The following is an important court case pertaining to the use of the social security number. The Privacy Act is still in effect!!!
REMEMBER THAT UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT THE PENALTY FOR USING THE SSN OUTSIDE THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BEARS A FIVE-YEAR PRISON SENTENCE!!!
The prisons are not big enough to hold those who use this "number" including banks, credit card companies, and state and federal agencies, Dept. of Safety, Highway Patrol, insurance companies....
FIVE YEARS INCARCERATION!!
Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/28/2006 | Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms
and the case is at:
Judge rejects Pa. gun-buying terms
Requiring prospective owners to provide their Social Security
numbers violates the U.S. Privacy Act, the judge ruled. Read
By John Shiffman Inquirer Staff Writer
to purchase a g un or obtain a concealed-weapons permit was struck down
yesterday by a federal judge. The state law violated the federal Privacy
Act, U.S. District Judge Juan R. Sanchez ruled.
"This issue has been largely overlooked in
for a long time," said lawyer J. Dwight Yoder, who brought the case on
behalf of a retired U.S. Army officer from
about privacy, not guns. We weren't looking to circumvent gun laws.
"Lawyers for the Pennsylvania State Police are reviewing the decision
and considering an appeal, spokesman Jack Lewis said. By requiring
applicants to provide Social Security numbers, Lewis said, his agency
"simply has followed the requirements of the state's Uniform Firearms
Act."The wider impact of yesterday's ruling - whether, for example,
other Pennsylvania Social Security requirements would be deemed invalid
- was uncertain.
One reason is that there are two larg e exceptions to the Privacy Act's
protection of Social Security numbers. The act does not apply to state
and local government programs specifically exempted by federal law, such
as driver's license applications, or to programs from before 1974, such
as voter registration.
Sanchez's ruling noted that the right of privacy as to Social Security
numbers exists under a federal law, not as a right the U.S. Supreme
Court had interpreted as protected by the Constitution.
Still, Robert Ellis Smith, publisher of the Privacy Journal in
comes at a time when most government agencies are requiring more and
more information from people.""The decision is part of a trend in the
last 10 years as courts realize the importance of keeping Social
Security numbers confidential because of identity theft," Smith said.
Smith, who is also a lawyer and journalist, was a p aid expert for
Michael Stollenwerk, the retired Army officer who brought the case in
federal court in
Stollenwerk said yesterday he hoped the ruling would inspire others to
challenge government demands for Social Security numbers. He also said
he hoped it would encourage local and state officials to review
"A lot of state governments have blown off this law," said Stollenwerk,
now a law student at
stand up to the government and say, 'I'm going to challenge this.'
"Stollenwerk, 42, has pressed the matter on gun permits in other states,
he said. In
convince state authorities that their gun-purchase law violated the
Privacy Act. In
Stollenwerk began his
still an Army li eutenant colonel based in the
30, 2003, Stollenwerk tried to buy a Taurus revolver from US Prospectors
Sporting Goods in
his Social Security number, Stollenwerk declined to provide it. The
dealer called state police to try to complete the sale, but the state
police refused to run Stollenwerk's name through its database, the
Pennsylvania Instant Check System, without a Social Security number.
A few days later, Stollenwerk tried to apply for a concealed-gun permit
license, voter-registration card, bank statements, and utility bills as
identification. When he refused to disclose his Social Security number,
Sheriff Terry A. Bergman denied him a license to carry a firearm.
Bergman referred calls yesterday to his attorney, David Karamessinis,
who could not be reached for comment.
/Contact staff writer John Shiffman at 215-854-2658 or