Outrage: NY Goes Full ‘Minority Report’ Requiring Social Media Access for Permits

New York Gun Flag iStock-884181314
Despite the Supreme Court ruling in Bruen, anti-gun politicians are doubling down their efforts to discourage gun owners in New York and elsewhere. IMG iStock-884181314

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- Eight days after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s long-standing—and unconstitutional—requirement to prove “good cause” in order to get a concealed carry permit, Empire State lawmakers quickly created another bureaucratic hindrance to law-abiding citizens by adopting a requirement that permit applicants surrender access to their social media accounts “for a review of their ‘character and conduct’,” according to NPR.

While the Associated Press described the mandate as “a novel strategy to screen applicants for gun permits,” it has infuriated gun rights activists and New York Republicans, who contend it “not only violated the Second Amendment, but also privacy and free speech rights,” according to PBS.

The requirement smacks of something one might expect in the plot of the science fiction movie “Minority Report,” starring Tom Cruise 20 years ago. The purpose of the law, which takes effect in September, is supposed to give authorities a chance to determine whether someone applying for a carry permit has signaled ill intentions. In the Cruise film, authorities launched a project to foretell violent crimes and intervene.

But according to the NPR story, not everyone is on board, including Peter Kehoe, executive director of the New York Sheriff’s Association. He believes the requirement is Second Amendment infringement and more

“I think it would be a constitutional invasion of privacy,” he told NPR.

As explained by NPR, “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 a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school.”

But in none of those cases did the murderers apply for a carry permit.

Still, NPR reported ominously, “Officials will scour social accounts for statements suggesting dangerous behavior.” How this “dangerous behavior” is defined is worrisome at best.

“Under the law,” NPR detailed, “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 report said.

This is almost certain to attract a federal court challenge. As PBS noted in its report, “But some Republican lawmakers, opposed to tighter restrictions, argued the law violated the constitutional right to bear arms. They predicted it too would end up being overturned.” In the meantime, however, New York gun owners are going to suffer the inconvenience and possible humiliation of having their social media accounts scoured.

And that could create a “slippery slope” environment threatening other rights. According to KPNX, Prof. Adam Scott Wandt, who teaches public policy at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York suggested “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.”

“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 reportedly told the station. “Which is exactly what the Supreme Court was trying to avoid.”

But it may not be what anti-gunners are trying to avoid. The fact New York lawmakers scrambled to adopt the legislation, and Gov. Kathy Hochul quickly signed it, only reinforces concerns among gun owners that anti-gun politicians are only doubling down on their efforts to discourage people from exercising their newly-recovered right to bear arms.

That much became evident in neighboring New Jersey, where anti-gun Democrat Gov. Phil Murphy was all smiles when he signed seven gun control measures into law “and vowed to seek even more measures while the state navigates a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision loosening restrictions on carrying a concealed firearm,” according to NJ.com.

“These are not going to be our last words on gun safety,” he stated.

Under the new laws, applicants for a carry permit must receive training. There is also a ban on .50-caliber firearms, and lawsuits against gun makers and retailers may be easier, according to the report.

Murphy defended the legislation as “common-sense” and insisted they “live up to our Jersey values.”

These measures are also likely to face court challenges.

And in Massachusetts, a political dogfight has erupted after the state Attorney General and Executive Office of Public Safety issued a “Joint Advisory Regarding the Massachusetts Firearms Licensing System,” which the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League immediately took to task.

Essentially, the gun rights battle was not settled by the Bruen ruling, but only inflamed as anti-gun-rights politicians furiously refuse to concede any authority to restrict gun owners’ rights.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Dave Workman
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

What part of RIGHTS don’t these over educated dumb-asses understand?

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

Over INDOCTRINATED in the Communist Manifesto.


They understand. They just don’t care. THAT is more dangerous than someone who operates in error. These people operate with intent, and their intent is NOT good.


ALL of it is what they understand but refuse to accept.

This is open rebellion.

Wild Bill

What part of rights don’t they understand, you ask. Well … probably … the definition!


Well done as usual, Dave.


“the RIGHT to be SECURE in your person, houses, papers, and effects” shall not be infringed.” Since electronic documents (this thing I am banging out on y keyboard is a “paper” under the laws. Before any court or cop could force access to it they would have to get a warrant, stating what they are afte,r WHY they need it, where it is, and what it is. Someone has to swear upon oath before a suitable magistrate (judge) why they need it, what harm I HAVE done with or by means of it, where it is, and why they think… Read more »


I’d go for it, only if persons seeking elected office and prospective lawyers (law school students included) would have to pass muster before a similar (no, stricter!) morals requirement. FAT CHANCE FOR THAT!


Even then, f no.

FJB and all these authoritarian leftist egomaniacs who violate the Constitution. Lamp poles and gallows.


None of them would fail as they are the judges of moral correctness. Sounds suspiciously like establishing a state religion. If your beliefs (or at least statements of belief) differ from establishment norms – they can deny your rights. With arbitrary judgement by those in power!
Next thing you know they institute similar rules for voting. Vote for us or lose your right to vote. Funny… incumbents never lose.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

They can’t deny you your rights. They can only infringe on them. Unalienable rights are permanent until you die.

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

I’m sorry, but you can’t have a permit in NY because this statement violates our terms and conditions for being a good slave. You have demonstrated that you may have a propensity to join in a revolution against us and we feel threatened by your statement.

Lol. So true.


The big question is ; If a State defies a legislative Federal law , what next ? The last time I remember a State defying a federal Mandate was when the Governor George Wallace in Mississippi , defied the federal order to end segregation in schools- got his ass handed to him by the US Marshals and National Guard ! So then you sue the state , right? THEY DONT CARE !!! After all, it’s your TAX money they are spending on lawsuits and not a single dime comes out of their pockets. In fact, they get paid handsomely for… Read more »


Here’s a thought.
When Governors and state legislatures, make laws that are found unconstitutional, they are responsible for the costs involved. Anyone who signed the bill is responsible for the legal costs.
If it’s found unconstitutional they are automatically impeached and sent to Leavenworth for 10 years.


all these bs dictates came about when they decided they were immune from lawsuits for their actions

Wild Bill

Well, if any or all of the various states defied or ignored Federal law, and the federal government did nothing about it, then … I’m thinking that we’d be back to a confederacy. I could be wrong.


they have been ignoring drug laws,so yea that or breakup

Courageous Lion - Hear Me Roar - Jus Meum Tuebor

Those state governors and legislatures that don’t understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED have gone total lunatic and should be taken out of office before they stab themselves with a letter opener. Why have a supreme Court delivering opinions that can be ignored? If I lived in one of those states, social media account? Don’t believe in them. Oh, you found one that you think is me and it has a link to Jim Bell’s “Assassination Politics” there? That was for research purposes. I would NEVER suggest his ideas be implemented.


The democrat party no longer feels constrained by the US Constitution, or Bill of Rights. They have gotten so used to redefining everything and altering reality as they force their agenda.They mandate the laws that transform a once free America into their new progressive reality, and ENFORCE THEM AGGRESSIVELY!

There is no room for American Constitutional Freedoms in their vision for the future.