Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

WARNING: Concealed Carry Issuing Authorities: Follow the Courts’ New Orders by F Riehl, Editor in Chief

FPC Statement to Concealed Carry Issuing Authorities: Obstructing the People’s Fundamental Right to an Effective Self-defense is not an Option.

Finger Pointing Blame Shameful Problem

Sacramento, CA –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to reports of multiple carry permit issuing authorities across the country refusing to comply with the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry firearms in public:

Quoting the plurality opinion from McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court held in Bruen that “[t]he constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

To those authorities that process or issue permits to carry concealed weapons that are abrogating the People’s right to carry: Obstructing the People’s fundamental right to effective self-defense is not an option.

It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the recent United States Supreme Court opinion. It doesn’t matter if there are a lot of applicants. It doesn’t matter if you don’t feel like spending time processing them. You are required to objectively process a carry permit application submitted to you without burdensome fees, delays, flaming hoops, and other games. The deluge of applications you’re now experiencing could have been avoided if you simply respected the People’s right to bear arms from the start and not treated it as a second-class right.

FPC refuses to stand idly by while the issuing authorities—who are often law enforcement agencies—delay and deny the People’s right to the peaceable conduct they are entitled to. Your agencies must know that FPC will utilize every available instrument to remedy this ongoing and historical wrong.

Individuals who want to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts to restore the Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Newsom Wants Democrats to Fight Fire With Fire, Starting With a Gun Bill

Newsom Wants Democrats to Fight Fire With Fire, Starting With a Gun Bill

SACRAMENTO — On a Saturday night in December, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California was so frustrated by a Supreme Court decision allowing Texas residents to sue abortion providers that he went straight to social media to call for legislation allowing private citizens to enforce his own state’s gun laws.

It sounded so tit-for-tat that many Californians wondered if he was just trying to get a rise out of one of his favorite foils, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas. Others doubted he was serious because it would have meant embracing a bounty system of enforcement that he considered legally dubious.

Seven months later, Mr. Newsom is not only poised to sign the bill, but he has leaned harder than ever into his rhetoric against Republicans. He ran an ad this month in Florida attacking the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, a possible 2024 presidential candidate. He has rebuked other states for banning abortion and ripped the Supreme Court for its recent decisions overturning Roe v. Wade and giving Americans a broad right to arm themselves in public.

While he has repeatedly insisted that he has no intention of running for the White House in 2024, Mr. Newsom’s actions sometimes seem to belie his statements. The Florida ad — a $105,000 spot worth more in free publicity — turned heads in national political circles. So did his visit to Washington this month and his declarations this spring that fellow Democrats were too meekly responding to Republican moves.

“I think he realizes that Democrats are hungry for a hero,” said Kim Nalder, a political science professor at California State University, Sacramento. “He’s building a profile as an alternative on the left to this aggressive policymaking we’ve seen by Republicans in recent years.”

No piece of legislation better encapsulates Mr. Newsom’s fight-fire-with-fire attitude than the bill co-opting a Texas anti-abortion tactic to enforce California bans on assault weapons and ghost guns.

It aims to bury those who deal in banned guns in litigation. Awards of at least $10,000 per weapon, and legal fees, will be offered to plaintiffs who successfully sue anyone who imports, distributes, manufactures or sells assault-style weapons, .50-caliber rifles, guns without serial numbers or parts that can be used to build firearms that are banned in California.

“No one is saying you can’t have a gun,” said State Senator Bob Hertzberg, a veteran San Fernando Valley Democrat who was tapped by the governor to craft and shepherd the complex legislation. “We’re just saying there’s no constitutional right to an AR-15, a .50-caliber machine gun or a ghost gun with the serial number filed off.”

The bill is the capstone of a sweeping package of firearm restrictions that Mr. Newsom is signing this month. The bills include fresh limits on firearm advertising to minors; intensified restrictions on unregistered “ghost guns”; and a 10-year ban on firearm possession for those convicted of child abuse or elder abuse.

“It’s time for us to stand up,” Mr. Newsom said in late June after the court struck down a New York law, similar to California’s, that strictly limited “public carry” permits. He said then that California had anticipated the ruling and that it was revising state law in ways that would offset “this radicalized and politicized Supreme Court.” He had 16 gun bills heading to his desk, he said, and he planned to sign them all.

The California laws come as mass shootings have intensified pressure for action on gun violence, as death tolls have mounted this year from Buffalo to Uvalde, Texas. Last month, President Biden signed the most significant gun violence legislation to clear Congress in nearly three decades, expanding the background check system for gun buyers under 21 and setting aside millions of dollars so states to enact “red flag” laws that allow the authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from people who are deemed dangerous.

But the congressional response, limited by a powerful gun lobby and deep partisan polarization, has been a far cry from the comprehensive solutions that many gun violence researchers feel are needed. And the conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court has signaled an inclination to not only preserve, but also further expand gun rights.

