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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by wnoise »

Thorrez wrote: post #786
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…

> Dianne Feinstein being the only CCW-holder in San Francisco for years while simultaneously pushing for stronger gun control. Do you have a source that there were no other CCW holders in SF at that time?

It's likely an exaggeration, but if so it's not much of one, and I can't rule it out actually being true at some point.

https://revealnews.org/article/want-to-carry-a-concealed-gun... is an article saying there were 2 in SF in 2014, and that they basically never issue them. (They apparently last for two years before being renewed). It was apparently still the case in 2019, according to the hover-map on https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article232198382.html .

I have been unable to find many other county-level statistics, short of making an FOIA request.

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

#922

Post by packetlost »

ashtonkem wrote: post #903
packetlost wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I feel like there should be a waiting period for your first gun, to reduce the risk of someone in crisis buying one. But once you own a gun, the risk of your second gun seems negligible to me. But yeah, no background checks on private gun sales is insane. No idea why that's legal anywhere.

IMO there should be a mandatory waiting period of 24-48 hours for any firearm, but you should be able to start the process over the phone/online etc.

Alternatively, require training + passing an exam similar to getting a drivers license for owning anything except a manual long-barrel rifle or shotgun. Semi-auto firearms especially should require licensing/training IMO. Restrictions on magazine size or appearance ("assault rifle" lol) are generally dumb and fail to address real problems. I think it's reasonable to know who probably has a gun (ie. through a license program), but I'm generally against mandatory gun registration (though voluntary registration is fine).

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

#923

Post by CobrastanJorji »

rmk wrote: post #508
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's a crime for an American to bribe US government officials, and it's also a crime for an American to bribe foreign government agents as well (that's the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act).

For the latter, it's the FCPA. For the former, is there a specific act that's violated, or is it just part of the US Code?

The US Code is for bribing Federal officials. This one would presumably be the California felony bribery law, CA Penal Code § 67: "Every person who gives or offers any bribe to any executive officer (any public employee who is authorized to use his or her own discretion to carry out his or her lawful duties) in this state, with intent to influence him in respect to any act, decision, vote, opinion, or other proceeding as such officer, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three or four years, and is disqualified from holding any office in this state."

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

#924

Post by exolymph »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #528
LyndsySimon wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When you say "Not anymore", that must have changed dramatically in the past 2 1/2 years. The NRA's silence in the Philando Castile case in 2017 was deafening.

The NRA does not represent the entire gun community by any means. The Second Amendment Foundation has a better reputation among 2A absolutists, for example.

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

#925

Post by baby »

ashtonkem wrote: post #853
baby wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean that's why I don't live in New Mexico

Reasonable people can disagree about guns and CCW, but you’re crossing the line to just insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

How? I truly do not go to states where open carry is a thing, for example. Guns are a controversial topic and I'm not the only one who would rather see them banned than legally purchasable.

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

#926

Post by LorenPechtel »

moftz wrote: post #597
zaroth wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> routine govt action Like issuing a concealed-carry permit to a non-felon ex-Navy corporate executive. OP describes a ransom, not a bribe. Charge the govt official who demanded the ransom, not the citizen entrapped in the scheme.

Except most of these guys either paid the bribe or had it ready to go until they heard sirens. These guys could have easily reported the solicitation but instead they participated in it. This isn't the case where a cop is threatening to throw you in jail or plant drugs on you unless you pay up right now, this is a state permit process. No one had their life or freedom directly threatened over not having more CCW perm…

Reporting it would have meant no chance of getting the permits. I am not going to fault anyone who plays along with a facilitation payment even when it's the US government demanding it.

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

#927

Post by scurvy »

unishark wrote: post #808
scurvy wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Don't senators get (armed) govt security protection anyway when they are threatened?

She was mayor of San Francisco at the time.

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

#928

Post by et-al »

fastball wrote: post #916
electriclove wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It exists everywhere

It is demonstrably worse in BA than in most other places in the US. Places like Japan don't seem to have much of a problem with it at all.

Places like Japan have negative birthrates and restrictive immigration policies.

NIMBYism is a reaction to a sudden influx of newcomers to an area. As such, hot remote work spots like Bend, OR are very likely experiencing a similar NIMBYist mindset.

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

#929

Post by ashtonkem »

packetlost wrote: post #922
ashtonkem wrote: post #903

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like there should be a waiting period for your first gun, to reduce the risk of someone in crisis buying one. But once you own a gun, the risk of your second gun seems negligible to me. But yeah, no background checks on private gun sales is insane. No idea why that's legal anywhere.

IMO there should be a mandatory waiting period of 24-48 hours for any firearm, but you should be able to start the process over the phone/online etc. Alternatively, require training + passing an exam similar to getting a drivers license for owning anything except a manual long-barrel rifle or shotgun. Semi-auto firearms especially should require licensing/training IMO. Restrictions on magazine size or appearance ("as…

Typically speaking waiting periods are about reducing the risk of someone in a crisis purchasing a firearm and immediately using it for harm, usually either suicide or domestic violence. From a public health perspective there is very little increase in danger for someone buying a second gun, especially of the same type. All of the risk is for their first firearm.

IIRC licensing programs for handguns typically have shown promising results in reducing firearm suicide in particular, but they're also unpopular for predictable political reasons. If you're pro-firearm, there is very little difference between "you have to register your gun" and "you have to register to buy a gun".

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

#930

Post by ashtonkem »

baby wrote: post #925
ashtonkem wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reasonable people can disagree about guns and CCW, but you’re crossing the line to just insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

How? I truly do not go to states where open carry is a thing, for example. Guns are a controversial topic and I'm not the only one who would rather see them banned than legally purchasable.

That's a reasonable policy position to take. "You shouldn't live anywhere where you think CCW is a good idea" is not a policy position; you're just attacking someone else for either where they live or how they feel about their personal safety. Neither of those are terribly polite, and both are counterproductive towards your stated policy preferences. Nobody likes being looked down on.
Post reply on HN