


















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.”

Today’s guest post comes from Tim Shea (@trshea88), a former U.S. Army Captain hailing from Joint Base Lewis-McChord’s now defunct 4th Stryker Brigade. In 2014, Tim traded the green pastures of Army life for the exhilarating, cutthroat world of economic development consulting. He maintains his sanity by writing here.
To all the badge, tab, etc. lovers out there, let me start with this: I’m one of you. I graduated top of my Field Artillery officer basic course class in March 2010, earned my Ranger tab on July 16th of the same year, and pinned on jump wings a month after that. My CAB came two years later with a blindingly fast and utterly inconsequential gunfight outside a Kuchi camp in Afghanistan’s Panjwai district. It’s a moment I’ll carry with me until the day I die.
Two years removed from the Army, I’m still proud of my CAB; I carry the battered and faded original with me everywhere on a key chain. But those intervening years have also taught me that a $7 scrap of metal did not make me a better soldier. In fact, combat badges (whatever your preferred variety) don’t make anyone a better soldier, and it’s a minor tragedy that we imply otherwise. Here’s why:
When I returned from my deployment, I was plagued by a vague sense of guilt about my still-badgeless buddies. All around me were fellow officers who were my equals—if not my superiors—in every facet of the art of war, deprived of the same honor I carried proudly on my chest. These officers had done nothing wrong. They’d performed their jobs well, risked their lives on multiple combat patrols, and even volunteered for several dangerous assignments. In every instance, though, they came up short. Why? Because the enemy didn’t want to play.
It’s an undeniable truth that more than any other promotion, school, or military achievement, combat experience is a matter of chance. You can do everything in your power to pick a fight with the enemy. Short of deliberately triggering a pressure plate, though, you can’t make them engage you. That’s not a sign of incompetence or cowardice. In a perverse twist of fate, it’s often the exact opposite. I’ll never forget when we got credible intelligence as to why a subset of our AO was so quiet. It was because the local tactical operations center (TOC) was so proficient at coordinating airstrikes via intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) that Taliban fighters were terrified to move through the area under arms. Many of the soldiers manning that TOC never got their badges. Are they somehow worthy of contempt?
June of 2013 saw my platoon escorting elements of our Battalion liaison team so they could, well, liaise with the Afghan National Army. As we rolled into the Afghan COP, we started taking sporadic but fairly accurate fire from some yahoo in the brush. We posted our Strykers on the run ups, the ANA lobbed some mortars his way, and that was pretty much that. Later I was filling out the requisite paper work for the day’s combat badges when one of the liaison team—an objectively worthless turd of an infantry Lieutenant—walked into my office and actually asked me if we had taken fire that day. That’s right, he had slept through his first (and only) brush with combat but was awarded a CIB anyway because regs are regs and it wasn’t my place to say otherwise.
As frustrating as that was, there was a second incident of even greater injustice. Coming back from the district shura, my patrol got involved in a brief but intense TIC in support of the local police. Manning one of my Stryker’s hatches was a medic assigned to our Civil Affairs team. He bravely exposed himself to incoming rounds, scanned his sector, and otherwise performed admirably under fire. Upon returning to base I submitted him for a CMB which was promptly kicked back because he hadn’t treated a casualty. Fair enough. I then submitted him for a CAB which was also kicked back because his command didn’t want him earning both a CAB and CMB in the same deployment. Like some kind of Kafkaesque nightmare, this kid was denied his due recognition because, well, I’m honestly still not sure.
One of my biggest frustrations as a fresh Lieutenant was an NCO who thought his previous combat experience was everything. Don’t get me wrong, he’d done his job in some pretty hellacious circumstances and I respected the hell out of him for that. What I had no respect for was the fact he thought that experience gave him a free pass. After numerous counselings for substandard performance, I kicked his ass out of the Army.
There’s a powerful lesson in there for soldiers both old and young. At the end of the day, badges (and tabs, and medals) are all about what you did. Yes, those actions are a source of pride, and experience, combat related or otherwise, can be invaluable. But the military is a forward looking organization. It doesn’t care if you displayed Audie Murphy levels of heroism on your last deployment. If you don’t come back willing to use that experience to train new soldiers and build your team for the next war, then you have no business staying in the military. If you can’t recognize that many yet unproven soldiers will perform just fine when they face the enemy, then you have no business staying in the military. If you treat people like crap because the stars didn’t align for them the same way they did for you, then you’re just not a decent person. It’s that simple.
A young lady in NYC decided to write a diary. Being a young lady what she wrote in her diary she considered to be private. It was her thoughts, her fears, her wants. It was for her.
Unfortunately, her brother was an uncultured clod and when he discovered her diary in a public area, knowing it was private, decided to read it. We can guess about how the brother handled such private disclosures.
The young lady realized that she needed some what to secure her diary from prying eyes. The idea of wrapping it in chains probably didn’t appeal to her. Like wise, it is unlikely she was able to get a high level wizard to spell lock it.
She found a small portable safe at a second hand store and bought it for cheap. She then proceeded to lock her personal items in the lock box to keep her private stuff private.
Her parents being meddling AWFLs couldn’t handle that so her father showed the lock box to a friend. The friend identified it as a “gun safe!” Exclamation marks in the original article.
Once the parents heard the word “gun” they had a mental break. They demanded that she get rid of the gun safe. They can’t have anything associated with a gun in the house. They young lady refused.
The parents aren’t worried about the gun safe holding a gun because the young lady is anti-gun but “GUN SAFE!” in the house is unacceptable.
Being unable to deal with their daughter refusing to give in to their crazed demands, the mother wrote to New York Times Social Q page for help.
There Philip Galanes comes to their rescue.
…Acknowledge your daughter’s valid distress and ask her to help you solve your problem with the gun safe in light of your shared philosophy about guns. Let her stash the diary elsewhere while you remove the safe, then negotiate a security system for her that wasn’t built for weapons.
More important, use this opportunity that’s fallen into your lap to talk with your children about guns. …
— Philip Galanes, New York Times: How Do We Get Rid of Our Teenage Daughter’s Gun Safe?
Yep, this editor of the NYT agrees with the parents that a gun safe is to awful to have in the home. Instead, the daughter should give up the good security she currently has for her diary and instead trust her parents to provide a “security system … that wasn’t built for weapons.”
You can’t make this stuff up.
Is there an outreach program for parents like this? Heck, is there outreach programs for people that aren’t this far off their rockers?

