NY Governor Ignores Supreme Court Ruling and Issues New Regulations Requiring Social Media History to Obtain Concealed Carry Permit

Gateway Pundit – by Jim Hoft

Now New Yorkers who request a concealed carry permit must provide the social media history to authorities.

Then government bureaucrats will decide if you qualify for a permit. 

What could go wrong?

Governor Hochul tweeted this out on Saturday.

These new rules totally disregard the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week that New York’s law that includes strict rules for concealed carry in the state.

In their decision, the Supreme Court struck down the New York law requiring people to demonstrate a particular need for carrying a gun in order to get a license to carry one in public.

Prior to this ruling, the state could decide who it wanted to have this right and who it didn’t.

It appears from Governor Hochul’s response that she is openly ignoring the recent decision.

Will she face any consequences?

Via The Washington Examiner.

New Yorkers may have to share their social media history and character references to obtain permits to carry concealed firearms in public, according to legislation signed by Gov. Kathy Hochul on Friday evening.

Those seeking gun permits would have to disclose both their active and inactive social media accounts from the past three years as well as provide references the state can contact to confirm their “good moral character,” the legislation states. The requirements are just one component of several proposed changes to New York gun laws after parts of its existing restrictions on concealed carry permits were struck down in a Supreme Court ruling last week.

This is floating around social media.

Gateway Pundit

2 thoughts on “NY Governor Ignores Supreme Court Ruling and Issues New Regulations Requiring Social Media History to Obtain Concealed Carry Permit

  1. Well, then it stands to reason that the lawful citizen authorities can ignore state servants on all the unlawful so called gun control crap!!

  2. Wow…..so how does this NOT violate freedom of speech?

    If this ain’t crossing the line in this nanny state, then I don’t know what is?

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published.


*