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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by zaroth »

wl wrote: post #411
zaroth wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That license is only applicable in specific circumstances, e.g. like for uniformed security guards.

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

#842

Post by kls »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #834
kls wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue, is that we have not even got to the CCW "need" part. The issue is they are still battling out is: is public carry a right or a privilege? Currently the state views it legally as a privilege, per the last supreme court ruling, thus at the moment it does not fall under the purview of the 2nd amendment. And can be restricted not unlike a drivers licence as driving is a privilege. If that changes, then all sta…

This is a 14A issue, not a 2A issue. Restricting CCWs in a manner that would absolutely not fly for free speech, voting, or some other right isn't the issue. The issue is that some states have set up discretionary license issuing schemes that in practice violate the 14th amendment.

I don't disagree that the may-issue / shall-issue is a 14A as people are not getting equal protection under the law. My GP post was addressing the issue that many are under the impression that the 2A is interpreted as a universal right to have a gun anywhere at any time and that we are are still legally addressing that question. The 14A is important but secondary to that question. If it is decided that public carry is a 2A right then this 14A issue disappears but if it does not just like speech it is subject to reasonable restrictions, I cannot have a nuke, I cannot have bio weapons, I cannot have destructive devices, these don't make sense to extend to privileges. Public carry for the reason of self defense, does. As I said, if they go to a will-issue like FL and TX and universal reciprocity like the drivers licence system. I have no problem with the interpretation remaining that it is a privilege. It is not an unreasonable infringement on the 2A.

There are restrictions on free speech in public, I cannot yell fire into a crowd, I cannot incite a riot, I cannot tell people to vote for Jo Jorgensen while I am waiting in line to vote. Same with voting, I cannot vote twice even if my freedom of expression wants to.

This issue at hand is with those rights, they do not logically make sense to extend the spirit of the law via allowing some of those prohibited things via privileges.

This is why the 5th is such a good parallel, because I have an inherent freedom of movement but I don't have an inherent right to do it via the public roads, using an automobile. I have the privilege to do so via a licence. Now I can own an auto, I can offroad all over my property, that is my right but as soon as I hit the public pavement it becomes a privilege.

going back to the first, I can yell fire in my house all day long that is my right, but if I pick up the phone and utilize the public networks via dialing 911 and yell fire it is a very different situation. Again, it just does not make sense for the 1st to have some of it's limitations extended into privileges.

My overarching point is the 2A issue is not settled, many tend to take one stance or the other, but it is very much in flux, that will decide if the 14A issue is really a moot point.

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

#844

Post by danaris »

agensaequivocum wrote: post #755
anoonmoose wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, Texas, however you may feel living there/being from there, has a higher per capita firearm death rate than several large states with stricter gun laws and many countries with stricter gun laws, and I personally believe those things to be related.

Actually in 2019 firearm homicides per 100k AZ 2.93 CA 2.89 ID 0.90 ME 0.97 NH 1.18 VT 1.28 WY 1.56 Aside from CA, all the other state listed here have constitutional carry, and aside from VT magazine limit, no more strict than federal law. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...

So, um...what are the statistics for Texas, which is the state being talked about?

It's all very well to mention that other states have some firearm homicides each year, but if you don't provide Texas' stats to compare to, it's not especially germane to the topic at hand...

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

#845

Post by fortran77 »

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.

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here

I know for a fact Apple used to have "astroturf" campaigns to keep forum postings about them positive. Perhaps they still do.

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

#846

Post by valuearb »

makomk wrote: post #335
wolco2 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why give police the power to decide these permits? Power corrupts

Usual think of the children stuff. Basically, someone who shouldn't have a permit could hypothetically get one and then go on a killing spree, so we need to give police and sheriffs full powers to deny them. If I remember rightly, one of the main things the American gun control movement has been campaigning for is the removal of shall-issue policies which require police and sheriffs to issue permits like these unless…

Ironically anyone intent on committing murder get to conceal carry at will.

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

#847

Post by packetlost »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #638
floren wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in New Mexico where I could get a CCW permit essentially guaranteed if I spent $100 on a weekend course. I don't have one, because I don't really feel a need for one--but I could get one if I wanted, just like anyone else in the state. I find it abhorrent that in California, you can only get a permit if you're well-connected: see Dianne Feinstein being the only CCW-holder in San Francisco for years while simul…

Same boat here in WI. Hell I can buy a gun and walk out of the store in a half hour!

yeah, WI has some pretty insanely lax gun laws. It took me The most bizarre thing to me is that background checks aren't required for private firearm sales.

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

#848

Post by NikolaeVarius »

treeman79 wrote: post #797
t-writescode wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this sounds like it's coming from someone that lives in a country where bribes aren't commonplace. It's good that you and I both live in countries like that; but, in some countries, you report your bribes on taxes, they're so common. From the other comments in this thread, it's suggesting that the CCW permit process in California is very bad and broken and these bribes have been an illegal method of actuall…

A CEO from Japan came over to America to give a speech at his new factory. His English wasn’t great, so he spoke, and the translator spoke to everyone. Well at one point he went on about thanking local government officials, and that he would be sure to give them gifts for approving the project. The translator wisely left that part out. Confused, the CEO later asked why, then was shocked to learn that bribery is a bad…

That doesn't scream "real" to me. Bribery is illegal in Japan. Thats why there is informal "gift giving"

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

#849

Post by da_big_ghey »

anoonmoose wrote: post #641
da_big_ghey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

At the end of the day, Texas, however you may feel living there/being from there, has a higher per capita firearm death rate than several large states with stricter gun laws and many countries with stricter gun laws, and I personally believe those things to be related.

Gun murder rate per 100k, state by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...

The data are from 2015, but DC is highest by far, even with its very strict gun laws. Note that California is higher than Texas despite horribly restrictive gun laws.

My point was more that people are less likely to abuse them as some exceptional item, at least as far as I've seen. Criminals will always use them; I was more talking about the likelihood of someone to draw a gun in a tense situation, which I can't measure. But people who view them as tools and know how to use them understand that one ought not to draw a gun unless he intends to use it.

All that aside, I don't support gun rights because rates of certain crimes are below some number. We would call it silly to support a right to privacy only insofar as terrorism does not exceed a certain threshold and to say that such a right disappears. In the same way, I don't believe crime rate should have any effect on our right to keep and bear arms.

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

#850

Post by crb002 »

Apple openly bribed the City of Waukee to abate $170m in State property tax. "... the company is contributing up to $100 million to a newly created Public Improvement Fund dedicated to community development and infrastructure around Waukee." [1]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all cut a $1000 check to the city to evade $1700 in State/County property tax on our homes?

[1] https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/08/apples-next-us-data-c...

Post reply on HN