the worrisome nature of different types of predictive technology. You don’t have to actually be guilty of anything if the tech says that one day you might be. The stuff we’re discussing here takes “guilt by association” to an entirely new level. (source)
How long until control freak politicians start calling for spying on friends, and friends of friends (and so on) to find any justification for denying gun rights to all of us?
Exactly right, especially in Illinois! It’s past time American patriots across all 50 states stood up and impeached and then indicted these Commie gun grabbers and punished them to the fullest extent of the law, and believe me, in trying to disarm you, they are aiding and abetting America’s enemies who are largely within rather than without.