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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by rkt88edmo »

maxerickson wrote: post #966
dehrmann wrote: post #904

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normally, I'd say that actually cheats the federal government out of tax revenue (for now), but Apple actually is incorporated in California, not Delaware, and California has various corporate taxes. That said, it doesn't make sense for the global profits of a company like Apple to get taxed in California or Cupertino. The accounting isn't necessarily easy, but it makes more sense to tax where was money was made (whi…

Apple's marketing is that the money is made in California. Designed by Apple in California has long appeared as a feel good on their products that are assembled overseas.

I would point you to all that cash sitting offshore that they can't repatriate back to the US, and can't seem to find productive use for in the countries where it sits. That is the direct result of tax planning. I haven't been keeping up with the cases, but I know Amazon won, and Coca-cola just lost, not sure where Apple's cases are in tax court. Hopefully they aren't an EY audit/tax client.

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

#972

Post by beamatronic »

ashtonkem wrote: post #902
hobs wrote: post #861

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After working there for a bit the most amazing story I heard is that he would lease a new car every six months so that he wouldnt need to get a plate put on it so he could park in the handicap spot without getting ticketed.

I was always under the impression this was less about being cheap, but more about being really idiosyncratic about the way license plates look on cars. Leasing a new car every 6 months is not cheap. It literally costs 6x as much as leasing the exact same car every 3 years (the industry norm).

I'm sure they made him a deal. Besides, the dealer could sell the car to somebody else later on at a markup because of its provenance.

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

#973

Post by Rebelgecko »

mlindner wrote: post #962
Rebelgecko wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You do in California. Please don't assume every state has the same laws.

No you dont. It would be silly if you needed a license to open or concealed carry on your own property. That would make it impossible for most Californians to perform gun maintenance at home or defend themselves from an intruder.

Here's a decent summary from Gabby Giffords mentioning the right to carry at home and at work (requires permission of business owner but NOT necessarily landlord): https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/location-restricti...

If you wanna go straight to the source, section 26035 of the CA Penal Code is a good start:

"Nothing in Section 25850 shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business... or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person’s place of business"

25525 PC is also relevant as it reiterates the home & business exemption to concealed carry laws

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

#974

Post by TheCoelacanth »

rsync wrote: post #864
kls wrote: post #760

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I say this as a big proponent of the right to self defense on a personal level, the current legal view is that, gun possession in the public square is not a right, it is a privilege, one that can be revoked as seen fit by the government. What is a right, is to keep and bear arms, this means one can maintain possession of their arms without fear of confiscation on their personal property or property in which they have…

"This is why even as far back as the early 1800's it was not uncommon for local sheriff's to mandate a leave your guns at the sheriffs post at the edge of town policies. Yet, the local barkeep could still have a shotgun under the counter. Town was the public square, where the local bar, while a public establishment, was a private proprietorship." I wish people had a better sense of this earlier social arrangement. It…

The thing is that liberalism is now basically the only mainstream political philosophy in western countries. "Conservatives" and "liberals" are arguing over different aspects of liberalism.

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

#975

Post by baby »

scottlocklin wrote: post #961
baby wrote: post #954

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Some people live in the woods They can probably use a very limited type of weapon, none of the crazy weapons you can buy nowadays are necessary > Some people are head of security for large corporations that run into all manner of physical threats, potential kidnappings or literal geopolitical adversaries I'd assume that in these special cases you'd have highly trained individuals who would hold very expensive licen…

> I'd assume that in these special cases.... You know, this situation is what we're talking about here. As for "special training" -you do realize that the special training police receive in firearms is more or less "how to kill people more efficiently," right? Exactly the same training given to civilian holders of concealed carry licenses in the US in states that require them. Seems kind of messed up that a guy with…

Well guess what, if enough people vote against guns then we'll get to decide that there's no gun for you : )

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

#976

Post by ashtonkem »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #947
packetlost wrote: post #922

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Generally people who are going to make rash decisions and plan them out acquire firearms in any way their allowed. If it means waiting a day, they will do it. Just because some arbitrary law exists doesn't mean it'll delay or prevent the inevitable. With suicidal and depressive types as well. They aren't like homer simpson purchasing a firearm thinking "aww, I'm suicidal now!" They're pretty much at the breaking poin…

That’s actually not true. One of the things we understand about suicide is that it’s often an impulse decision, and access to immediate and reliable means of suicide has a huge impact on overall suicide rates. Even moderate barriers to suicide can actually permanently reduce the rate of suicide in a population. It’s been repeatedly shown that when one method of suicide is made harder, the decrease in that method are not completely offset by other methods.

