Apple's Security Chief Indicted in Santa Clara County Sheriff Concealed-gun Permit Scandal (mercurynews.com) 217
The top security chief for Apple headlines a batch of new criminal indictments for allegedly brokering bribes with Santa Clara County sheriff's office commanders -- including the newly indicted undersheriff -- in exchange for coveted concealed-gun permits, in a striking offshoot of an ongoing corruption probe ensnaring the agency. From a report: Thomas Moyer, 50, Apple's chief security officer, was indicted last week by a criminal grand jury on allegations that he, Undersheriff Rick Sung and Capt. James Jensen arranged for 200 iPads to be donated to the sheriff's office to loosen up the release of concealed-carry weapons permits for Apple security officers. The sheriff's office is the police force for Cupertino, where Apple's global headquarters are located. The iPad donation was shelved once a separate DA investigation into pay-to-play suspicions involving the concealed-gun permits -- in which Jensen was one of four people indicted earlier this year -- got underway in August 2019, District Attorney Jeff Rosen said at a Monday news conference.
I thought Apple was secure (Score:5, Funny)
Apple dropping to bribes (Score:2)
Bribery is a serious criminal offence and now it has seeped into Apple. Who would have thought...
Re: Apple dropping to bribes (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure 200 iPads being gifted to the sherriff's office would entail some Apple execs signing off on the products... Or are you saying this security flunky purchased them out of his own pocket?
As head of global security he probably had sufficient discretionary spending ability to be able to pay for them out of his budget. But if it was being made as a donation from Apple, that probably probably required him to clear it though other offices within Apple.
What did Tim know and when did he know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple? Pay to play? Who woulda thunk it?
Guns for me but not for thee (Score:2, Insightful)
Gotta keep the guns away from the peons because of mass shootings ... but rampant crime does kinda make some private firepower awful nice.
Re:Guns for me but not for thee (Score:4, Insightful)
The crime rate in Cupertino is less than half the national average.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I was under the mistaken assumption they were as liberal as the bigger urban centres of the Bay Area ... but they seem pretty mercenary about keeping out the riff raff.
Homeless centers, camps and section 8 housing for thee, but not for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you need a concealed carry permit for that?
In fact can you explain why this person might want one? Could be not open carry instead?
Re:Guns for me but not for thee (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you need a concealed carry permit for that?
In fact can you explain why this person might want one? Could be not open carry instead?
California is one of just 3 states with a general ban on open carry, however the state does offer a "Permit for Exposed Firearm" . One might assume that Apple didn't like the optics of their security guards being visibly armed?
California sheriffs have discretion over whether to issue either type of permit, and Santa Clara county sheriff is well known for abusing this power [eastbaytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Because they're too cheap to go through the licensing procedure for armed security guards and don't want to pay the security provider's premium for providing armed guards.
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta keep the guns away from the peons because of mass shootings ... but rampant crime does kinda make some private firepower awful nice.
Rampant crime? Yeah, OK. This is Apple we're talking about here.
In California.
The cheesy slapstick IT comedy sponsored by Nerf, practically writes itself here.
Two things (Score:2)
First, it seems Apple kinda shot themselves in the foot here. (Sorry, I couldn't resist).
Second, just why is there even a mechanism for granting concealed-carry permits to private security guards? The mere fact that it's "coveted" by those who have the typical private security mindset suggests it's a bad idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a security guard need a concealed weapon in the first place? They're security. They're not undercover cops or secret agents. They're not making busts or stings.
The entire point of security is to be visible and deter trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they wouldn't. They might want them from a vanity standpoint, but they definitely wouldn't need them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Second, just why is there even a mechanism for granting concealed-carry permits to private security guards?
I agree completely. There shouldn't be a mechanism for granting concealed carry permits. It should be every citizen's right to carry a concealed weapon without requiring a permit.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you're rich enough to hire a body guard you should get a private gun protecting you, but if you're poor you can just get fucked?