Firearm sales are continue to be brisk, with more people purchasing their first firearm—one third of them by women in 2021. Many are seeking formal training to learn the safe and responsible use of that firearm. As instructors, we only get one chance to make a good first impression. I strive to make that first contact with new gun owners a positive, memorable and impactful experience. As exciting as this first impression can be, it can take a hard left turn quickly!
The last thing we want to do is to overwhelm or intimidate a new firearm owner with too much information, or talk or train too high over their head. And we certainly don’t want them to leave. With that in mind, here are six instructor stereotypes to avoid when conducting a beginning firearms class.
1. The Tactical Instructor
This instructor conducts his or her class in tactical gear. There is definitely a place for this gear, equipment and accessories if you are teaching a tactical class and have advertised your training as such. However, meeting new firearm owners for the first time is not the place to gear up. This can be a quick turn off for someone who knows nothing about firearms and is only seeking the introductory basics.
2. The Open Carry Instructor
Open carrying a firearm may be appropriate for advanced classes, but it can be very intimidating to a new gun owner. New gun owners may be anxious about their new purchase, and possibly nervous at the thought of taking a class on firearms. An instructor who is wearing a gun, visible on their belt in a holster, or one strapped to their thigh, may be very distracting to a novice student. A new student may be too focused on the firearm on your belt to hear what you are saying.

3. The “Patch Collector” Instructor
Yes, it is very impressive that you have spent many years and invested a lot of money to advance your firearm training, knowledge and credentials, gaining patches and certificates along the way. Although something to be proud of, these highly decorated shirts or vests may have an opposite effect when working with new firearm owners. I used to teach in a decorated instructor shirt, displaying my patches of credentials, until a few students told me they were intimidated by all the patches on my shirt. I now wear a simple “Instructor” T-shirt purchased from the NRA Store to make students feel more at ease.
4. The “All About Me” Instructor
We’ve all been there—sitting in a class, training or meeting where the speaker is more interested in sharing his or her personal stories rather than staying on topic. The reason someone signs up for training is to gain knowledge about a particular item or topic. A few relevant stories here and there may be appropriate during the lesson, but straying off topic and boasting personal stories is not. This is a huge turn-off, especially to a brand-new gun owner seeking knowledge about their new purchase. There is a distinction between an instructor sharing their credentials and credibility for speaking to the topic at-hand, versus standing on a platform and touting story after story.
5. The Graphic Instructor
I recently attended an event advertised to recruit new women gun owners. The classroom was filled with eager-to-learn ladies who were brand new to firearms. Before even discussing firearm safety or going over the basic gun parts, the instructor started telling these new gun owners why they needed to use hollow-point bullets, and described the physical damage they can cause. This was just the beginning of the “blood and gore” class. I knew from the looks on the faces of these ladies that they had already tuned out the instructor. Some of the women left after break time, and others commented, “I just don’t think this is for me.”
6. The Confusing Instructor
The terms we use matter. Instructors need to use the correct vocabulary when teaching. For example, avoid referring to cartridges as bullets or describing magazines as clips. Firearms have their own language. I was once talking about the different magnum revolvers and using the phrases “.357 Mag,” “.41 Mag.” and “.44 Mag.” A student raised his hand and asked what a “mag” was. I realized that I was abbreviating “magnum,” which was confusing my students. Instructors should also avoid using the word “weapon” when referring to a firearm with new gun owners, which may be very intimidating to someone in a basic firearms class.
If you are fortunate enough to help new firearm owners become familiar with their new purchase and comfortable on the range, it is important to remember one thing: Teach and train at their level. Remember how long it took you to get to the level you are with your firearms knowledge and handling. We want these brand-new gun owners to have a positive first experience, so they recruit more new gun owners to share the knowledge, skills and proper attitude!

For some reason, I really like this picture! Grumpy