That has left states led by Democrats to seek their own solutions. The search has extended beyond gun violence policies as the court’s rulings have upended reproductive rights and placed L.G.B.T.Q. protections and other civil liberties at risk. Increasingly, the charge from the left has been led by Mr. Newsom, who has had political capital to spare since last year, when he crushed a Republican-led recall.

Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who now teaches political science at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley, said that the governor’s motives were easy to deduce: Mr. Newsom believes his “California way” is a success, and using a national platform to call out Republicans helps rally constituents across the many media markets in his own immense state.

Also, Mr. Schnur said, “He is running for president.”

Mr. Newsom has said that he has “subzero interest” in the White House. “But just being seen as a player on the national stage serves him, even if he never runs,” Mr. Schnur said. “Mario Cuomo played that game for years.”

California’s gun laws are among America’s strictest, helping the state deliver one of the nation’s lowest rates of gun deaths. In 2020, the state’s rate of firearm mortality was about 40 percent lower than the national average, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Public Policy Institute of California has determined that Californians are about 25 percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with residents of other states.

California’s gun policies, however, have been strained as conservative federal judges, many appointed by the Trump administration, have taken an increasingly hard line on Second Amendment rights.

The California gun bounty law is expected to face legal challenges that could ultimately land at the Supreme Court. The measure will not take effect until next year and includes a legal trigger that will automatically invalidate it if courts strike down its Texas underpinnings. The National Rifle Association and other gun advocates have argued that current state law already offers remedies for illegal activities by firearm manufacturers and dealers in California.

The same groups have argued from the start that the measure’s bounty scheme could — and would — restrict the Second Amendment, and the American Civil Liberties Union echoed their concerns.

“The problem with this bill is the same problem as the Texas anti-abortion law it mimics: It creates an end run around the essential function of the courts to ensure that constitutional rights are protected,” the A.C.L.U. said in a letter opposing California’s legislation. The group also charged that the legislation would “escalate an ‘arms race’” in creative legal attacks on politically sensitive issues including contraception, gender-affirming care and voting rights.

A recent N.R.A. legislative update said that on this and several other gun bills, they were “looking at all available options including litigation.”

In the meantime, Mr. Hertzberg said, Democrats will use all available tools.

“I don’t agree with the Supreme Court,” he said, “but if Texas is going to use this legal framework to harm women, then California is going to use it to save lives by taking illegal guns off the streets.”

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Ghost Guns: The Untraceable Killers

The main problem is and always will be that no mater what the law says someone determined to acquire a gun is not going to care what the law says, after all they are probably already involved in something illegal.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

California blocks gun sales to those at ‘substantial risk’ of breaking law by: Associated Press

Gun makers and dealers in California will be required to block firearms sales to anyone they have “reasonable cause to believe is at substantial risk” of using a gun illegally or of harming themselves or others, under a new law that Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Tuesday that he had signed.

It’s a subjective requirement that goes farther than current background checks or prohibitions on selling guns to people prohibited from owning them.

The regulation is part of the new law creating a good conduct code for gun makers and dealers that also allows anyone who suffers harm from violations to sue.

The bill was one of more than a dozen adding to California’s already strict gun regulations that were sent to Newsom, a Democrat, by state lawmakers before they left for their monthlong summer recess.

The National Rifle Association said the requirements are vague and represent an attempt to hold gun dealers and makers liable for the actions of others. The new law, the group said, “seeks to frustrate law-abiding gun owners” with the goal of driving gun makers and dealers “out of business with frivolous litigation.”

The state’s firearm industry standard of conduct, starting in July 2023, will require those making, importing or selling guns to “take reasonable precautions” to make sure the weapons don’t fall into the wrong hands through sales or thefts.

That includes having “reasonable controls” to prevent sales to arms traffickers, straw buyers, those prohibited from owning guns, and anyone deemed to be at “substantial risk” of using the gun improperly.

The law is patterned after a New York measure that took effect last year to skirt a 2005 federal law blocking most liability lawsuits against gun-makers or dealers.

The New York measure declared such violations a “public nuisance,” taking advantage of a federal exemption that allows lawsuits when gun makers break state or local laws regulating the sale and marketing of firearms.

Delaware and New Jersey just enacted similar laws, and all contain provisions requiring firearms dealers to act responsibly, said Tanya Schardt, senior counsel and director of state and federal policy at the Brady gun control advocacy organization that sought the laws.

“There may be indicators or things that you see beyond just passing the background check that indicate to the dealer that they shouldn’t sell the gun,” she said.

“I would say the California law is more specific,” Schardt said. “But substantively I think it creates the same set of requirements, the same standards with regards to engaging in safe business practices.”

