Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

morganhilltimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#31

Post by da_big_ghey »

anoonmoose wrote: post #15
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just the cheaper (because there's a bunch of things more risky about it) equivalent of hiring a body guard. Why not?

I mean, you said why not yourself. There's a lot that goes into being a bodyguard that makes it quite different from allowing random employees to carry.

I think this is a cultural thing that causes people in other places to worry too much about concealed firearms. I'm from Texas, where it's generally understood that there is a very good chance that any given person is carrying. Not just Joe Tough Guy either, there are plenty of old ladies with .25 ACPs in their handbags. People don't see it as scary or abnormal the same way other places do; it's just a tool that many people carry. I've only ever seen one incident where someone got stupid with a concealed handgun, and that guy was clearly a moron and had been drinking quite a bit. "Random people" carrying isn't really an issue. And because they're not seen as an exceptional or evil scary thing, most people are less-likely to abuse them, at least from what I've seen.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#32

Post by kube-system »

vl wrote: post #12
zepto wrote: post #2

Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.

And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.

That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#33

Post by t-writescode »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #18
binarycodedhex wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived there for 35 years. Her Majesty Laurie only bestows a few CCWs to a handful of business people and her buddies. People can apply for CCWs all they want, but she'll never issue them willingly. She's a bureaucrat and a crook keeping the populace defenseless and maintaining LE job security. https://imgur.com/anZTMPx

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA…

Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here.

edit: I can't spell :/

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#34

Post by gertrunde »

zepto wrote: post #2

Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.

I found one of the last paragraphs quite interesting...

"He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program"

The head of Ethics being involved in bribery? Yeah, that's a problem.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#35

Post by mdorazio »

beervirus wrote: post #8
underseacables wrote: post #3

What are the needs for concealed carry at Apple? For some reason this reminds me of Apple’s security team attempting to recover (by force) the lost iPhone 4.

I live in a nice area in a nice town. I work in a place that’s generally quite safe. I still carry a gun. You never know.

You never know... what? I'm a 2A supporter and a hunter, but I simply don't understand this kind of reasoning for why you need to concealed carry. The chance of you ever being in a position where having a firearm on you in public will make things better rather than worse is so ridiculously small that it just reeks of irrational fear. If you're that afraid of whatever situations you're imagining, how do you ever get in a car when your chance of getting injured or killed in one is astronomically higher?

That said, California's constant fight against 2A with absolutely idiotic rules needs to die.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#36

Post by calvinmorrison »

t-writescode wrote: post #33
calvinmorrison wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA…

Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here. edit: I can't spell :/

Basically whataboutism at this point. The conceal carry movement has grown leaps and bounds since the 70's and DC v. Heller wasn't until 2008.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#37

Post by da_big_ghey »

t-writescode wrote: post #33
calvinmorrison wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagining getting indicted for having to bribe a local official to exercise an essential right, specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, and held up repeatedly in the courts (Hello DC v. Heller). It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell. Even places like PA…

Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here. edit: I can't spell :/

Yep, this is one of the best examples of the racism that underlies a large amount of gun control. For other examples, see the laws targeting Saturday-night specials, or even the army/navy laws in the Jim Crow south. Today we're seeing much of this repeated with increased paperwork requirements, taxes, and price increases. Regulatory requirements and ATF overreach decreases supply and helps move affordable firearms out of reach for many working-class or poor Americans. Many people are concerned by increased voting requirements preventing people from voting, but fail to understand that these regulations do the same for gun rights. Or maybe they do, and it's intentional.

Reagan did a whole lot worse than this. He signed the Hughes Amendment, which cut off the supply of new, civilian-transferrable machine guns. I just can't understand how anyone likes the guy in spite of the awful things he did to gun rights. The Republican party is only somewhat less awful for gun rights than the Democrats.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#38

Post by t-writescode »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #36
t-writescode wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that major strides against Gun Control were originally performed by Ronald Reagan in California ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act ), I have trouble imagining a Conservative Supreme Court will take a textualist perspective on gun control laws, despite their political leaning and assumptions here. edit: I can't spell :/

Basically whataboutism at this point. The conceal carry movement has grown leaps and bounds since the 70's and DC v. Heller wasn't until 2008.

Less "whataboutism" and more "the ship for undoing (arguably) unconstitutional gun control laws has long, long sailed and we're never getting those rights back."

I suppose we _might_ get changes to the CCW laws; but, anything more complicated than that is never returning in the United States.

Re: Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

#40

Post by zepto »

gertrunde wrote: post #34
zepto wrote: post #2

Apple’s security chief should be fired over this. But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.

I found one of the last paragraphs quite interesting... "He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program" The head of Ethics being involved in bribery? Yeah, that's a problem.

That’s why the firing.

On the other hand, I think he’s in difficult position given that this kind of shakedown is common practice.

What’s especially absurd is that there are many people who carry concealed guns into the Bay Area legally every day, who just happen to live in counties where CCW’s are easily approved.

Post reply on HN