Some New York City lawmakers want to use people’s social media history to take away their Second Amendment rights.

According to reports, Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams and state Senator Kevin Palmer are drafting legislation that would give law enforcement the ability to comb through up to three years of a person’s social media and internet history before the person could purchase a firearm.

“If the police department is reviewing a gang assault, a robbery, some type of shooting, they go and do a social media profile investigation,” Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams said of the proposal on a recent radio appearance. “A three-year review of a social media profile would give an easy profile of a person who is not suitable to hold and possess a firearm.”

Wow. If you thought the “no-fly, no buy” idea of stripping the Second Amendment rights of people on an arbitrary list with no due process was an unconstitutional farce, just wait until this becomes the next big gun trend.

The anti-gun crowd is sure to cling to it because it seems to directly address the details of the most recent gun crime — just like stripping rights from people on the “no-fly” list became the gun-grab proposal du jour after the Orlando shooting. However, it doesn’t hold up.

Yes, there are different forms of unprotected speech, like fighting words and direct incitement of violence, and there are crimes and conditions that can and should bar someone from gun ownership, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

What we’re really talking about is policing things that offend others under the vague premise of fighting “hate” with government force. Like “assault weapon,” there’s no real definition of “hate speech,” and the term never seems to stop evolving in a society where every form of legitimate right-leaning political disagreement is quickly labeled as some “hate” or prejudiced “ism.”

What’s to stop those whose real end game is to ban all private gun ownership from calling pro-life posts “hate speech” against women or pro-traditional marriage posts “hate speech” against gays? They might even start considering anti-Israel BDS propaganda anti-Semitic “hate speech” if it keeps guns out of private citizens’ hands. Who knows? Such is the problem with using subjective, arbitrary standards to take away constitutional rights.

But saying things that hurt people’s feelings on social media isn’t a crime in the United States — and under the First Amendment, it should never be. And it certainly shouldn’t mean that citizens lose a constitutional liberty over it.

There’s an old adage that says “bad facts make bad law.” It’s very true, and fact-free frenzies driven by gun-related atrocities make even worse law. (For more from the author of “That Was Fast: New York Lawmakers Want to Use Social Media History to Block People From Gun Ownership” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Wait—isn’t 60 percent a solid number showing support for stricter gun laws? Yes, but support is dropping and my guess, like what happened after Sandy Hook, is that support will continue to drop until it returns to pre-Newtown levels: 47 percent. And that was with a Democratic president at the helm.

Sandy Hook was a tragic shooting that shook the nation, as did the February shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, which launched a renewed wave of anti-gun activism. Former students David Hogg, Cameron Kasky, and Emma Gonzalez formed the face of their new movement. Support for gun control reached 25-year highs, but Stephen Gutowski of the Washington Free Beacon noted that support is dropping:

The Gallup poll of 1,019 adults, conducted between Oct. 1 and 10, found 61 percent of respondents support making gun laws stricter. That’s down 6 points from when Gallup asked the same question between March 1 and 8. At the same time support for the idea that gun laws should be kept the same increased from 28 percent to 30 percent and support for the idea they should be made less strict doubled from 4 percent to 8 percent.

Overall, opposition to stricter gun-control laws moved from 32 percent to 38 percent. Two percent of respondents said they had no opinion. (It’s unclear why Gallup’s raw numbers add up to more than 100 percent but the discrepancy is likely the result of rounding.)

Support for stricter gun control has wavered significantly over the last few decades. When Gallup first asked about it in 1990, support for stricter laws came in at an all-time-high of 78 percent. In 2012, support hit an all-time-low of 43 percent. Support for stricter laws has trended back up since 2012, but this month’s numbers may indicate it is receding once again.

(Read more from “Sorry, Anti-Gunners, Your Base of Support for Gun Control Is Being Chipped Away Again” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

. . .A new study by the University of Kansas has illuminated yet another connection between guns and politics. And this one may have people who lean right politically cheering.

According to the study, American gun owners are in the thick of it politically, being more active than their non-gun-owning counterparts across the board. This includes “not only in voting but in donating money to candidates and contacting elected officials.”

The Huffington Post reported other areas of increased engagement by gun owners. They included things such as registering to vote, voting in presidential elections, signing petitions, and posting on social media about guns. . .

NBC News reported in June 2015 that only about one-third of Americans actually owned one or more guns, according to study data published in Injury Prevention. Despite gun sales surges during the President Barack Obama years, a Pew Research Center Study from June 2017 reflects a similar gun ownership number — 30 percent of adults are gun owners.

But even though non-gun owners clearly outnumber gun owners, being more engaged politically matters. Political science graduate student Abbie Vegter explained, “Part of the reason majority opinions on gun control legislation aren’t turning into policy is that gun owners are a very strong political group who hold a lot of weight and hold a lot of influence despite being a minority in American politics.” (Read more from “Study: Gun Owners More Likely to Utilize Their Constitutional Rights Than Non-Gun Owners” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The designer of a 3D printed gun said he will distribute his designs despite a court order that sought to bar him from doing so. . .

Cody Wilson plans to sell the designs for 3D printed guns through his company Defense Distributed, based in Austin, Texas. While it’s illegal to distribute plans for an entire 3D printed gun online, Wilson circumvented this by selling parts instead of a complete gun.

On July 10, the U.S. Department of Justice reached a settlement with the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of Defense Distributed, under which plans for the guns could be distributed freely online.

Wilson announced at a news conference on Tuesday that he had figured out a work-around, and would be selling flash drives with the plans on them instead of making them available for download. He will also limit sales to the United States instead of making the plans available internationally. . .

Trump is no fan of Wilson’s. In July, shortly after the settlement, Trump tweeted that does not think that 3D guns should be sold to the public.

I am looking into 3-D Plastic Guns being sold to the public. Already spoke to NRA, doesn’t seem to make much sense!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2018

(Read more from “Designer of 3D Printed Gun Will Distribute Gun Plans Despite Court Order” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.