AP Photo/Hans Pennink
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul speaks to reporters about legislation passed during a special legislative session in the Red Room at the state Capitol, Friday, July 1, 2022, in Albany, N.Y.Â
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — As missed warning signs pile up in investigations of mass killings, New York state is rolling out a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits. People seeking to carry concealed handguns will be required to hand over their social media accounts for a review of their “character and conduct.”
It’s an approach applauded by many Democrats and national gun control advocacy groups, but some experts have raised questions about how the law will be enforced and address free speech concerns.
Some of the local officials who will be tasked with reviewing the social media content also are asking whether they’ll have the resources and, in some cases, whether the law is even constitutional.
NY legislators rewrite gun laws after SCOTUS ruling
Sheriffs haven’t received additional money or staffing to handle a new application process, said Peter Kehoe, the executive director of the New York Sheriffs’ Association. The law, he asserted, infringes on Second Amendment rights, and while applicants must list their social media accounts, he doesn’t think local officials will necessarily look at them.
“I don’t think we would do that,” Kehoe said. “I think it would be a constitutional invasion of privacy.”
The new requirement, which takes effect in September, was included in a law passed last week that sought to preserve some limits on firearms after the Supreme Court ruled that most people have a right to carry a handgun for personal protection. It was signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, who noted shooters sometimes telegraph their intent to hurt others.
Increasingly, young men have gone online to drop hints of what’s to come before executing a mass killing, including the gunman who killed 19 children and two teachers at an Uvalde, Texas, elementary school.
Under the law, applicants have to provide local officials with a list of current and former social media accounts from the previous three years. It will be up to local sheriff’s staff, judges or country clerks to scroll through those profiles as they check whether applicants have made statements suggesting dangerous behavior.
The law also will require applicants to undergo hours of safety training, prove they’re proficient at shooting, provide four character references and sit for in-person interviews.
The law reflects how the Supreme Court ruling has shifted responsibility to states for vetting those who carry firearms in public, said Tanya Schardt, senior counsel and director of state and federal policy for gun control advocacy organization Brady.
Her group said it was not aware of any other states requiring gun permit applicants to submit social media profiles.
The new approach, however, comes amid growing debate over the policing of social media posts and a legacy of unwarranted surveillance of Black and brown communities.
“The question should be: Can we do this in an anti-racist way that does not create another set of violence, which is the state violence that happens through surveillance?” said University of Pennsylvania social policy, communications and medicine professor Desmond Upton Patton, who also founded SAFElab, a research initiative studying violence involving youths of color.
Meanwhile, gun rights advocates are blasting the law.
“You’re also going to have to tell them your social media accounts because New York wants to thoroughly investigate you to figure out if you’re some of those dangerous law-abiding citizens who are taking the country by storm and causing crime to skyrocket,” Jared Yanis, host of the YouTube channel Guns & Gadgets, says in a widely viewed video on the new law. “What have we come to?”
Hochul, who also has tasked state police with routing out extremism online, didn’t immediately respond to a list of questions about the social media requirement, including how the state will address free speech and privacy concerns.
“Often the sticking point is: How do we go about enforcing this?” Metro State University criminal justice professor James Densley, cofounder of research initiative The Violence Project, said. “I think it starts to open up a bit of a can of worms, because no one quite knows the best way to go about doing it.”
It can be tricky, he said, to decode social media posts by younger people, who could simply be expressing themselves by posting a music video.
“Where this will get tricky is to what extent this is expression and to what extent is this evidence of wrongdoing?” Densley said.
Spokespeople for the social media platforms Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and Parler didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
New York should instead consider giving the job to a trained group tasked with figuring out how to best reach out to people online who are showing signs of radicalization or trauma and may need help, Patton said.
“There’s a lot of nuance and contextual issues. We speak differently; how we communicate, that could be misunderstood,” Patton said. “I’m concerned we don’t have the right people or the right tools in place to do this in a way that’s useful in actually preventing violence.”
