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

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701

Post by smachiz »

Grakel wrote: post #667
bww wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would retired police have special access to this sort of permit? The entire justification for it is that their dangerous job necessitates special privileges. That justification doesn’t apply to retired people. It may apply to actively employed private security, I don’t know. At least the reasoning makes sense, though.

Good question. I believe if anyone would be qualified for a permit, it would be them. Not that they should receive special access. The current system isn't based on qualification, but on privilege.

or need. A retired NYPD cop doesn't need a gun - a bodyguard might.

Often those bodyguards are ex-NYPD, which is how they got the concealed permit in the first place.

The whole point is demonstrating a need for a concealed weapon, not qualification or competency.

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

#702

Post by kmonsen »

cbozeman wrote: post #420
sandworm101 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 you…

If a 295 lb guy charges you it doesn't really matter what you do, they will flatten you unless the weight is somewhat similar. At some point physics takes over.

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

#703

Post by JKCalhoun »

baby wrote: post #586
normand1 wrote: post #511

I've lived in the Bay Area most of my life. It's well known the only way to get CCW permits in the Bay Area is to "donate" to the local county sheriff. I'm surprised someone was actually caught. I moved to Washington and got my concealed carry in a few months after filling out paperwork. No "donations" required.

I'd assume individuals who want a permit vs campus with concentrated amounts of high-net-worth individuals is a different problem. I can't fathom why anyone would want to live in a place where they themselves need a CCW permit to feel safe.

Sadly, if they're the fearful type, it doesn't matter where they live.

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

#704

Post by tony101 »

This is why gun permits should be "shall-issue" rather than "may-issue." In other words, there should be a clear set of objective requirements; if an applicant meets these objective requirements, the government official should be required to issue the permit. This would be similar to driver's licenses.

"May-issue" jurisdictions, such as California, give too much discretion to local officials, leading to arbitrary decisions and cases of bribery. Most states are "shall-issue" jurisdictions and do not have this type of problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_...

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

#705

Post by tesmar2 »

iaw wrote: post #518
nradov wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has the 7th lowest gun death rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... California is 23rd in homicide rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...

26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point? The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate. Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state…

Infringing on tyrants’ right to life is the point of the 2nd amendment.

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

#706

Post by SwimSwimHungry »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #646
Zhenya wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How exactly? IMHO, sf would be a lot safer if the criminals would have at least the concept that someone could respond to their violence with equal violence. Today, aside from the slim chance of being caught by an unengaged police force, the cost is zero.

Are... you seriously suggesting that if it was easier to get guns there might be less violent crime?

Yes. That is what is likely being suggested.

A well armed society is a polite society.

But hey, if you live in an ivory tower, why let the common folk have a right to bear arms? Doesn't that sound elitist to you?

A certain someone by the name of Ronald Reagan (yeah... that guy... the one worshiped by conservatives) signed the Mulford Act into law to keep Black Panthers from open carrying guns. California's history on gun control seems oddly classist and racist when you think about it.

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

#707

Post by chmod600 »

will4274 wrote: post #652
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level. They implement it as a wink and nod end run around the 14th amendment. The whole purpose is so that the states can play dumb when the towns "accidentally" install sheriffs/police chiefs who turn out to be racist and deny all the irish/blacks/latinos their rights.

No, this has American politics inside out. Red states are typically shall issue and blue states are typically may issue. To the extent that it's about introducing discretion as an means to accomplish a specific policy objective by stealth, that objective is gun control, not racism. An end run around the 2nd amendment, not the 14th.

What does red or blue have to do with this?

Rights are for everyone. Government privileges always end up favoring particular groups for personal or political reasons. To demote a right to a privilege is to prefer this kind of favoritism over equal protection of the laws.

If "blue" states just didn't like guns, then they would simply ban all CCW permits. But they do like guns -- as long as the "right" kind of people have them and the guns look the "right" way.

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

#708

Post by tesmar2 »

wtvanhest wrote: post #631
tesmar2 wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He shouldn’t have to apply for a permit in the first place. 2nd amendment should cover his needs. Having a permit process just opens up the system for corruption.

That really isn’t the point of my comment or this case. If someone wants to challenge the constitutionality of the ccw permit, that is a different topic

Right but this whole thing could have been avoided, impropriety and all, if the incentive were eliminated, which also has the tidy side effect of aligning with the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

> There is no reason head of security at Apple needs to be armed

That’s up to them, they can decide what kind of arms are carried.

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

#709

Post by lsllc »

magila wrote: post #463
Alex3917 wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A high-level exec at one of the world's most powerful companies paying off a local LEO for a permit instead of, IDK, contacting the State or the Feds, is beyond inexplicable. The problem is that, at least in many jurisdictions, gun permits basically only exist as a means for police to solicit bribes. There's literally an entire industry of people whose job is bribing police departments to get gun permits. C.f.: htt…

This sort of thing is the result of a permitting policy called may-issue. Basically it means the party that issues permits, usually the local sheriff or police department, can deny a concealed carry application for any reason. States adopt this policy as a way of punting CC policy making down to the local level. In practice the may-issue policy has repeatedly proven to be an irresistible opportunity for graft. Despit…

This is exactly right! When there's no clear set of criteria for a permit and people get denied for this or that or maybe no reason at all. Just try getting a (unrestricted) LTC in Boston, near impossible -- unless you "have friends". This is how LTCs (License To Carry) work in Massachusetts, it's city by city dependent on the Chief of Police.

The criteria should be clear and contestable in court. Like it or not, it's a constitutional right and the law should be "shall issue" (unless good reason not to -- and I'm all for reasonable "good reasons not to").

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

#710

Post by tw158f23915e2a »

scurvy wrote: post #680
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.

My point was to show that she had a legitimate need, then let the permit lapse when she no longer had a need. She didn't have one for an abuse of power. I wasn't debating the merits of the CA shall issue policy. In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

> My point was to show that she had a legitimate need

No one was arguing otherwise. The comments you were replying to were clearly about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians.

> In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

Indeed.

Post reply on HN