Your Tweets or Your Guns

by
posted on December 21, 2018
** When you buy products through the links on our site, we may earn a commission that supports NRA's mission to protect, preserve and defend the Second Amendment. **
tweets.jpg

An unfortunate byproduct of the gun control movement’s fanatical attacks on the Second Amendment has been their willingness to degrade other vital constitutional rights in pursuit of their ends.

In early November, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and N.Y. State Sen. Kevin Parker, D-Brooklyn, made clear that they are willing to injure the First Amendment in order to target the Second.

Citing the tragic shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, by a man with a history of anti-Semitic social media activity, Adams and Parker announced that they were drafting legislation to require law enforcement to conduct an examination of New York firearm license applicants’ internet history.

The text of the legislation has not been made available on the N.Y. Senate’s website, so the details are vague. However, the proposed law appears to cover an applicant’s social media posts as well as internet browsing history.

According to a report from the New York Daily News, Parker said the bills would cover posts to the top four social media websites—Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram and Twitter—as well as all of the main search engines, including Google, Yahoo and Bing. People requesting recertification would also be checked.

There is no word on whether Parker intends to extend his legislation to require an investigation of the materials applicants have checked out from their local library or their home book collection.

Despite the best efforts of certain elements in the modern Left, any speech that they might find offensive is still firmly protected by the First Amendment.

In the case R.A.V. v. St. Paul, Minn., the U.S. Supreme Court made clear: The First Amendment generally prevents government from proscribing speech or even expressive conduct because of disapproval of the ideas expressed. Content-based regulations are presumptively invalid.

The Supreme Court has also proven skeptical of laws that produce a “chilling effect” on free expression. In Lamont v. Postmaster General, the court struck down a federal statute which required mail recipients to specifically authorize the receipt of materials deemed communist political propaganda. Addressing the affirmative obligation imposed upon the recipient, the court wrote that the “requirement is almost certain to have a deterrent effect.”

Further expressing their endorsement of this doctrine, in Walker v. City of Birmingham, the court explained in its ruling:

“We have molded both substantive rights and procedural remedies in the face of varied conflicting interests to conform to our overriding duty to insulate all individuals from the ‘chilling effect’ upon exercise of First Amendment freedoms generated by vagueness, overbreadth and unbridled discretion to limit their exercise.”

There can be little doubt that Parker’s legislation would create such a chilling effect. Those New Yorkers unwilling to forgo the exercise of their Second Amendment rights would be required to curtail the views they express and read online.

Moreover, given the tenor of recent political debate, it is not difficult to imagine a scenario where owners of guns would be forbidden from engaging in a wide swath of speech and political debate. The terms “racist” and “anti-social” are vague and employed in innumerable and inconsistent ways to advance the political interests of those who use them.

Further, proponents of the legislation should ask themselves: How might the government of a more remote jurisdiction, perhaps lacking New York’s cosmopolitan sensibilities, use such a framework to target the rights of its constituents?

Permitting government officials to make the exercise of one constitutional right contingent upon relinquishing the right to exercise another would destroy the protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and enjoyed by everyone. Blinded by their hatred for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun advocates appear willing to burn down the entire Bill of Rights along with it.

Latest

Scott Olmsted interview
Scott Olmsted interview

The Editor of American Hunter Discusses Why Some Politicians Pretend They Are Hunters

As being a hunter is hard to fake, many politicians have made fools of themselves when they have trouble loading one of “their” guns or breaking basic rules of gun safety. Voters notice, too.

Katie Pavlich Puts the NRA’s CEO on the Spot

All NRA members—indeed, anyone who cherishes their freedom—should watch and share this important interview.

Should a Bad Check Negate a Right for the Rest of Your Life?

In a legal showdown that could have sweeping implications for nonviolent offenders across the United States, the NRA and other pro-freedom groups are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear this case.

We the People Versus the Elites

While the mainstream media and its sycophants portray gun control as a preference of the people that is constantly thwarted by the “elites,” the opposite is often true.

From the Editor | In the Footsteps of Freedom

If we are to keep America on the path to freedom in accordance with our Founders’ ideals, we need to bring the next generation along with us.

Gun-Control Activist David Hogg is Out of the DNC

Though Hogg apparently exited the race of his own volition, that this vote was brought to fruition shows there is an internal division.



Get the best of America's 1st Freedom delivered to your inbox.