Re: (Score:2)
So address what Pinky said, rich can pay for all these permits so they can protect themselves but if you are poor and can't afford all these permits, you are screwed? Thanks California.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the USA has straightforward rules for concealed carry, with a few states not having any provisions, and others, including California, leaving issuance to the discretion of local law enforcement. Just like previous scandals in NYC [nydailynews.com], this discretionary power translates to pay-for-play in many California counties, with sheriffs using their control over who receives a new/renewal permit to reward or punish individuals (or in this case, businesses) in their jurisdiction.
Several states have gone from disc
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure they are coveted. It's probably hard to get hired as security if you can't get a license.
Re: (Score:2)
90+ percent of security guards in the US are unarmed, in part because security companies charge a premium for armed security. I suspect his is Apple's way of getting around that. Concealed carry permits are personal, they don't belong to the company, so they're probably getting these guys permits in exchange for not being charged more.
Shouldn't require bribes (Score:5, Insightful)
The obvious problem here is that security personnel _need_ to resort to bribes in order to conceal carry. Any non-felon citizen should be able to conceal carry (with proper training, testing, background check & etc safety measures in place).
Re: (Score:2)
The state of California decided that carry permits should be rare, so that's the law until overturned. If Apple doesn't like that, they can lobby for a change of laws for everybody instead of dropping cash in someone's pockets to themselves an exception through the back door.
Also, if you normalize paying bribes, you encourage authorities to find ways to fish for more. When police departments find out that corporate security offices are suckers for dropping a million bucks off the books for a permit, and suc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost list overpowered government agencies can't help but end up corrupt.
Re:Shouldn't require bribes (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the heart of the issue. Many others here are reacting to concealed carry, which is legal via permit is most of the country. I'm focused on the bribes.
Heck, concealed carry is legal without a permit in sixteen states, including the three states (Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire) with the lowest violent crime rates in the nation [usatoday.com].
The problem here is that by granting the sheriff discretion (without oversight or review) to choose whether or not to issue, CA law all but encourages the sheriff to take bribes in return for permit issuance, or just use the "coveted" permits to reward his or her political supporters and punish rivals
Re:Shouldn't require guns (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't have to carry one just because other people do. In fact, the more others do, the less reason there is for you to do so. - This might come as a surprise to use (and other lefties), but most people are not tempted to murder by carrying a gun. Perhaps you are projecting your own low inhibition onto others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soo... (Score:2)
"indictments for allegedly brokering bribes "
So he did his job.
I am sure... (Score:2)
My question is why do the executives need armed guards when they oppose the citizens being armed? Kind of like Hollywood wanting to ban firearms the whole time they are surrounded by armed guards.
Re: (Score:2)
One guess, because it's armed non-citizens that are a concern.
That's what happens when the state fails to enforce immigration laws, harbors illegal aliens, openly violates federal laws on controlled substances, and when such people just happen to end up in state prison for some reason will not hand them over to federal authorities for violations of federal laws. There are state and federal laws prohibiting possession of firearms by illegal aliens, users and dealers of controlled substances, and convicted f
Nobody expects the Apple police (Score:2)
Nobody expects the Apple police. [knowyourmeme.com]
The grip on those weapons do NOT have the logo (Score:2)
NT
incongruous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Busted (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This deserves more of a rant. Take the gun part of this for a moment. This is a government agency extorting a publicly held company so it will issue permits that are part of its job to administer. Anyone turning this into a guns rights issue is missing the point.
I tend to agree with you, but then why is the Apple security chief being indicted also? According to you, he is the victim of extortion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Please read more carefully before ranting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it takes two to tango.
My former employer allowed a woman and her friends to do little if any work, gave them huge raises, and allowed them to steal. All because the woman heard the owners say racist and xenophobic comments about African-Americans and Muslims. She threatened she would go public if she didn't get everything she wanted.
I reported this to the Department of Labor who made it clear that the business going along with the blackmail is still guilty. Since they could have easily report the em
Re:Busted (Score:4, Informative)
While I don't disagree with your main point, I think there is a subtle distinction between two of these cases vs the other one:
A. The government official demands a bribe before issuing a license to operate a used car dealership
B. The government official demands a bribe before processing your voter registration
C. The government official demands a bribe before you're allowed to exercise your right of free speech
In my view, demanding a bribe is infringing on the Constitutional rights. Demanding a bribe before processing a car registration is *illegal*. Demanding a bribe for your first amendment or second amendment rights is *unconstitutional*. Both a are bad. When government officials infringe your Constitutional rights that's especially bad, in my view.
