This Anti-Gun Bill Would Require the Social Media History and Internet Search History of Prospective Buyers

(Psst: The FTC wants me to remind you that this website contains affiliate links. That means if you make a purchase from a link you click on, I might receive a small commission. This does not increase the price you'll pay for that item nor does it decrease the awesomeness of the item. ~ Daisy)

Author of Be Ready for Anything and Bloom Where You’re Planted online course

In New York (the state, not just the city) there’s a rather Orwellian gun bill on the table that would require would-be firearm purchasers to turn over 3 years of their social media history and one year of their internet search history if they want to buy a gun.

“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 firearm,” said Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, who has proposed the legislation with New York State Senator Kevin Parker. (source)

Applicants to purchase a gun would be required by law to turn over their social media passwords to accounts like Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram, and they’d have to allow police to see a year’s worth of their searches on a year’s worth of searches on Google, Yahoo, and Bing.  As well, anyone renewing their permit for a pistol would be subject to this invasive investigation.

Now, for those of you sitting there saying, “That’s fine, I don’t use social media and I use Duck Duck Go or StartPage” this is great – for now.

How long do you think it would be before other outlets like blogs where you comment or these different search engines are added to the list of things that are searched? Trust me, if it gets passed, this is a greasy slide straight to the bad place.

What will the police be looking for?

According to a write-up on the Democrat and Chronicle, a daily newspaper in Rochester, NY:

Police would be required to look for evidence the applicant searched for or used racist or discriminatory language, threatened the safety of another person, inquired about or alluded to an act of terrorism, and, finally, “any other issue deemed necessary by the investigating officer.” (source)

Think for a moment about how much the investigating officer’s bias would come into play here. In some ways of thinking, people who say “all lives matter” are considered the epitome of racism even when taken out of context.

And what about a couple of women talking about a breakup using heated language in a conversation about the ex who has become the enemy? Are they really going to act on it or are they just blowing off some steam?

Then I think about my search history regarding terrorism – I’m a blogger, for goodness sakes. My search history is a dark place.  What if you’re researching what kind of gun you want to buy and you’re looking up things like “stopping power” or some other thing the anti-gun folks consider “scary” that is a completely legitimate question in reality?

And “any other issue deemed necessary” is just far, far too broad to provide any comfort whatsoever that the investigations would be fair and impartial. All of this is completely subjective. Anyone with a dark sense of humor, regardless of their sanity or upstanding citizen-ness, is going to be in for a hard time.

This social media and search history bill is unconstitutional on so many levels.

If you think it takes a long time now to get a gun or a carry permit (it can be weeks to months in some states), imagine how long it would take if officers are poring over everything on your laptop for the past 3 years. People in those areas would be waiting for far longer to make a purchase they’re allowed to make by the Second Amendment of the constitution.

Then there’s the dirty little pre-crime aspect of the whole thing. Eric Adams, one of the founders of this bright idea, said it was just basic police work. “If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation.”

But as the Foundation for Economic Education points out, in those cases, police are investigating a crime, not trying to predict one.

First, comparing the search of a prospective gun buyer’s internet history to routine police investigations is odd. When an assault, robbery, or shooting occurs, police are investigating a crime. That is not the case with someone trying to buy a firearm; the buyer is simply trying to make a lawful purchase. This bill is closer to what one might call pre-crime, an idea that has served as a plot device in dystopian literature for more than half a century. (The 2002 Tom Cruise movie Minority Report, a story that centers around a state that has figured out how to stop crimes before they happen, was based on a 1956 Philip K. Dick novel.) (source)

This complete lack of privacy for gun owners is also concerning. Remember, it isn’t just new gun owners who would have to submit to this investigation – any gun owner who wants to keep his or her firearm in a place where permission must be renewed would be subject to an invasive search every time they were up for renewal.

This is Fourth Amendment territory.

