Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner

Social Security Card Demand

13K views 51 replies 11 participants last post by  Malum Prohibitum 
#1 ·
As we know, Fulton demands one's social security card, in spite of the fact that the standard state forms contain no place for the social security card information.

Would 5 USC 552a affect this policy?

Section 7 of the Federal Privacy Act (5 USC 552a note) is an "uncodified" public law (whatever that means :roll: it is really just an error in how it was inserted in the lawbooks, i.e., in the historical notes instead of into the text of the statute - they ought to correct it) and states, in it's entirety:

Sec. 7 (a)(1) It shall be unlawful for any Federal, State or local government agency to deny to any individual any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law because of such individual's refusal to disclose his social security account number.

(2) the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall not apply with respect to--
(A) any disclosure which is required by Federal statute, or
(B) any disclosure of a social security number to any Federal, State, or local agency maintaining a system of records in existence and operating before January 1, 1975, if such disclosure was required under statute or regulation adopted prior to such date to verify the identity of an individual.
(b) Any Federal, State or local government agency which requests an individual to disclose his social security account number shall inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory or other authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it.


The purpose being related in the following federal case:

In response to growing concerns over the accumulation of massive amounts of personal information, Congress passed the Privacy Act of 1974. This Act makes it unlawful for a governmental agency to deny a right, benefit, or privilege merely because the individual refuses to disclose his SSN. In addition, Section 7 of the Privacy Act further provides that any agency requesting an individual to disclose his SSN must "inform that individual whether that disclosure is mandatory or voluntary, by what statutory authority such number is solicited, and what uses will be made of it."

. . .

Further Congressional recognition of the privacy concerns is evident from § 7 of the Privacy Act which prohibits the denial of any right, benefit, or privilege by a governmental agency because of an individual's refusal to disclose his SSN.

Greidinger v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344 (4th Cir. 1993). This case involved the denial of voter registration in Virginia unless the person registering to vote provided a social security number. The court comments that Virginia's scheme would probably be ok of nobody else could view the social security number (see n.10).

I wonder, is Fulton doing all these things required under the Act? I bet not.
 
See less See more
#27 ·
I read the circuit court opinion (and the district court opinion affirmed by the circuit court), and my comments don't change. The state argued in the case that there was a statewide requirement for social security numbers because the state-issued form for voter registration had a space for the number and the law said an application could be rejected based on a failure to provide information requested. The court found there was no requirement, despite the form, because counties did not enforce it and because the form said the number only was required if known.

There is no statewide requirement for SSNs on GFL applications. There is no statewide form for applications. An individual county could try to argue that it had a system in place, but the county is not administering its own firearms license. The county is administering a state licensing system.

Absent a statewide requirement for SSNs, I just don't see how a county could overcome the privacy act, even in light of the Schwier case.
 
#29 ·
Um, I did not expect your position to change, as I think it is the correct one. I was merely giving you some support for it! :wink: This is one of the reasons that the plaintiffs won!

I knew nobody had read it.

The number one obstace is finding someone who will refuse to disclose a SSN and thereby assure himself of not being issued a license (the "benefit" under the Privacy Act) so as to have a cause of action under 42 USC 1983.
 
#31 ·
I would ask then how can the court require it if the state does not. But so many courts ignore what the law says anyway it really doesn't surprise me that they do what they want.

I used to think courts were places where the law was followed to the letter, as they should know it. Turns out they know it enough to break it without penalty.
 
#32 ·
Gunstar1, I think the short answer is that the probate court can't ask for it when the state does not require it.

One other point from the Schwier case that's worth mentioning. The court made a point of noting that if the SSN is not requested to confirm identification, then the privacy act exemption does not apply, regardless of the other factors. It is hard to argue that the number is needed for identification when we both know that NICS checks are done without SSN, and that some counties seem to be able to get background checks done without supplying SSNs.
 
#33 ·
jrm said:
MP, I don't know where to find the answer, either, but I understand that not every county requires them even today. Plus, I don't think there is anything in the state law that actually requires it. So, I'm not sure the privacy act exception would apply, because a local practice not mandated by state law doesn't seem like it would trigger the exception.
jwd posted at packing.org yesterday that Carroll County did not require his SSN.

I do not know when this was that he applied or if this is still the case.
 
#34 ·
Malum Prohibitum said:
The number one obstace is finding someone who will refuse to disclose a SSN and thereby assure himself of not being issued a license (the "benefit" under the Privacy Act) so as to have a cause of action under 42 USC 1983.
Just another mention . . .
 
#38 ·
Geez, it was so long ago, but I don't recall being asked for my SS card at the South Fulton County office. And even if they asked for it, I wouldn't have been able to provide it - I lost it years ago. The only documentation I took was a GA driver's license, passport, and probaby a copy of my birth certificate. My GA firearms license came in about 120 days later.
 
#39 ·
jrm said:
MP, some counties don't require an SSN. So, there is not a form, used state wide, that requires it.
While this may have been true at one point in time (and I do not now know that such is the case), I think it is no longer a factual statement. :wink:
 
#44 ·
Okay here is a little circular logic for you.

(8) 'Licensee' means any person holding a license.
(9) 'Licensing entity' means any state agency, department, or board of this state which issues or renews any license, certificate, permit, or registration to authorize a person to drive a motor vehicle, or to engage in a profession, business, or occupation including those under
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=19-11-9.3

Since a Firearm permit is required to work as a bail recovery agent does that makes it a professional permit?
 
#46 ·
ber950 said:
Okay here is a little circular logic for you.

(8) 'Licensee' means any person holding a license.
(9) 'Licensing entity' means any state agency, department, or board of this state which issues or renews any license, certificate, permit, or registration to authorize a person to drive a motor vehicle, or to engage in a profession, business, or occupation including those under
http://www.legis.state.ga.us/cgi-bin/gl_codes_detail.pl?code=19-11-9.3

Since a Firearm permit is required to work as a bail recovery agent does that makes it a professional permit?
I think definition 7 is probably more important.

(7) 'License' means a certificate, permit, registration, or any other authorization issued by any licensing entity that allows a person to operate a motor vehicle or to engage in a profession, business, or occupation.
 
#48 ·
OCGA 19-11-9.1

(2) In accordance with the mandate contained in 42 U.S.C. Section 666(a)(13)(A) and notwithstanding any provision of Chapter 2 of Title 27 relating to licenses and permits as now existing or hereafter amended, the Department of Natural Resources shall require an applicant for a license or permit pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 27 to provide to the Department of Natural Resources the applicant́s social security number as a part of the license or permit application. The Department of Natural Resources shall provide to the Department of Human Resources, along with other information required to be provided to the Department of Human Resources, the social security numbers of individuals who have been issued a license or permit pursuant to Chapter 2 of Title 27. The Department of Human Resources shall use the information provided by the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to this Code section for the purpose of complying with the requirements of law concerning the enforcement of child support.

(3) The information collected by the Department of Driver Services and the Department of Natural Resources and transmitted to the Department of Human Resources pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection shall be deemed confidential and not subject to public disclosure but may be shared with other state agencies as needed to comply with federal law
 
#49 ·
That speaks for the DNR, and an exception to the federal privacy act, but not to the firearms license. A quick and not very thorough review does not show a statute applicable to a firearms license.

With that having been said, I have seen information implying that Probate Courts may be reporting this information to the DHR, perhaps in violation of the Privacy Act.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top