Re: (Score:2)
So you agree that the government requiring all these licenses is essentially extortion?
Sounds like Apple security was trying to bribe local officials for more conceal carry permits. They did this because California has zero respect for the 2nd amendment.
Both parties are wrong but it shouldn't require a bribe just to get a conceal carry for an employee of a company.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Well, extortion has a specific meaning which doesn't apply here, but I get your point.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck did this get modded 'Troll'?
What part of what he said is deliberately intended to stir up shit? What part is factually inaccurate? His example is spot on. Two of these examples of BRIBARY are infringements of Constitutionally protected rights in addition to violations of local and state law while the other is a violation of local or state law.
Yes, states have a Constitutionally protected right to create laws that mandate a permit process. This is not in dispute. But elected or appointed or hire
Re: (Score:2)
This is California we're talking about. Shouldn't it be a guns lefts issue?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The 2nd Amendment is not generally interpreted to give you a right to conceal weapons. Only to carry them openly.
The 2nd Amendment does not legalize bribery.
Re: (Score:2)
Would love to hear the reasoning behind that interpretation. Anyone?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Would love to hear the reasoning behind that interpretation. Anyone?
I don't think there is much reasoning behind it since the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" and that doesn't seem to leave much wiggle room.
But the courts have long interpreted the Constitution as allowing states and municipalities to ban or regulate concealed weapons.
I guess part of the rationale is that militias don't conceal their weapons. One of the Geneva Convention's requirements for a lawful combatant to be protected is that they bear arms openly.
Re: (Score:2)
No open carry is allowed in California (with some exceptions, like when out camping or hunting on public land, on your private property). Not for handguns, nor for long guns.
Re:Busted (Score:4, Interesting)
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act
The Black Panthers decided to exercise their right to bear arms. Black people with weapons? Sorry, can't have that!
Re: (Score:2)
I see you have been modded "troll" just for explaining this point of law. Thanks for taking one for the team.
Re: (Score:3)
The second is unlikely to have been intended to be an unlimited right, or else the amendment would have been written differently.
No, you have that backwards. It's clearly intended to be an unlimited right, or else the amendment would not have said "shall not be infringed".
Of course, today the primary armament of war is the drone, personified in most combat as guided munitions. So not only should the 2a cover guns, it should also cover drones.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually not quite correct.
The cannons used in the early days of the American Revolution were privately-owned.
The armed ships that sailed under letters of marque and reprisal, before the new nation could build its own warships, were privately owned.
And, if you're going to try to make that argument, you might want to think about what it does to freedom of speech or of the press on the Internet, the Internet did not exist in the late 18th Century, either.
Re: (Score:2)
From Merriam-Websters dictionary:
cannon noun
cannon | \ ka-nn \
plural cannons or cannon
Kids Definition of cannon
: a large heavy weapon consisting mostly of a metal tube that is mounted on wheels and is used for firing cannonballs
We aren't that dumb. Try something better (Score:5, Insightful)
California makes open carry illegal "because the right to what arms doesn't mean you have the right to bear them in a visible fashion".
And you can't bear arms concealed ""because the right to what arms doesn't mean you have the right to bear them in a visible fashion".
"You have the right to bear arms, just not openly and not concealed". Which is a lot like saying "you have the right to free speech, you just can't talk where anyone can hear you, and you can't whisper so that nobody hears you.". You can do it, y just can't do it discreetly, and it's illegal to do it if you're not being discreet about it.
I'm sure there are plenty of dumbasses on Facebook who will fall for that bullshit. This is Slashdot, where most of us actually use out brains most days. You won't find too many people here who will fall for that level of stupid.
This is fucking great. Can't exercise your Constitutional rights where you can be seen, and the government officials demand a bribe before issuing a permit to exercise your rights in a discreet manner.
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Doh! I said that wrong (Score:3)
I just realized I wrote that wrong. I wrote "visible" twice. That should be:
You argument is yeah you have the right to bear arms.
You just can't allow it be visible.
