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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by wl »

zaroth wrote: post #358
wl wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't require a CCW. The guards could easily get exposed firearms permits. They need the CCWs to carry concealed and off duty.

You can't carry openly in many places, for example, in CA it is illegal to openly carry a handgun. [1] CCW is the only option, and they were holding this guy hostage by not issuing one when it was obviously necessary and appropriate. [1] - https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/faqs/can-i-openly-carry-a-gun-i...

It's not illegal to carry a firearm loaded and exposed in California if you have the proper license issued by BSIS, which is separate from a CCW.

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

#412

Post by ggreer »

sandworm101 wrote: post #242
kmonsen wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CA law will not let you have any loaded weapons transported without CCW. And loaded weapons is kind of needed to protect VIPs.

Then keep them unloaded. It takes less than a second for a pro to load a handgun. This isnt hollywood. Close protection details for large US corps virtually never fire a shot in anger. It is a once-per-decade event.

California forbids carrying a concealed firearm even if it is unloaded.[1]

Also California's legal definition of a loaded gun is not what everyone thinks it means. For example, PC 25400 has extra penalties if the firearm is loaded or if, "...the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from it are in the immediate possession of the person or readily accessible to that person." That makes your suggestion just as illegal as carrying a loaded handgun.

> Close protection details for large US corps virtually never fire a shot in anger. It is a once-per-decade event.

The point of a concealed handgun is to react as quickly as possible to what is usually a once-in-a-lifetime event. Even if it only takes an extra second to load a magazine into a firearm, that second can mean the difference between preventing a murder or not. It doesn't matter how rare the event is. It matters what the consequences are.

1. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

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

#414

Post by carls »

I spoke on a panel with Rick Sung, the Undersheriff who allegedly withheld permits until Apple coughed up the iPads.

At the end of the event, each panelist was offered a Starbucks gift card by the event organizers.

Rick gave his Starbucks gift card to me, saying, "since I'm here as a public official I can't accept this. Otherwise it would be counted as a bribe."

Wild.

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

#415

Post by throwawaygh »

giantg2 wrote: post #153
pmoriarty wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the employee was put in the unfortunate situation of either not getting their lawfully permitted license, or paying the bribe" ...or immediately going to the FBI.

These permits in CA are may-issue, not shall-issue. The sheriff can deny for any reason (of course they aren't supposed to ask for a bribe).

May-issue doesn't legalize bribery. See: the indictment.

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

#416

Post by Rebelgecko »

zaroth wrote: post #358
wl wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't require a CCW. The guards could easily get exposed firearms permits. They need the CCWs to carry concealed and off duty.

You can't carry openly in many places, for example, in CA it is illegal to openly carry a handgun. [1] CCW is the only option, and they were holding this guy hostage by not issuing one when it was obviously necessary and appropriate. [1] - https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/faqs/can-i-openly-carry-a-gun-i...

You don't need a CCW to carry on your own property

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

#417

Post by LyndsySimon »

jeffbee wrote: post #129
tomatotomato37 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Named after a Republican assemblyman, supported by the NRA, passed by a 2/3 vote in a Democratic assembly & senate, and signed in by Ronald Reagan, all due to a group of Black Panthers protesting inside the capitol building while armed. Who knew all you needed was a racial incentive in order to make the stripping of rights a bipartisan effort.

Arming black people is the only strategy for getting rid of the 2nd amendment that will actually work.

Not anymore. The firearms community is more inclusive than it has ever been. We - and I obviously count myself among them - see the racial disparity in access to arms as a key component of our legal strategy to get those laws overturned.

Pretty much all gun control in the US is racist in its origins and usually in its modern implementation. "May issue" is a shining example of this.

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

#418

Post by blueflame7 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #26
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.

What's even more galling is that if I were personally caught in such a situation as an IC, I would have been fired instantly. That he is the head of ethics compliance at Apple makes it even more galling, especially given that the company forces everyone through this kind of training when really only management & leadership violations of these ethics trainings can possibly get the company into serious trouble. > He ha…

I'm pretty sure this guy was just hired

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

#419

Post by rkt88edmo »

ohazi wrote: post #119
paxys wrote: post #98

Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. It isn't an "unfortunate situation" or anything else that people are calling it. It also doesn't matter who initiated the bribe. The employee, and potentially the company itself, absolutely need to be charged and prosecuted for it.

I disagree. I dislike Apple's practices as much as anyone, but when the #2 person at the sheriff's office is the one soliciting the bribe, you have a problem with the police department that even Apple cannot be expected to fix. You can argue that they should have gone straight to the DA, and you might even be right, but the only way for this problem to get fixed is by cleaning house at the police department, not by s…

NO - these aren't workplace permits, they are personal licenses for the employees. They can already carry guns on their building grounds without a permit. The company is stepping in on behalf of their employees for to get these permits issued to them as individuals, so Apple's willingness to participate in the bribery is on the company. I do agree that the police have done the far greater crime in the abuse of their authority. No one really cared when the only permit issued by the city of Oakland was to Jerry Brown's personal assistant Jacques.

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

#420

Post by cbozeman »

sandworm101 wrote: post #242
kmonsen wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CA law will not let you have any loaded weapons transported without CCW. And loaded weapons is kind of needed to protect VIPs.

Then keep them unloaded. It takes less than a second for a pro to load a handgun. This isnt hollywood. Close protection details for large US corps virtually never fire a shot in anger. It is a once-per-decade event.

Yeah, you're right... this isn't Hollywood.

A determined attacker could seriously injure or kill someone in the time it takes to load your weapon and chamber a round.

Your kind of ignorance almost makes me physically ill... you sound just like those women who take a self-defense course and think they can take down a 6'4" 295 lb. guy who looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger's bigger cousin.

I'd love to see the look in your eyes when someone rushes you at 10 feet and stabs you with the blue plastic prop knife 99 times out of 100. Its the same look those women get when they realize, "Oh shit... it turns out someone who's got 150 lbs. of muscle over me can fight off my puny attacks."

If guns were truly the ultimate force multiplier, military and police would never train for close quarters hand-to-hand combat. They aren't, so we do.

Post reply on HN