Adam Scott Wandt, a public policy professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, said that he supports gun control, but that he worries the New York law could set a precedent for mandatory disclosure of social media activity for people seeking other types of licenses from the state.
New York’s law is rushed and vague, said Wandt, who teaches law enforcement personnel how to conduct searches on people through social media.
“I think that what we might have done as a state here in New York is, we may have confirmed their worst fears — that a slippery slope will be created that will slowly reduce their rights to carry guns and allow a bureaucracy to decide, based on unclear criteria, who can have a gun and who cannot,” Wandt said. “Which is exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to avoid.”
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
AP file
The Supreme Court said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. That's important because about half a dozen states have conditioned getting a license to carry a gun in public on the person demonstrating an actual need — sometimes called "good cause" or "proper cause" — to carry the weapon. That limits who can carry a weapon in those states.
In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement, but other states' laws are expected to face quick challenges. About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling.
The last time the court issued major gun decisions was in 2008 and 2010. In those decisions the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun for self-defense in a person's home. The question for the court this time was just about carrying a gun outside the home.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's majority opinion that the right extended outside the home as well: "Nothing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."
AP file
The Supreme Court said that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. That's important because about half a dozen states have conditioned getting a license to carry a gun in public on the person demonstrating an actual need — sometimes called "good cause" or "proper cause" — to carry the weapon. That limits who can carry a weapon in those states.
In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement, but other states' laws are expected to face quick challenges. About one-quarter of the U.S. population lives in states expected to be affected by the ruling.
The last time the court issued major gun decisions was in 2008 and 2010. In those decisions the justices established a nationwide right to keep a gun for self-defense in a person's home. The question for the court this time was just about carrying a gun outside the home.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's majority opinion that the right extended outside the home as well: "Nothing in the Second Amendment's text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms."
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File
The gun ruling split the court 6-3, with the court's conservative justices in the majority and its liberals in dissent. In addition to Thomas, the majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The court's three liberals who dissented are justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Erin Schaff/The New York Times via AP, Pool, File
The gun ruling split the court 6-3, with the court's conservative justices in the majority and its liberals in dissent. In addition to Thomas, the majority opinion was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The court's three liberals who dissented are justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
-
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
AP file
A handful of states have laws similar to New York's. The Biden administration has counted California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island as all having laws similar to New York's. Connecticut and Delaware are also sometimes mentioned as states with similar laws.
AP file
A handful of states have laws similar to New York's. The Biden administration has counted California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island as all having laws similar to New York's. Connecticut and Delaware are also sometimes mentioned as states with similar laws.
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
AP file
Not exactly. The justices didn't touch other parts of New York's gun law, so other requirements to get a license remain. The court made it clear that the state can continue to make people apply for a license to carry a handgun, and can put limitations on who qualifies for a permit and where a weapon can be carried. In the future, however, New Yorkers will no longer be required to give a specific reason why they want to be able to carry a gun in public.
The decision also doesn't take effect immediately and state lawmakers said Thursday that they were planning to overhaul the licensing rules this summer. They have yet to detail their plans. Some options under discussion include requiring firearms training and a clean criminal record. The state might also prohibit handguns from being carried in certain places, like near schools or on public transit.
In addition, the decision does not address the law that recently passed in New York in response to the Buffalo grocery store massacre that among things, banned anyone under age 21 from buying or possessing a semi-automatic rifle.
AP file
Not exactly. The justices didn't touch other parts of New York's gun law, so other requirements to get a license remain. The court made it clear that the state can continue to make people apply for a license to carry a handgun, and can put limitations on who qualifies for a permit and where a weapon can be carried. In the future, however, New Yorkers will no longer be required to give a specific reason why they want to be able to carry a gun in public.
The decision also doesn't take effect immediately and state lawmakers said Thursday that they were planning to overhaul the licensing rules this summer. They have yet to detail their plans. Some options under discussion include requiring firearms training and a clean criminal record. The state might also prohibit handguns from being carried in certain places, like near schools or on public transit.