This, to me, slips into the realm of unreasonable searches, against which we are protected by the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (source)

Buying a gun is not a crime, which means there is no probable cause, right?

And who gets to decide whether something is hate speech? Ask any two people if a statement is hateful, and you’re likely to get two different answers. It all depends where you’re coming from. If some self-loathing, social justice warrior type is the one investigating versus some rigidly alt-right traditionalist, they’re going to see the social media commentary of a person very differently. You simply cannot make sweeping laws like this and leave the enforcement up to human beings who have their own biases without setting up a system of unfairness.

Fee states:

Additionally, there is the issue of defining hate speech, a notoriously nebulous term. (Europe has already shown where the road of state-regulated hate speech takes us.) What authority would determine what speech qualifies as “hateful”? To deny someone a fundamental right based on the state’s interpretation of “hate speech” would be an affront to constitutional principles. (source)

These people want to “protect” us right into dystopia.

But they don’t enforce the laws we already have.

They’re not even enforcing the gun control measures already in place.

The folks who want to make it more difficult for innocent people to exercise their second amendment rights should perhaps focus on the laws that are already in place instead of heaping even more of the onus on innocent people.

Several of last year’s mass shootings would not have occurred if those laws were enforced.

Nicolas Cruz, who shot up the high school in Florida. had serious mental health issues that were not properly reported and documented. Had they been, he would not have been able to purchase a gun – at least not legally.

And Devin Patrick Kelly, the guy who shot up a church in a small town in Texas, had a dishonorable discharge for violently assaulting his wife and child. Had the military reported this as they were obligated to do, he would not have passed the background check. He would not have been able to legally purchase those guns either.

We must ask ourselves this question seriously.

If we don’t enforce the gun laws that are already on the books, what good will more gun laws do?

More laws will mean that innocent people have a greater burden and that bad people will continue to flout the law with no fear of repercussions.

I don’t want to lose my right to protect myself just because government agencies aren’t taking seriously their responsibilities in preventing crimes.

Devin Kelley should not have been able to buy a gun according to the current laws. But the Air Force did not follow them.

Nikolas Cruz flat out told everyone he was going to be a school shooter. But the FBI didn’t do anything to stop him. He had years of history of mental illness and behavioral problems. But these issues were not reported to the database that would have prevented him from purchasing a gun.

Is the problem really with law-abiding, innocent gun owners? Or is it more reasonably with the authorities who aren’t abiding by the responsibilities charged to them and the people who are intent on killing? (source)

What good will more laws do? The proposed bill will cost extra money for anyone who wants to buy a gun, lengthen the waiting period, and rule out people based on the whims of the investigator.

Remember, these things never stop with just one state.

It’s easy to scoff and say, “Those crazy people in New York are getting what they voted for.”  I know someone’s going to say it so there, I said it for you.

But that’s short-sighted, and dare I say, ignorant of the way the world works.

Look at all the states that have recently flipped from red to blue in the midterm elections. If you don’t think it could ever happen where you are, you’re not paying attention. Please keep in mind that I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but am referring to some party generalizations here.

Democrats, who tend to lean more toward gun control measures than Republicans, took over the House of Representatives in the midterm elections. They also won 7 governor’s seats that were previously held by Republicans. A Democrat won a Senate seat in Montana, for crying out loud, long known to be a conservative stronghold.

There has been hard blowback against President Trump which will leave ripples in future elections for decades. In fact, I don’t recall in my adult life ever seeing a president so hated, disrespected and maligned. And the people doing the most maligning are the ones with the biggest microphones – namely, the mainstream media and Hollywood.

It’s not a stretch of the imagination to suggest we could soon see a dramatic shift in the United States that will open the door to all sorts of controlling “greater good” kinds of things.

Greater good. You know, like searching people’s computers before letting them own or keep their guns.

If this passes in New York, it won’t be long before it passes in California. Then in Massachusetts. Then it will spread, like a gun control virus. And it won’t be long until we see something introduced in the US Congress.