“It’s not asking someone to be psychic,” she added, but to take reasonable precautions in the same way that an automobile dealer could be liable for selling to a customer who is clearly drunk, for instance.

“It’s not creating liability, it’s not expanding liability beyond what’s reasonable … which is really the same standard that every other industry is measured against,” she said.

A federal judge in May rejected a challenge to the New York law by gun manufacturers and sellers.

Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, expects the California law will be challenged on the argument that it violates the federal law.

“The ability to be sued for doing something bad is already there,” he said, noting that gun makers and dealers are liable for any illegal activity. “This is the anti-gun side’s way of looking for a deep pocket.”

The law will allow the California attorney general, city and county attorneys and victims of gun code of conduct violations to sue gun retailers or manufacturers for civil damages.

“Nearly every industry is held liable when their products case harm or injury. All except one — the gun industry,” Newsom said in a video Tuesday announcing that he had signed the bill on Monday.

With the new law, he said, “gun makers will finally be held to account for their role in this crisis.”

California’s law allows gun makers and dealers to also be sued for alleged violations of other laws, including false advertising, unfair competition or deceptive acts or practices.

“Hitting their bottom line may finally compel them to step up to reduce gun violence by preventing illegal sales and theft,” said the bill’s author, Democratic Assemblyman Phil Ting.

The law will also prohibit manufacturers and retailers from making, importing or selling guns or related products that are “abnormally dangerous and likely to create an unreasonable risk of harm.”

That could include kits for building untraceable “ ghost guns,” “ bump stocks ” that increase the rate of fire for semi-automatic weapons, or “ bullet button ” assault weapons that allow for rapid reloading.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

FBI intends to coerce Missouri sheriff to violate state laws regarding CCW records statute. by Manly Warrior

I just received the below email from the Missouri AG:

Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs

July 13, 2022 Contact: Constituent Services Office: 573-751-3321

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.

“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”

The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit.  The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’  Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”

Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .”  § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.

At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.

The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2

Should be interesting if they and these sheriff’s attempt the audit.

Will the MO state police be waiting and once a record is presented to an FBI agent by a SO personnel, will they both be arrested under both the CCW records statute and the MO 2a Preservation statute?

Only by a court order pursuant to a criminal inquiry or investigation may Missouri CCW records be released by the county sheriff who issued it.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Worst Reciprocity States 2022

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic!

BREAKING NEWS: Assault Weapons Ban To Get Marked Up Next Week!!

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

WATCH: Police Commissioner Says He Will Confiscate Guns by NEWS WIRE

Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia conceded a few months ago that he would confiscate an individual’s firearms based upon an anonymous tip that the individual was a threat to himself or others.

Gramaglia was testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform back in May when he was directly asked by Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins (R) whether he would enforce confiscatory red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.

“Would you go to your neighbor’s home and confiscate his legally owned weapons, a man that was not under a criminal investigation nor under arrest?  Would you do it?” Higgins asked.

“The red flag laws…,” Gramaglia began, when Higgins interjected, “That’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ brother.”

“It’s more than a yes or no answer,” said Gramaglia.

Higgins went on to explain how red flag laws operate and how low the evidentiary bar is to trigger enforcement.

“‘Determined to be’ is defined by the letter of this law to be an anonymous tip that an American citizen is a threat to themselves or others,” noted Higgins.

“You’re a police commissioner, a thin-blue-line brother, sworn to uphold the constitution and you’re saying you’d seize those weapons,” he continued. “I see that as a problem.”

SEE ALSO: Connecticut Considers Expanding ‘Red Flag’ Law, Eliminating Expiration on Gun Confiscation

Red flag laws work like so, a citizen “determined to be a threat” is disarmed and loses his right to keep and bear arms until he can convince a judge that he is not a danger to himself or others.

Under this system, the accused is guilty until proven innocent or, more accurately, rendered disarmed and defenseless until the state decrees otherwise.

It’s worth noting that it can be weeks before the accused is allowed to go before a judge to respond to the allegations and to tell the other side of the story.  As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, spoke to GunsAmerica in the past about the many issues surrounding red flag laws.

“We are talking about depriving law-abiding citizens of their fundamental civil liberties and if that is to occur, those affected parties have a right to confront witnesses and evidence before a judge renders a decision to enforce an order,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF managing director of public affairs.

“In exigent circumstances when an individual poses an immediate danger to themselves or others, those individuals still have rights and must be afforded the opportunity to come before a judge within a reasonable timeframe. When an individual is arrested, they are before a judge within 24-72 hours. There’s no reason someone should be deprived of their civil liberties without the same standard of justice,” he added.

There is no hard evidence to suggest that red flag laws “save lives” to the degree proponents tout, but there is plenty of evidence that they are just the start of a larger confiscation scheme.  Case in point, states have been expanding the roster of who is allowed to petition a court for a red flag order.

