I said, only people they would want to have guns would not get one

@Glaice are you upstate or downstate?

Down, I live on the island in Suffolk

He does too

I'm rural upstate. You'd be amazed how few fucks are given at this point with regards to stuff like the Safe Act.

And it's all highly unpopular.

Oh god the NY-SAFE act is bullshit

*shall not be infringed*

There's a No-SAFE act sign everywhere that's not a college campus. Such BS. And it's probably only going to get worse.

"Only four social-media sites or apps (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and Snapchat) and three search engines (Google, Yahoo and Bing) would be subject to search."

Good, I'll use Gab then lmfao

Duck Duck Go.

Atleast the anti-gunners seem as naive about social media as they do guns.

Both email accounts are from Yahoo and Gmail however

But then again, that might be the point. Get a captive audience to preach the merits of gun control to.

Email is hard.

And if you didn't know already, my name is my YouTube channel

Interesting enough, it may be Roe v Wade that might best provide a Constitutional defense against this law if it happens

The basis of Roe was the determination that there is a Right to Privacy implied by the various Amendments to the US Constitution.

@Glaice Here we go. Just found this. Can't believe I didn't think about it before.
https://www.facebook.com/senatorfredakshar/
https://www.nysenate.gov/questionnaires/fred-akshar/poll-do-you-support-social-media-and-search-history-background-checks

@DrYuriMom interesting.

Roe rules that the government could not interfere with the private provider-patient relationship

A right to privacy is the entire basis for Roe, and one of the reasons I counsel caution to my right-inclined friends when they argue Roe should be overturned

I don't think this is provider-patient though. This would be much more of a generic right to privacy case regarding private property.

There's also a clear 2nd amendment element.

It's still a matter of privacy.

This is much closer to that FBI iPhone unlocking case a year ago.

Sure, but I wouldn't base my defense on Roe.

amongst voters... clinton got more votes.... so technically wasnt she the "populist candidate"

I think Roe could be invoked to argue that unless a subpoena is obtained, and that requires a crime already have occurred, that government accessing your private information is unconstituional

I don't know if 2nd Amendment would protect your right to privacy. This would be about accessing your private information. The decision to permit the gun or not would come later.

Wasn't there some people saying hillary has less votes than trump if you subtract the fake votes from the total?

There's a 2a case here too. It involves licensing and could be used to deny the right.

There's a difference between populist, popular, and vote majority @wacka

A *Roe* defense would make heads spin, but it seems a bit of a stretch imo.

Yeah but it's already been ruled that gun licenses do not impede your 2a rights

There is quite literally no evidence of "millions of fake votes"

In the most recent election, the Dem House votes outnumbered the Repub House votes by 53 million to 45 million

so what is it that makes trump populist

specifically amongst people that actually voted

With how courts and legislators have gradually eroded the second amendment rights, I don't see any reason to believe a Roe defense would work.