MSP Requiring or Requesting SSN's and the law

CypherPunk said:

Question. Hoping to crowd source an answer with cites.

Does Maryland's Social Security Number Privacy Act or another law or COMAR prohibit the Maryland State Police from requiring your Social Security number on a Handgun Permit or Designated Collector Application?

If requiring or requesting is lawful, is the MSP required to include a disclaimer (i.e. that providing said information is optional, or how it will be used).

Finally, is the MSP required to store and or transmit that information with certain protections (i.e. faxing a 77R release to MD Dept. of Mental Health with an applicants SSN on it)?

Click to expand...

CypherPunk said:

Question. Hoping to crowd source an answer with cites.

Does Maryland's Social Security Number Privacy Act or another law or COMAR prohibit the Maryland State Police from requiring your Social Security number on a Handgun Permit or Designated Collector Application?

If requiring or requesting is lawful, is the MSP required to include a disclaimer (i.e. that providing said information is optional, or how it will be used).

Finally, is the MSP required to store and or transmit that information with certain protections (i.e. faxing a 77R release to MD Dept. of Mental Health with an applicants SSN on it)?

Click to expand...

pilotguy299 said:

Here:

http://www.mdshooters.com/showpost.php?p=2691886&postcount=774

Click to expand...

esqappellate said:

Here is the pertinent discussion from the Comments filed by MSI with the MSP on their proposed regs. The final regs took out the requirement for the SSN

I. THE REGULATIONS VIOLATE SECTION 7 OF THE PRIVACY ACT, 5 U.S.C. 552A NOTE IN REQUIRING SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.
The regulations repeatedly require an applicant for various permits and licenses to submit his federal Social Security Number (SSN). This submission is mandatory and any failure to include appears to be subject to punishment or denial of the application on that basis alone. These requirements to submit a Social Security number are flatly in violation of Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 Note, Public Law 93-579 (1974), and must be eliminated.
Specifically, Section 7(a)(1) of the Privacy Act makes it unlawful for “[a]ny 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.” Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act provides that an agency that any agency that “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.” Section 7(a) and Section 7(b) create individually enforceable rights that supersede and preempt any provision of state law in conflict with these requirements. See, e.g., Schwier v. Cox, 340 F. 3d 1284, 1288 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that Section 7 of the Privacy Act “clearly confers a legal right on individuals: the right to refuse to disclose his or her [social security number] without suffering the loss ‘of any right, benefit, or privilege provided by law.’“); Ingerman v. Del. River Port Auth., 630 F.Supp.2d 426, 437–38 (D.N.J. 2009) (same). These provisions may be enforced as federal rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983, and attorneys’ fees and costs may be awarded against the state and state officers in any such suit under 42 U.S.C. 1988. (Id.).
Numerous sections of the proposed regulations violate Section 7 of the Privacy Act. Specifically, the following subsections in the proposed regulations demand the applicant’s Social Security Number (references are to COMAR 29.01.01.xx, as proposed):
1. A new resident of MD must register his regulated firearms and provide his SSN (Section .05);
2. The purchaser of a regulated firearm must include the applicant's SSN (Section .16);
3. A multiple purchase applicant must include the SSN (Section .24);
4. A designated collector applicant must provide his SSN (Section .25);
5. The applicant for a Handgun Qualification License must include the SSN, both initially and upon renewal (Sections .28 and .34);
6. The SSN must be provided by applicants for instructor designation and renewals of the designation (Sections .38 and .39);
7. An applicant for a dealer's license must include his SSN (Section .45 );
8. A dealer must provide the transferee’s SSN in complying with his duties to provide shell casings (Section .58).
This demand for the social security number also appears in the proposed regulations for the hand gun carry permit, COMAR 29.03.02 et seq. Handgun Permit Unit. Specifically, an applicant for a carry permit must provide his SSN both in the initial application (Section .04) and upon any application for a renewal (Section .12).
All these provisions are in violation of federal law. Specifically, these provisions violate Section 7(b) of the Privacy Act in that none of these sections “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 new proposed regulations also violate Section 7(a) of the Privacy Act in that the regulations expressly state that the State Police will deny the application or license if the SSN is omitted. Indeed, the proposed regulations even threaten criminal prosecution for any such omission, stating:
.06 False or Omitted Information.
A. An applicant shall not provide false information on an application for a permit, or omit significant information on the application, or cause false information to be given in connection with the verification investigation.
B. Any knowing material omission or false statement may be considered grounds for denial of a permit or for criminal prosecution.
.17 Regulated Firearm Application—False or Omitted Information.
A. Any false information supplied or statement made in the application is a crime which may be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than 3 years, or a fine of not more than $5,000, or both.
B. An applicant shall not provide false information on a regulated firearm application, or omit significant information on the application, or cause false information to be given in connection with the verification investigation.
C. Any knowing material omission or false statement may be considered grounds for disapproval of an application or for criminal prosecution.
.46 Dealer’s License—False or Omitted Information.
A. An applicant may not provide false information on an application for a dealer’s license, or omit significant information on the application, or cause false information to be given in connection with the verification investigation.
B. Any knowing material omission or false statement may be considered grounds for denial of a license or for criminal prosecution.
.30 Handgun Qualification License—False or Omitted Information.
A. An applicant shall not provide false information on the application for Handgun Qualification License, or omit significant information on the application, or cause false information to be given in connection with the verification investigation.
B. Any knowing material omission or false statement may be considered grounds for denial of a license or for criminal prosecution.
Plainly, the regulations threaten to do precisely what Section 7(a) bans, viz., “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.” Indeed, the threat of criminal prosecution for any such omission is particularly egregious. These provisions are flatly illegal.

Click to expand...

Docster said:

Thanks to Esqappellate for showing that 'Search' works, and thanks as well for taking the time to do it for everyone else. We could all learn how effective that tool is.

About every state and federal document that requires our signature for permission for anything states that use of SS # is not required but may facilitate/speed up, the process. Been that way for more than a few years, just sayin'.....

Click to expand...