All of these new gun control measures are a scary, Orwellian slope and we’re slipping down it a little more every day.

Picture of Daisy Luther

Daisy Luther

Daisy Luther is a coffee-swigging, globe-trotting blogger. She is the founder and publisher of three websites.  1) The Organic Prepper, which is about current events, preparedness, self-reliance, and the pursuit of liberty on her website, 2)  The Frugalite, a website with thrifty tips and solutions to help people get a handle on their personal finances without feeling deprived, and 3), an aggregate site where you can find links to all the most important news for those who wish to be prepared. She is widely republished across alternative media and  Daisy is the best-selling author of 5 traditionally published books and runs a small digital publishing company with PDF guides, printables, and courses. You can find her on FacebookPinterest, Gab, MeWe, Parler, Instagram, and Twitter.

Leave a Reply

  • 100% spot on. my wife took handgun safety training last week for the 1st time, and she’s hooked.

    we’re going to acquire our concealed carry permits and engage continuing education around firearms handling.

    use it, or lose it.

  • Reposted at:

    MFP Commentary:
    “Should we be arresting the gun grabbers?”

    It pains me that I even have to ask this question, but it’s obvious that Americans are so dumbed down that they don’t have a clue as to the the correct answer, or why ….

    Would you support the arrest of people elucidating the idea that we should “hang all ni##ers”? Or that we put all Jews in our FEMA camps? Or any other avocation of using violence, to violate the inalienable God given rights of anyone?
    Well isn’t self defense a God given right? One that is explicitly protected from government intrusion by the 2nd amendment. Right in the US Constitution, the highest law of the land!

    Yet the dumbed down American public, think that the psychopaths in our legislatures, can write words on paper and voila, violate both the Constitution, in addition to our God given rights.

    So tell me from a rights violation standpoint how is calling for the violent tramping of a fundamental right, and disarming Americans, any different than say calling for all muslims (or Jews) in this country to be rounded up into camps and their property seized? Hint: There is not a lick of difference. All of my examples are crimes because they advocate for the trampling of peoples rights! The people that call for this crime, or vote to enact bills that “legalize” this crime, need to be arrested and feel the full force of the law.

    The American people are fatally dumbed down by the psychopaths in government violating yet another right by mandating that your children attend 12 year government indoctrination camps so that they “think correctly”.

    Hosea 4:6 King James Version (KJV)
    6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

    In case you are not aware one of the many laws that gun grabbers could be charged with, is United States Code, Title 18, sections 241 & 242. i.e. “DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW” (FWIW this same law could be used against anyone in government, including police, judges, and jailers) that have participated in the United Nations instigated war on drugs. It most certainly needs to be applied to the “legislators” that are calling for killing you if necessary to take your means of self defense.

    Justice Department info on USC title 18 sections 241 & 242

    FBI on USC tile 18 sections 241 & 242
    Please post you comments in the comment section below….


  • One time at work years ago, I was working on a project and had to do a search on a particular geologic formation because nobody at the company knew very much about that particular formation. I asked my bosses about what they knew about the formation and they said do a search. Wellll, guess what, that particular formation bears the same name as an adult film star. I didn’t know until after pressing enter on the search. So, through an innocent search, the results showed something I was definitely not looking for. I am sure that search history would go against me in NY.

  • There are over 370 “mental disorders” listed in the latest version of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.) The list includes “Tobacco Addiction Disorder” among other equally mundane and ridiculous so-called “mental illnesses.”
    If the DSM is the standard by which politicians wishes to remove our rights to own guns, then I’d guess 90% of the American people could probably be classified with a mental disorder of one kind or another.

  • Mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin..

    Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

    Deceptive Transformation: The Truth of Soviet Influence in America and Gun Control…The idea of using mental health as a weapon against the people is communist in origin, and the social sciences, or the studying of human behavior has its roots in early twentieth century Russia when Ivan Pavlov developed his “classical conditioning” theories.