In addition, the decision does not address the law that recently passed in New York in response to the Buffalo grocery store massacre that among things, banned anyone under age 21 from buying or possessing a semi-automatic rifle.
-
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
AP file
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on "fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements." Gun control groups said states could revisit and perhaps increase those requirements. States can also say those with a license to carry a gun must not do so openly but must conceal their weapon.
Justice Samuel Alito noted that the decision said "nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun." States have long prohibited felons and the mentally ill from possessing weapons, for example. The decision also said nothing "about the kinds of weapons that people may possess," Alito noted, so states might also try to limit the availability of specific weapons.
The justices also suggested that states can prohibit the carrying of guns altogether in certain "sensitive places." A previous Supreme Court decision mentioned schools and government buildings as being places where guns could be off limits. Thomas said that the historical record shows legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses could also be sensitive places. Thomas said courts can "use analogies to those historical regulations of 'sensitive places' to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible."
AP file
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on "fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements." Gun control groups said states could revisit and perhaps increase those requirements. States can also say those with a license to carry a gun must not do so openly but must conceal their weapon.
Justice Samuel Alito noted that the decision said "nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun." States have long prohibited felons and the mentally ill from possessing weapons, for example. The decision also said nothing "about the kinds of weapons that people may possess," Alito noted, so states might also try to limit the availability of specific weapons.
The justices also suggested that states can prohibit the carrying of guns altogether in certain "sensitive places." A previous Supreme Court decision mentioned schools and government buildings as being places where guns could be off limits. Thomas said that the historical record shows legislative assemblies, polling places and courthouses could also be sensitive places. Thomas said courts can "use analogies to those historical regulations of 'sensitive places' to determine that modern regulations prohibiting the carry of firearms in new and analogous sensitive places are constitutionally permissible."
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
AP file
The court made it harder to justify gun restrictions, although it's hard to know what the new test the court announced will mean for any specific regulation.
Thomas wrote that the nation's appeals courts have been applying an incorrect standard for assessing whether such laws are impermissible. Courts have generally taken a two-step approach, first looking at the constitutional text and history to see whether a regulation comes under the Second Amendment and then, if it does, looking at the government's justification for the restriction.
"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many," Thomas wrote.
From now on, Thomas wrote, courts can uphold regulations only if the government can prove that they fall within traditionally accepted limits.
Among state and local restrictions already being challenged in federal court are bans on the sale of certain semi-automatic weapons, called assault rifles by opponents, and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as minimum age requirements to buy semi-automatic firearms.
AP file
The court made it harder to justify gun restrictions, although it's hard to know what the new test the court announced will mean for any specific regulation.
Thomas wrote that the nation's appeals courts have been applying an incorrect standard for assessing whether such laws are impermissible. Courts have generally taken a two-step approach, first looking at the constitutional text and history to see whether a regulation comes under the Second Amendment and then, if it does, looking at the government's justification for the restriction.
"Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many," Thomas wrote.
From now on, Thomas wrote, courts can uphold regulations only if the government can prove that they fall within traditionally accepted limits.
Among state and local restrictions already being challenged in federal court are bans on the sale of certain semi-automatic weapons, called assault rifles by opponents, and large-capacity ammunition magazines, as well as minimum age requirements to buy semi-automatic firearms.
-
-
Subway employee shot, killed over ‘too much mayo’ on sandwich, reports say
AP file
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the guns case back in November and a decision had been expected before the court begins its summer recess. The court has nine more opinions to issue before it goes on break and plans to release more Friday. Still waiting is a major abortion decision.
AP file
The Supreme Court heard arguments in the guns case back in November and a decision had been expected before the court begins its summer recess. The court has nine more opinions to issue before it goes on break and plans to release more Friday. Still waiting is a major abortion decision.