So when we do seemingly minor things like eliminating CO in domestic gas (“head in oven” was a common suicide method due to CO), increasing the height of railings on a bridge, or even making someone purchasing their first firearm wait a few days, this can often have a significant impact on whether someone actually ends up killing themselves. Suicide isn’t at all inevitable like you say.

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

#977

Post by kls »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #974
rsync wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is why even as far back as the early 1800's it was not uncommon for local sheriff's to mandate a leave your guns at the sheriffs post at the edge of town policies. Yet, the local barkeep could still have a shotgun under the counter. Town was the public square, where the local bar, while a public establishment, was a private proprietorship." I wish people had a better sense of this earlier social arrangement. It…

The thing is that liberalism is now basically the only mainstream political philosophy in western countries. "Conservatives" and "liberals" are arguing over different aspects of liberalism.

Sorry, I caught this comment late, but I agree I consider myself an enlightenment era liberal. Most people today peg me on the conservative spectrum, which is not true both parties have been in lock step on the real issues and squabbling it out on "emotional" issues. This is the reason that Clinton doubled down on Regan's/Big Bush's foreign policy and Little bush -> Obama progressed similar domestic controls. They honestly don't fight about anything they care about, just trigger issues, like sectional rights, the second amendment, abortion. I call them trigger issues, as they serve to divide people but honestly they could care less which way the chips fall on those issues which is why they never get resolved, but just keep getting stoked by the politicians.

To be honest even classic liberalism is dead, both are progressives when it comes to free trade, and unification of regulations across the globe.

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

#978

Post by joshuamorton »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #915
lsllc wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

> 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"). I believe the state of the law is that either concealed carry or open carry must be available. They can't both be may-issue, but one can be if the other isn't. And I tend to agree that that's enough to satisfy the argument "it's a constitutional right".

That's not correct. California makes open carry flatly illegal, and concealed carry is may issue.

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

#979

Post by MeinBlutIstBlau »

ashtonkem wrote: post #976
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #947

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally people who are going to make rash decisions and plan them out acquire firearms in any way their allowed. If it means waiting a day, they will do it. Just because some arbitrary law exists doesn't mean it'll delay or prevent the inevitable. With suicidal and depressive types as well. They aren't like homer simpson purchasing a firearm thinking "aww, I'm suicidal now!" They're pretty much at the breaking poin…

That’s actually not true. One of the things we understand about suicide is that it’s often an impulse decision, and access to immediate and reliable means of suicide has a huge impact on overall suicide rates. Even moderate barriers to suicide can actually permanently reduce the rate of suicide in a population. It’s been repeatedly shown that when one method of suicide is made harder, the decrease in that method are…

What you and professionals consider an "impulsive decision," many depressive types have been considering or have considered but never told anybody for a long time. It only seems impulsive to you because it appears to be random. If anybody has any understanding of human psyche when they're depressed, they would know it's something you plan but play pretend to others so they don't suspect you need to be "locked up for your own good," as what tends to happen to people who try to seek help.

Mental health problems don't persist simply because people can easily buy guns and kill themselves. They continue because people are afraid their going to have their liberties taken away simply because they want help.

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

#980

Post by joshuamorton »

jki275 wrote: post #965
dash2 wrote: post #812

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it hard to believe that Californians' main reason for gun control is anti-black racism. I'd like to hear some evidence for that claim.

Nearly all gun control measures in the US are rooted in racism. Some in Jim Crow, some in other eras -- but most of them were to ensure that the "wrong people"* couldn't protect themselves.

The nfa wasn't, unless you're broadening anti-gang sentiment in the 30s to like anti Irish it italian sentiment.

And it's dubious that this is true for other regulations against "assault weapons".

Post reply on HN