    • Hey Rich,

      It is even worse than you think… The public has been fed a lot of lies, we all know this, but not many know the whole mental illness and violence lie. I am on my county’s mental health commission and a member of the board of the local NAMI affiliate, so I am dealing with mental health quite a bit. Our sheriff gave a talk to the commission on the breakdown of criminals with mental health issues. Turns out, in our county, people with a mental illness are only one half as likely as people without to have a negative police interaction. According to our sheriff, there are “frequent-flyers” that are mentally ill, just like those that are not mentally ill, which we would expect. But the numbers he gave us showed that mentally ill people are only half as violent as non-mentally ill people. So, I researched the issue online and the DOJ shows similar numbers. There are studies like :, which also refute the link between violence and mental illness. It turns out that in the DSM V, which documents all the mental illnesses, not one has violence as a symptom.

      So, not only are they trying to paint people they do not like as mentally ill, but in the process, they are making people with a health condition that has nothing to do with violence, the scapegoats in their sick propaganda.

  • Sad to see that comments are awaiting moderation these days… I guess the site is going more commercial or something. Always amazed about people decrying their right to free speech being denied and then turning around and censoring others.

    What amazes me is that a judge that has no problem with violating a person’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms by holding their social media accounts hostage, would probably object completely to the same treatment by a woman seeking an abortion. Can you imagine the uproar if women seeking abortion had to turn over their social media accounts? Abortion is not a constitutional right by the way… but you and I both know that if these same politicians passed a law requiring women to lose their right to abortion if a “red flag” comment was made by someone or if they did not like the woman’s social media account comments; there would be rioting in the streets.

    • Hi, Dan. The only comments that get moderated are the ones with links. I do this so that we don’t have spammers posting malicious links or links to porn. I get to them as fast as possible, but please keep in mind this is a one-woman show. 🙂

        • My moderation is configured so that you must have 2 approved comments in the past using this same username, email addie, and IP address – after that they’re supposed to go through automatically. I have certain racial slurs that also instantly put a comment into moderation, and then, of course, the links. Occasionally, things aside from this are in the moderation queue. It’s not a perfect system and I do get to the comments as quickly as possible.

  • I am sadly not surprised that my home state would actually demand an applicant’s social media passwords and internet search history. Of course, none of this will stop thugs from owning guns, but that’s okay, since none of these measures are for the purpose of preventing crime.

  • Maybe we should have done more squawking about that 4th amendment when we let companies force people to pee in bottles in order to get a job? Most (alleged) ‘conservatives’ I meet online think it’s a good idea to force anyone applying for public assistance – Medicaid or food stamps – to be randomly tested for drug use, even when we’ve had over 30 years to find out that those test results are often plain wrong.
    (We conveniently forget, in our zeal to find somebody to hate on, that the poorest people in the country now are the elderly and among the least likely of all to be drug addicts or illegals.)

    Civil Asset Forfeiture and all the support that gets on the Right has turned every police department into organized crime and every officer into a highway robber but all anyone has to do is say ‘suspicion of drugs’ and every conservative voter today just shrugs his shoulders – that is, until it’s his own cash, legitimately obtained, that gets stolen.

    Nobody seems to mind how many egregious violations of every Constitutional right Americans have that government gets away with as long as it appears to be punishing people we ‘don’t like’ and that’s true on both sides of the political aisle. Did we really think those chickens would never come home to roost?

    I definitely don’t want to lose my 2nd amendment rights either but it’s hard to have any sympathy for what Americans as a people have become: mean-spirited, shallow-minded and too lazy for the vigilance that freedom requires of us, and we all richly deserve what’s coming to us.

  • You Need More Than Food to Survive

    In the event of a long-term disaster, there are non-food essentials that can be vital to your survival and well-being. Make certain you have these 50 non-food stockpile essentials. Sign up for your FREE report and get prepared.

    We respect your privacy.
    Malcare WordPress Security