And you can't have it hidden.
As long as nobody can see it and everyone can see it, it's okay right?
We know that "you can't carry openly and you can't carry concealed" means you can't carry. We aren't stupid. We see what you're trying to pull.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing that the militia consists of all able bodied citizens isn't going to work...
The 2nd Amendment does not have to be either/or. It can be both. Both a well regulated militia is necessary, AND the rights of the people to carry guns shall not be infringed. I've never understood why people read the 2nd Amendment and think they have to pick one or the other. It's like reading the 1st amendment and saying you can only have newspapers or free speech, but not both.
Re: (Score:2)
People read it different ways because no matter how smart the authors were, their grasp of proper grammar and punctuation were limited at best. At least, whomever wrote the final copy.
Re: Busted (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Federal law:
Â246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Nav
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. So...what reads "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment was later codified as "organized" in 10 USC 12? Interesting.
Wow. And only women who are members of the National Guard.
Re:Busted (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And the US Congress is not infringing on the rights of gun owners. The state legislature is, which the Supreme Court has found to be reasonable more often than not. (It's a mixed bag still with no definitive resolution yet.)
Re: (Score:2)
How can state law trump federal law? Sounds fishy to me.
Re:Busted (Score:4, Informative)
It's called the Bill of Rights. It's not called the Bill of Restrictions. Get real.
The US Constitution describes a structure for the federal government and an "allow list" for the powers of the federal government layered on top of the individual state governments of the Unites States of America. This "allow list" concept is made clear by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org])
All of the rights mentioned in the so-called "Bill of Rights" (the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution) are preexisting rights (in the legal framework of which the US Constitution is a part), not rights granted by the Constitution. The purpose of the Bill of Rights isn't to *grant* these rights, but to enumerate some of the preexisting rights held by the people that the framers/writers of the US Constitution thought they needed to explicitly highlight. This concept is explained in the 9th Amendment, which states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution [wikipedia.org])
The statement that "the Second Amendment does not 'grant' you any right at all." is technically correct within this framework, and I believe it is what the original poster was trying to emphasize (although I could be wrong). The two examples cited by that poster do describe restrictions on the federal governments powers in the domains of the rights being enumerated by those amendments. So perhaps that poster was just trying to emphasize the restrictive nature (restrictive to the federal government) of the manner in which the preexisting rights of the people are enumerated in the first 10 amendments.
Re: (Score:3)
The 2nd Amendment is not generally interpreted to give you a right to conceal weapons. Only to carry them openly.
That's the same argument the Brady Campaign uses whenever there's a law against concealed carry being put up for debate when open carry is already legal. The Brady Campaign also takes the argument that the 2nd Amendment only protects concealed carry when open carry is up for debate. Neither argument works in California because open carry is illegal and concealed carry is often barred by the sheriff. Let's see the Brady Campaign argue on how the 2nd Amendment protects the "right" of the sheriff to deny pe
Re: (Score:2)
But open carry is illegal in 99% of California's populateed areas and open carry permits are not granted to anyone except private security (money transport, etc.).
So, if the only way for a normal private citizen to carry a firearm is to get a concealed carry permit, then effectively they should have to issue them to any non-prohibited persons. The 9th District has a court case going forward on this. The courts just move so slowly for these types of issues.
80%+ of California's geographic will basically iss
Re: (Score:2)
You can't open carry in California and the local sheriff has to "allow" you to conceal carry. Sounds like government extortion to me.
Re: (Score:3)
People keep ignoring the first words of the amendment..."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
A bunch of Individuals walking around with guns openly just because they want to has never met that criteria.
A bunch of individuals walking around with guns openly just because they don't think they're getting their way in an election has never met that criteria.
Just as a bunch of individuals wanting guns because it will make their job easier to protect a company's property h
Re:Busted (Score:5, Informative)
The 2nd Amendment is not generally interpreted to give you a right to conceal weapons. Only to carry them openly.
The 2nd Amendment does not legalize bribery.
Wow, how do you get that from the 2nd amendment? Specifically the "shall not be infringed" part.