Initially, it was only law enforcement and immediate family members who wielded that power.  Now, many states have added to that list registered nurses, psychologists, social workers, teachers, and a wide variety of extended family members and acquaintances.

But wait, it gets worse.  In at least one state, lawmakers have discussed eliminating the expiration date on red flag orders altogether.  In most cases, the revocation of 2A rights is only supposed to last one year.  But politicians in Connecticut have talked about imposing it indefinitely.

It also bears mentioning that red flag laws do not provide help or assistance to those deemed a public danger.  The government assumes that the immediate seizure of firearms is all that is necessary to render a potentially violent person impotent.  No follow-up care or mental health treatment is administered.

The sole focus is on taking guns.  But sharp objects, blunt instruments, and automobiles kill thousands of people each year.  However, under a red flag law, a suspect’s access to these “weapons” remains unrestricted.

Last month, Biden signed the “Safer Communities Act,” the first major federal gun control legislation in 30 years. While many saw it as a big nothing burger in terms of its immediate effect on 2A rights, contained in that law are incentives for states to adopt these confiscatory red flag schemes. Nineteen states already have them on the books. Time will tell how many others follow suit now that there’s federal aid on the table.

The hard truth about red flag laws is they weren’t crafted by the state to take guns away from criminals or the mentally deranged. We have plenty of existing laws to handle those legitimate threats. No, politicians designed red flag laws to take guns away from you. And unfortunately, it appears they have at least one police commissioner in power that is eager and willing to do their bidding.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

UPS Issues New Rules for Shipping Firearm Parts – Serial Numbers Now Required by Lee Williams

UPS Cancelling Gun Dealers’ Accounts, Destroying Packages in Transit
Anti-Gun Senators Blame UPS and Other Carriers for ‘Epidemic of Gun Violence’ iStock-506447800

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- United Parcel Service has issued new rules for shipping firearms and firearm parts, but the announcement comes a week after UPS canceled the accounts of gun retailers who may have violated the rules that weren’t yet made public or even in effect.

In a story published July 1, we revealed that UPS was terminating the accounts of gun dealers, and that any packages currently in the UPS system could be “seized and destroyed.”

In a letter sent to one Florida gun dealer, Ghost Firearms, UPS said they were terminating the account because they “may be violating” laws concerning homemade firearm parts.

“We write to inform you that UPS has learned that your company may be violating applicable laws concerning the shipment of “ghost guns” to unauthorized locations,” the letter states. “In light of our concern, UPS has determined that it will cancel your account, effective immediately.”

In a follow-up story published July 5, we revealed that five Democratic Senators recently sent ominous letters to UPS and 27 other carriers, blaming them for escalating violent crime rates.

“We are concerned that lax shipping security measures are contributing to the epidemic of gun violence in this country by allowing criminals to use stolen firearms to commit crimes,” the letters each state.

They were signed by Senators Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.), Christopher S. Murphy (D-Conn.), and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).

In their letters, the Senators peppered the shippers with 20 questions and document requests. They were sent May 19 to UPS, FedEx, the U.S. Postal Service, and trucking and rail carriers located in the United States and Canada.

UPS media relations personnel did not respond to calls or emails seeking comment for either story.

Now, UPS has quietly updated its rules for shipping firearms on its website.

Now, they require a serial number on any frame or receiver, as required by a federal rule that hasn’t yet taken effect.

Any item that meets the definition of a firearm (including firearm mufflers or silencers) or a “frame” or “receiver” under federal law (including any partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver as defined by 27 CFR § 478.12) must be identified and bear a serial number in satisfaction of the requirements for identifying such items under federal law, including 27 CFR § 478.92 and/or 27 CFR § 479.102, regardless of whether any such items are otherwise exempt from or not subject to identification requirements under applicable law.  This prohibition applies even before the effective date of 27 CFR § 478.12.

UPS’ previous rules contained no serial number requirements.

Takeaways

Over the past two weeks, UPS’ messaging has been a hot mess.

They threatened dealers’ livelihoods. They seized and destroyed property – all with no advance notice – and when they were caught and their actions became public, they failed to address their mistakes.

In other words, they punished gun dealers for violating secret UPS rules that weren’t even public – all because they got a scary letter from five anti-gun politicians.

As a private business, UPS is free to enact whatever shipping rules they want, but we are free to choose a carrier that’s not so schizophrenic.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Gun applicants in New York will have to hand over social accounts by: Associated Press

Anthony Del Rosario of Nevada examines a shotgun at The Gun Store November 14, 2008 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

Anthony Del Rosario of Nevada examines a shotgun at The Gun Store November 14, 2008 in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Ethan Miller/Getty Images)

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 lists of 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.

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 doesn’t specify whether applicants will be required to provide access to private accounts not visible to the general public.

It will be up to local sheriff’s staff, judges or county 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.”