The Daily Orange's December Giving Tuesday. Help the Daily Orange reach our goal of $25,000 this December


Moderate Column

Social media transparency for pistol permit applicants is unconstitutional

Sarah Allam | Illustration Editor

A gun control bill recently introduced to the New York State Senate goes too far.

A bill recently introduced to the New York State Senate proposes that people who purchase rifles or shotguns should be required to have social media and search engine history reviewed by local police.

The bill comes in the wake of October’s Tree of Life Synagogue Shooting. The shooter posted anti-Semitic comments on his social media prior to murdering 11 Jewish people at their place of worship.

Introduced by Sen. Kevin Parker (D), of the 21st Senate district, the bill hopes to add restrictions to gun purchasing in order to reduce mass shootings.

While the intentions of the bill are worth supporting, the legislation itself would interfere with constitutional rights granted to United States citizens without addressing the reality of gun-related violence. The majority of deaths due to guns in the U.S. are suicides, not homicides, yet the bill does not reflect that, at all.

“The bigger issue in all this concerns how most gun deaths happen, and whether proposed gun control measures speak to that,” Grant Reeher a professor at Syracuse University said. “Most gun deaths are by suicide. Will the State Police be looking for evidence of depression in their review of social media?”



The proposed bill states that officials will be looking on social media for the use of bias, profane slurs, threats or any other issue that the police deem necessary. The search parameters have the intention of spotting and preventing potential shooters from accessing weapons prior to shootings.

While the possibility of reducing any gun violence is important, this bill is too narrow in its focus. Not every shooter makes posts on social media in these categories, and the language of the bill excludes watching for suicidal tendencies.

The bill is already strongly disliked by citizens who claim it violates their constitutional rights of freedom of expression, freedom against unreasonable search and freedom from deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Granted by the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, these are just a few of the rights some citizens and attorneys feel are being violated.

Reeher further explained, saying, “… since the Supreme Court has ruled that individuals do have an individual-level right to own handguns — subject to regulation and restriction, and since we do enjoy a right of free expression — subject to some more narrowly defined restrictions, it would seem that perusing someone’s expressions in order to limit their access to firearms will run up against some obstacles.”

We need stricter gun control — but this bill goes too far.

Bethanie Viele is a junior biology with a focus on environmental sciences major and religion minor. Her column appears biweekly. She can be reached at bmviele@syr.edu and followed on Twitter @viele_bethanie.

ch





Top Stories