Now the courts HAVE held that you can have "reasonable regulations" over the ownership, carrying and use of fire arms, but the test of what's reasonable and what's not is a pretty big lift for most rules. I believe this requires meeting the "Strict Test", which basically means the regulation must have an absolutely clear purpose that can be accomplished by no other means.
SCOTUS actually hasn't established a standard of scrutiny for 2A issues. That said, I think you're right that strict scrutiny is the only standard that is consistent with the standards established for other fundamental rights. Oh, and to be precise (not that your paraphrase was bad), to pass strict scrutiny a law must:
1. Be justified by a compelling government interest. It's arguable that preventing avoidable gun deaths could meet this prong.
2. Be narrowly-tailored to achieve that goal. This implicitly requires that the law be somewhat effective at achieving the goal. I think it's harder to argue that restricting concealed carry without specific cause is narrowly tailored, and extremely hard to argue that it's effective.
3. Be the least-restrictive means for achieving that goal.
So it's hard to argue that preventing "concealed carry" without a license, where the license is not required to be issued to qualified persons (i.e. has a "Shall issue" basis in law) unless there is a given legal issue to deny a license (like you are a felon, mental patient etc.) is constitutional.
Assuming strict scrutiny, yes. But it's possible that SCOTUS could find some reason to choose a lower standard of scrutiny. It could probably pass rational basis review and could certainly pass intermediate scrutiny.
But even under lesser levels of scrutiny, it would be hard to argue that California's current near-total ban on carry (CC requires a permit issued on a discretionary basis and OC is not allowed) could pass constitutional muster.
The courts have been striking down many of the conceal carry laws where local regulations totally prohibit it. See Heller V DC - and McDonald V Chicago for what I mean.
Neither of those cases had anything to do with concealed carry. AFAIK, no concealed carry restrictions have been struck down. Frankly, I think concealed carry is the issue which could motivate SCOTUS to adopt a lesser standard of scrutiny, because CC laws have been common for well over a century and SCOTUS is uncomfortable striking down long-established laws.
Re: (Score:2)
As a proponent of the 2nd amendment, I hope he rots.
He's exactly the type of person who votes for the restrictive laws, then bribes his way around them.
Maybe if these connected people had to live under their own laws, they might consider not voting for them.
I have a friend, hardcore gun ban guy, start of Covid starting asking me *wink wink* how he could obtain a pistol.
I told him to do all the legally required steps to obtain one, to which he replied that would take more than a month.
I let him know that he
Re: (Score:2)
Did you start by letting him know that pistols are not a particularly effective method for killing infectious diseases like COVID? Because I would have started with that...
Re:Busted (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Did any of the Founding Fathers consider gun ownership to be an individual [archive.org] right rather than a collective [mises.org] one, and that it should NOT be left to the states to decide?
Thomas Jefferson's drafts of the Virginia Constitution said, "no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." [monticello.org] The fact that he wanted to put it into the state's constitution implies that he felt the decision should be left to the states.
So, did any of the Founding Fathers feel different, or have we just been misinterpreting the Second Amendment [politico.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech is also in the Virginia Constitution. Does this mean it's a collective right rather than an individual one?
Re: (Score:2)
Why else would they put it in there?
Re:Busted (Score:4, Informative)
You're going to quote a left-wing mag like Politico to try and question the intent of Thomas Jefferson, of all people? I don't think anyone was more clear or sincere about his belief that free men should be armed.
BTW, The US Constitution was ratified in 1787.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, it leaves it up to the states to decide whether the right is individual or collective.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what SCOTUS says, I care with the Founding Fathers said.
Re: (Score:2)
Think about the time in question. Many merchant ships were better armed than many naval vessels. Every port city had artillery batteries at the entrance to the port. Merchants traveled in armed convoys. The "town hall cannon" was not an ornament, but something that could be brought to bear against raiders, pirates, brigands, and Frenchmen. Frontier communities had not only rifles and pistols, but mortars, trebuchets, grenades, pikes, bows, mines, and flame throwers, pretty much all of it privately owned
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't ask how SCOTUS ruled.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, find me one that says they intended gun ownership to be an individual right. That's all I'm asking.
Re: (Score:2)
In Heller, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual's right to keep a gun for self-defense. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court clarified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments.
