Illinois Lawmaker Proposes Gun Law That Requires a Buyer’s Social Media History
Illinois continues to try to trample on the 2nd Amendment.
Just weeks after Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzer signed a restrictive gun law, Illinois State Democratic Rep. Daniel Didech proposed a new one that would require buyers to reveal their social media history. From CBS Chicago:
“This is something my community is demanding action on,” said Rep. Daniel Didech (D-Buffalo Grove).
That’s why Didech is proposing gun buyers reveal their public social media accounts to Illinois police before they’re approved for a firearm license.
“A lot of people who are having mental health issues will often post on their social media pages that they’re about to hurt themselves or others,” Didech said. “We need to give those people the help they need.”
Pro-gun groups hate the proposition, but so does the ACLU:
Rebecca Glenberg with ACLU Illinois says the bill “doesn’t say anything about how that list will be retained and for how long and what uses it might be put to.”
The first amendment group worries police scanning social media may show bias.
“A person’s political beliefs, a person’s religious beliefs, things that should not play a part in whether someone gets a FOID card,” Glenberg said.
Didech explained that his bill will give police “additional tools to make sure dangerous weapons aren’t getting into the hands of dangerous people.”
He also insisted that “his bill is a less intrusive version of a similar measure that’s been proposed in New York state,” which “allows police to recover a gun license applicant’s entire browsing history.”
Like I said, Pritzker signed a new law that requires licenses for retailers to sell guns. From The Chicago Tribune:
Under the new law Pritzker signed Thursday, it would be illegal for retailers to sell guns without being certified by the state. To qualify, stores first must be licensed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Then, they would have to submit a copy of that license to the Illinois State Police, along with an affidavit declaring it remains valid. Shop owners would have to install surveillance equipment, maintain an electronic inventory, establish anti-theft measures and require employees to undergo annual training.
A certification would cost retailers a maximum of $1,500, and the regulations would apply to small businesses as well as big-box retailers. Sellers without a retail location would be charged $300 for certification. Supporters contend the new rules could reduce gun violence because federal regulators are stretched too thin to adequately handle all the shops operating in Illinois.
This law has caused some Illinois gun shops to close. In late January, Jim Barnard decided to close his shop Fishman’s Sporting Goods after four decades due to the costs of licensing. Mick Moore came to the same conclusion with his store Walnut Creek Shooters Supply.
WQAD has more, including thoughts from one about why Illinois passed this law:
In Vandalia, Justin Arndt is working on comply with the requirements of the new law. He said the cost of video surveillance for his gun dealership and the cost to maintain that video for 90 days was significant.
“Between the security on the video surveillance, the state fee, and the electronic [record-keeping requirement], I could incur an additional $5,000 just to keep my door open,” he said. “I don’t know how many of us are going to be able to withstand this.”
Todd Vandermyde, executive director of Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, said the requirements aren’t about stopping crime, rather regulating gun shops out of business.
“You make it sound like this is a reasonable request but if a small gun shop has to put in a $10,000 surveillance system on top of potentially $3,000 in licenses, how do you expect them to stay in business,” he said. “This isn’t about safety. This isn’t about regulation.”
He said he’d heard of a number of other licensed online dealers closing their businesses as well.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Violation of Free Speech?
Isn’t there a few prisons already for “criminal wannabes” like him?
Scratch him and you’ll probably find “black face” and “white sheet coverings.”
George Orwell, Joseph Stalin, Mao, and Adolph Hitler’s
BIG BROTHER LIVES…
And he’s living in the Ill. State.
The left wouldn’t do anything unconstitutional.Let’s just mirror what they do with abortion laws.
I do not have and never ever have had any Social Media Account(s). No Facebook. No Twitter. No MySpace back in the day. Nada. No anything even remotely considered a “social media account”.
But if I did, I would never be so utterly ignorant as to use my actual real name and/or any other personally identifying information in the creation of such an account, and I could just lie and say that I do not and never have had social media accounts. So, what then….? What are they going to do – accuse me of lying and then waterboard me until I make a confession before they sell me that AR15M2….?
God Bless and Protect our US Constitution!
I removed my facebook account around the time of the Charlottesville incident. I’ve never gone back and don’t intend to.
The biggest problem with these bills, after the whole invasion of privacy/thought police thing, is the total lack of standards governing how this information can be used. What information is disqualifying and exactly who makes a decision on that? What kind of appeals process will be enacted? And, exactly what actual effect will these programs have on controlling who actually obtains a firearm? Currently, the vast majority of the shootings, which occur in Chicago every single year, are committed by people who illegally obtained the firearm used. If you have the money, you can still obtain pretty much whatever you want.
New or existing gun laws are meaningless when you refuse to enforce that and that is exactly what Kim Foxx, the states attorney of Cook County, does. She essentially says that people of color are more likely to be arrested for gun crimes, which FBI statistics note is 10 to 1 true in Cook County, so she does not prosecute gun crimes.
“Pro-gun groups hate the proposition, but so does the ACLU:”
The ACLU seems to be walking-back some of the more extreme positions lately.
Compare and contrast ACLU’s statements of Nov. 20, 2018 with that of Jan 30, 2019:
Yes, it seems ACLU may have developed a new-found appreciation for … Due Process. And, yes, even in those “believe the accuser” Title IX inquisitions:
” the ACLU values due process … Due process requires, at a minimum, notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Where serious educational consequences are at stake, school disciplinary proceedings should provide a fair process for assessing credibility, including cross-examination of adverse witnesses, and a chance to review exculpatory and inculpatory evidence. ”
Will wonders never cease? One can only hope they don’t immediately backslide.
So they can do what with it exactly?
Tens of thousands of people already violate EXISTING gun laws and they prosecute less than 1% of them.
Until they’re enforcing CURRENT gun laws, they can shut the hell up.
The purpose of enacting ever more laws is to entrap all citizens, no matter how honest and peaceful, in an ever-more tangled web of restrictions. Sooner or later it becomes impossible to live a single day without violating a law–and then politicians can use those laws to selectively persecute whoever they dislike.
Employers in Illinois are not allowed to ask for passwords for social media accounts due to privacy concerns, but I guess if you’re trying to buy a gun to defend yourself, or for sport, anything is fair game. These people just don’t get it, or refuse to get it, and citizens are still being shot in Chicago on nearly a daily basis.
What about this law could possibly violate the First Amendment right of free speech, Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, due process, or equal protection.
Sarcasm off now.
Counter-proposal: politicians must reveal their social media history, their email history, their snail mail history, their school records, their tax records, their business records, and so on. After all, a politician can do far more harm than a single deranged gunman. Seem fair? 🙂
If we’re going to continue with the infringing then let’s bring back the poll tax.
While they’re at it, I’m sure they’d love to bring back the Sedition Act of 1798.
There’s nothing infringing about a poll tax. The left would of course attack it as “regressive”, but it doesn’t infringe any known right or civil liberty, or any constitutional provision or law.
(I have noticed that an annoying large number of people have no idea what a poll tax is. It is a flat tax to be paid by everybody, or everybody in a certain age range, regardless of anything they do or don’t do, or have or don’t have. One of the earliest poll taxes on record is in Exodus 30:13-15. It has nothing to do with elections.)