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

711–720 of 1001 posts

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

#711

Post by Gibbon1 »

SwimSwimHungry wrote: post #706
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A well armed society is a polite society.

I asked my grandfather about that. He came back with a story how one time he and his dad went into town and found out that the Pharmacist shot the Postman and killed him. said there was blood in the street. That was outside of Memphis in 1910.

So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.

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

#712

Post by jb775 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #493
magila wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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.

I call BS considering 99% of sheriffs are locally elected officials. They aren't "accidentally installed".

On a side note, the nice thing about sheriffs being elected is they don't have to listen to a god damn thing the state tells them to do (within confines of law obviously). They work directly for the people of their community.

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

#713

Post by tony101 »

rjkennedy98 wrote: post #360
myrandomcomment wrote: post #347

The issue here at the end of the day is that getting a CCW is up to the whim of the local police. Either the federal government or the state government should present a well documented procedure for this that is not susceptible to the whims of a local official.

It isn’t in all states. Jessie Ventura changed the rules for that when he became governor of Minnesota.

Exactly, this is a problem with the "may-issue" system that California and a minority of other states use. Most states have "shall-issue": there is a specific list of objective requirements set forth by law; if an applicant meets the requirements, then the official must issue the license.

California's may-issue policies give local officials too much discretion, leading to arbitrary decisions and bribery (apparently).

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

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

#714

Post by lsllc »

bww wrote: post #666
Grakel wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. In NYC retired cops can't even get them, but bodyguards of the rich can. Not to mention all gun laws are infringements of the second amendment.

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.

If you've been an LEO for 10 years or more there's a federal law that allows you CCW anywhere (without a specific permit, just some ID that affirms your LEO status).

So much for equal rights, some I guess are more equal than others!

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

#715

Post by agensaequivocum »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #672
ip26 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.

You definitely need a ccw to open carry a loaded firearm in many jurisdictions

25 states are unrestricted plus 6 which may have local restrictions. Over 30 for rifles.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_Sta...

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

#716

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#717

Post by SwimSwimHungry »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #711
SwimSwimHungry wrote: post #706

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A well armed society is a polite society. I asked my grandfather about that. He came back with a story how one time he and his dad went into town and found out that the Pharmacist shot the Postman and killed him. said there was blood in the street. That was outside of Memphis in 1910. So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.

>So yeah all nice in thoery, in practice men kill each other over stupid things.

And your point? Murder is illegal and punishable if it's not considered "justified homicide" under a court of law. But murder being illegal never stopped some folks from committing the act anyway.

Personally, I'd rather have an insurance policy on hand if needed in case a nut decides to want to attempt to cause me undue harm. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

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

#718

Post by geofft »

will4274 wrote: post #668
outworlder wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, it's really theft. Were it not theft, the property would only be confiscated at the end of legal proceedings, IF it turned out it was related to the crime in question, IF the person was convicted. If those conditions did not hold, the assets should be returned. In actuality, no crime is required for the property to be confiscated. It can be as simple as carrying a "substantial" amount of money in your per…

Hard disagree on principle. We have two types of court - criminal for locking people up, and civil for dealing with money. For locking people up, we require beyond a reasonable doubt. Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted and all that. For taking somebody's money, we require it to more likely than not (preponderance of evidence) be the correct result. You call this a "low bar" but it's the…

A man breaks into my house and steals my television. A few days later, the police find someone sort of matching the description I give with a few hundred dollars cash in his wallet. He has an alibi, though not very solid proof, and a few details don't line up. The jury doesn't convict him. Am I entitled to the money out of his wallet on a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard? It's only money.

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

#719

Post by chmod600 »

Sincere (not rhetorical) questions:

What is the reasoning behind CCW vs open carry in a holster? Is it to give some kind of tactical advantage to the weapon carrier? Is it about some kind of general fear people have seeing a gun (and if so, why not police?)?

Is CCW considered to be protected by the second amendment? It says "keep and bear" which seems more related to a visible weapon to me, but I'm not sure of the history.

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

#720

Post by anonymousiam »

smachiz wrote: post #701
Grakel wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 2nd amendment does not require "need". The whole "may issue" concept is broken. Why doesn't California have a reciprocity policy like most other states? Not only can I not carry there, I cannot even bring the gun I have in my pocket right now into the state because it's not "approved" there.
Post reply on HN