Re:I'm Rick James, bitch. (Score:4, Informative)
In Heller the court held that one's right to keep and bear arms is protected under the 2nd Amendment without regard of one's membership in a militia. This disposed of the fiction that the right to keep and bear arms is a "collective right". It has been established that this is an individual right, and is protected for all lawful purposes such as protection of one's home, family, property, and person.
The court stopped short of specifying on if it protected open carry, concealed carry, or both. It did make it clear to the DC council and the Illinois legislature that they could no longer maintain their ban on the carry of firearms on the person. They chose to pass laws on the "shall issue" of concealed carry permits to prevent another spanking in the courts.
California, Hawaii, and New York are on the path to a similar spanking in the courts if they don't change their laws. These states have a "may issue" policy on issuing permits in law but are "no issue" in practice. If people do get a permit in these states then it is often a result of bribery.
About 20 states allow open carry without a permit. About 10 states allow open or concealed carry without a permit. About 40 states (which is inclusive of states that don't require a permit to carry lawfully in general but issue them for reasons like the federal "gun free zone" law that requires a state issued permit) have "shall issue" laws on issuing carry permits. Those last 10 or so states with "may issue" and no provision to carry without a permit are split about half and half on "shall issue" and "no issue" in practice. What is rather disturbing is that these 5 or 6 states that are so restrictive on carrying weapons in public contain more than one quarter of the US population.
A tactic that is used to maintain these laws is the arbitrary nature of them. If there is a case that the state feels might actually get to court then they just issue the permit to remove standing. Without standing the case dies.
The same goes for felon in possession of a firearm laws. People get put in prison for this all the time even though is it unconstitutional. Nobody is going to defend a felon caught with a handgun tucked in his belt during a drug deal. If a felon shoots dead some dirtbag that's raping his daughter then the cops just look the other way. This was a felon in possession of a firearm. This felon obviously used it to end the life of another person. But if charged then he has standing in court. This makes defending the prohibition on felons in possession of a firearm impossible to defend.
I saw this happen twice in Chicago in the span of a week or two. In both cases it was a dirtbag breaking into someone's home, getting shot dead on the spot for it, then the police discovered that the gun used was owned illegally. Nobody was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in both cases. Why? Because then they'd have standing to strike down the law in court. Also because Chicago would burn in riots if the public saw people being carted off to jail for defending their lives against dirtbags breaking into their home.
People ask why Chicago has so many people getting murdered by gun fire. It's because the police will not enforce the laws against firearm possession consistently. If they did then the laws would get struck down in the courts. Since they won't enforce them consistently then people walk on unlawful possession of a firearm charges. It's a complex legal web they've woven which assures that the criminals are armed and their victims are not.
Re: I'm Rick James, bitch. (Score:3)
In Heller the court held
Have you read Heller? Frankly, I'd be terrified of the Supreme Court reviewing second amendment issues now that's it's been stacked with originalists and textualists.
For reference...
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now look at how bizarre the logic is to read that in a way that tosses away the first half of the sentence.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/su... [cornell.edu]
I don't think a hypothetical law requiring
Re: (Score:2)
But it does not recognize a right to cover arms.
Re: (Score:2)
The person I was replying to (possibly you) specifically called out the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you Captain Obvious. Now what does that have to do with anything?
Re: (Score:2)
My coworker in Seattle sure doesn't feel she is "beyond needing handguns" this year.
I started my career 'working in high tech" installing and maintaining networking gear in some really sketchy neighborhoods, including doing late-night repairs at telco exchanges, Now I don't work those hours anymore, but some of our sites are still in those same, or worse, locations.
Re:Tech worker evolution? (Score:4, Funny)
That's because iPhones are too fragiles to be used as weapons.
IBM, on the other hand, still supplies a Model M keyboard to each employee.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll go with "fuck Apple and their damn spying devices".
Sent from my iPhone
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's avoiding paying the premium that actual security providers would charge his company for providing armed guards. Keep in mind that concealed carry permits are personal, so he's getting these guys permits in exchange for not being charged armed guard rates. It was a stupid plan to start with, and now he's just demonstrated what a true moron he is and trashed his career being a cheapskate.