Care to Surrender your Facebook Password for a Permit to OWN a Gun?

Facebook Account Information Used by Police to Approve or Deny Gun “Permits” in New York Town

 According to a piece in thefreethoughtproject.com,  the Watervliet  Police Department and the court which issues gun permits in that New York community have been found  violating the Constitution on multiple counts.  They’re not even violating it under the provision of any statute or law.  It’s simply police department procedure that has been unquestioned until now.

The City of Watervliet requires that residents wishing to possess a handgun there must be permitted to do so. As unconstitutional as that is in itself, that’s not even the main source of outrage here.

Recently the department sent a form to an applicant who had applied for a local handgun “permit”. The application received asked the applicant supply personal Facebook account information as a condition for granting the “permit”.

This applicant rightfully complained.  The department responded by claiming that the form was sent to him in error.  They said that the form he received was the one normally filled out used in face-to-face interviews.

There were other details and you can check them out here.

This is just one example of constitutional abuses increasing at every level of government nationwide.  The real history of the American Revolution is no longer taught in public schools, and it’s showing now.

Demanding Facebook Information for Gun “Permits” is a Threefold Constitutional Violation

First, this policy violates the applicant’s 1st Amendment rights to free speech by ruling for or against the issue of a permit to exercise 2nd Amendment rights on the basis of the applicant’s political views.

It violates 2nd Amendment rights first by virtue of the very existence of a law requiring a permit to own a pistol (more on that later), and second by making it possible to deny a citizen his natural individual rights for purely political reasons.

This policy also violates the 4th Amendment by forcing the applicant to accept a warrantless search of personal property, namely, Facebook account information.

Don’t Forget the 10th Amendment.  What’s That?

Let’s look at the unconstitutionality of all state and local law.  Such law may not conflict with rights defined in the Constitution.  The 10th Amendment covers that.  The 10th Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”.

It is clear then, that states and localities may not pass law contrary to the supreme law of the Constitution, whose 2nd Amendment guarantees no infringement.  Issuing a “permit” to exercise what is already a right is infringement.  Therefore, every state or city law requiring the “permitting” of gun possession is infringing, and is therefore invalid on the basis on the 10th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment. 

Every Gun Law is Unconstitutional! Every One!

The existence of a law, regardless of the established constitutional process it went through in order to become law, by no means establishes or creates the constitutionality of that law.  It’s a fact that unconstitutional law is passed regularly, and that consequently we live in a maze of conflicting state and federal laws, many of them constitutionally invalid.  The 10th Amendment has not been honored.

In this small town case in New York, a local government has granted itself an authority it never had constitutional grounds to possess. Government regulation of speech and behavior is not a constitutional right at any level, federal, state, or local.  The Bill of Rights was written for the people’s protection from government, and no rights belong to government.  Only the Constitution defines what it may do.  The regulation of free speech, the regulation of the individual’s right to bear arms, the right to be protected from warrantless searches and seizures – these rights belong naturally to the individual.  Any claim of any level of government to act contrary to these protections is a tyrannical abuse of power.

This is getting old. The 2nd Amendment says “shall not be infringed”.

The primary motivation of the Founders for designing the constitutional republic that they did was to prevent the possibility of recurrence of the same tyrannical abuses they had just a decade earlier revolted against!

George Mason wrote that the 2nd Amendment was established to ensure that the people would be protected from repeating the very same tyrannical enslavement by government that King George III had inflicted upon them.  Noah Webster strongly agreed.  It’s all in the history that is no longer taught in public schools.

In the 4th Amendment, warrantless searches were prohibited, as well as standing federal armies.  Why do you suppose they mentioned that?  Could it have had anything to do with the presence of militarized police in the colonies that were directed by agents of King George III?

Running over the Constitution

The Constitution was carefully designed to provide infallible guidance which, properly applied, would suppress tyrannical government actions at all levels.  However, when the Constitution is neither respected and nor honored for its original intentions, it becomes useless.  In proportion as knowledge of the history of our founding era has diminished, so has respect for our Constitution.  As a result, Supreme Court rulings have replaced and superseded constitutional authority, and consequently the Constitution is now regularly run over by the courts.

Constitutional Infringements Running Rampant at Local Government Levels

Come to think of it, I said that the Watervliet police department was not violating the Constitution under the provision of any statute or law.  But they really were.  The very fact that their city honors an unconstitutional law is the basis of this entire set of additional infractions

Contentions that a law is constitutional and valid until its validity is overturned by the Supreme Court, are ridiculous. That position would render the Constitution of no value unless it were to be first sanctioned by the federal government  –  the very entity it was designed to protect the people against!

Read more at http://westernjournalism.com 

Facebooktwitterrss

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!