A little harsh on the geography requirements, don't ya think? If somebody says Santa Clara, Palo Alto, and Apple in the first three lines, is it really necessary to require he mention California? Better include USA in there as well, since there is a Santa Clara in Chile. There's also a Moscow in Idaho, but I just assume Moscow, Russia as the default, unless otherwise noted.

This whole corruption business illustrates the problem with making the government the watchdog on the RKBA. Requiring a permit is always sold to the public as a safety measure, but when this power is placed with a government official, it breeds the opportunity for corruption. When a right becomes a de facto privilege, that right will invariably be monetized and sold. Reminds me of Rodney Dangerfield in Back to School explaining in business class how you have to bribe the inspectors and local government for permits, to the incredulity of the professor. Why would anybody be surprised that this doesn't happen everywhere a CCW permit isn't shall issue?

I really can hardly fault Apple and others who paid the bribes. They were following the rules of the game, however unofficial, to get a permit in that county.

I fault them. They make the rules and then try to break them. Fuck that. Everyone involved should receive their due penalties. I HATE this corruption and hypocrisy. I am so tired of all these fucking infringements. I know there are some good conservatives in the bay area. But aside from them, the rest can go to hell.

But for these fuckheads, I have to figure out where to retire where I can live freely and comfortably and where I don't need to worry about these fuckheads wanting to escape the disaster they created and follow me. To me, finding this utopia has been a major bitch.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:
The underlying problem is that citizens and especially the head of corporate security for Apple should be able to obtain a CCW.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is, “especially the head of corporate security for Apple”. This is the classic CA bullshit “rules for thee and not for me attitude.” The head of corporate security for Apple is no more of a citizen than anyone else and should have no more rights than any other law abiding citizen.

Good post. I agree 100%.

They keep misspelling Kali. As long as we're nitpicking.

Fairly sure the spectrum here ranges from “everyone carries to everyone but felons carry”

But, I understand his statement. Due to the perceived hazard, entailed with his job, a CCW would be presumed to be granted.

Kinda surprised he needed one, unless it’s like armored car guards - they can carry to and from work, but not during the day.

I find it hard to fault someone who paid off a POS for something he should already have.

(Though I would think Apple already owned all the local politicians.)

quote:

I find it hard to fault someone who paid off a POS for something he should already have.

I feel that rules are rules. You shouldn't break the rules. Rules can have exceptions (the ephemeral just cause) but bribery is not okay in my mind. This just enables their hypocrisy - the leftist rich get what they want while everyone else subject to the rules they make. Take the bribery out - make rules and exemptions that can be applied to all. Permits and justice should be blind, not subject to the bias of the corrupt.

Apple and the other big techs actively support and fund democrat candidates that advocate against concealed carry and for "assault weapon" bans and magazine capacity restrictions, and would completely ban handguns and semi-auto rifles (just like the UK) if they could get away with it.

But then their head of security wants a permit and is willing to pay a lot for it. I'm pretty sure the $70K worth of iPads wasn't going to come from his personal funds, which means Apple Corporate was going to pay the bribe. And that is called "enterprise corruption", and could result in criminal charges for everyone in the approval chain for the "donation".

THAT's why Apple is saying "no wrongdoing", and is probably why they were tipped off and cancelled at the last minute.

If Apple wants *some* of its employees to be able to carry a concealed weapon, they can lobby the CA government to enact shall issue for *all* of its employees. Until then, they are to follow the law and any bribery of a public official should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

To those of you who don't think anyone should pay an official, why do you think any business donates to a politician?

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The odd thing about this story that stood out for me is that the bribes were channeled to the Sheriff Smith's re-election campaign and she apparently benefited directly from some of them, but there is no mention that she was indicted. I'm curious how she escaped prosecution or even a negative reference in the article. Reading the article, one almost gets the sense that she is a victim. Bt it seems unlikely that her deputies would be funneling bribes to her campaign without her knowledge and most likely direction.

It's not odd at all in the Bay Area where privilege is connected with politics and power; money being a proxy for power.

In Contra Costa County which is next to San Francisco County, it has been an open secret that there's a high correlation of CCW permit holders and donors to the sheriff's campaign fund.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
I find it interesting that Apple is actually defending their guy and saying their internal investigation showed no wrongdoing. Sounds like a coverup of a much larger problem and they are being nice to keep this guy quiet.

Most corporations would drop you like a stone if indicted for any crime like this.

I'm betting the funds were to be expensed out of the corporate security budget. And there's an email trail.

I think it's the status quo of how people get CCWs in that area. Something must have hit a snag to get this out in the open.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
The odd thing about this story that stood out for me is that the bribes were channeled to the Sheriff Smith's re-election campaign and she apparently benefited directly from some of them, but there is no mention that she was indicted. I'm curious how she escaped prosecution or even a negative reference in the article. Reading the article, one almost gets the sense that she is a victim. Bt it seems unlikely that her deputies would be funneling bribes to her campaign without her knowledge and most likely direction.

It's not odd at all in the Bay Area where privilege is connected with politics and power; money being a proxy for power.

In Contra Costa County which is next to San Francisco County, it has been an open secret that there's a high correlation of CCW permit holders and donors to the sheriff's campaign fund.

IIRC, CCW's in CA are for a particular serial number handgun. If you have two handguns you might carry, you need two CCW permits. A CA State legislator, can't remember the name, was one of the most ardent anti 2A/CCW in the state. Someone noted to him, he had a CCW for a 9mm Beretta. His reply was along the lines of "yes I carry a Beretta, I never know when someone might want to take a potshot at me".

I certainly hope Apple can't be that stupid to have an email trail.

True story time. My dad worked for a large company as a controller. He and his boss were walking past the company's facility on Jefferson St in Chicago on their way to lunch and noticed a city work crew drilling 4" holes in the concrete sidewalk every 20' or so. Dad's boss says they must be putting in parking meters which will screw up the operation with employees having to feed the meters.

The the next day, dad's boss tells dad to cut a check to a law firm with Daley in its name for $6,000 (this was the late 60s). Dad was told to bury it. Two days later, a city work crew was out cutting off the pipes for the yet to be installed parking meters.

He had better story involving a strike, union leaders and stacks of 100 dollar bills.

Not quite true - yes, it is by serial number and caliber (you can qualify on multiple calibers in some counties). No, not multiple CCWs - just one - if your county uses the old permit, it only has places for 3 guns to be listed (guns with multiple calibers only take one line). Some counties have transitioned to credit card style CCW and may support more guns. You have to qualify on each specific gun at your qualification.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
IIRC, CCW's in CA are for a particular serial number handgun. If you have two handguns you might carry, you need two CCW permits. A CA State legislator, can't remember the name, was one of the most ardent anti 2A/CCW in the state. Someone noted to him, he had a CCW for a 9mm Beretta. His reply was along the lines of "yes I carry a Beretta, I never know when someone might want to take a potshot at me".

More dirty laundry being aired. The urban sheriffs are utterly corrupt.

A few years back I made an appointment with the SF sheriff to pick up a CCW application. It was part of a movement to force the issue and clarify policy. I knew there was no actual application available but we had to play the game. I asked for an application. I was told there were no applications. I asked how one could apply for a permit without an application. I was told no permits were issued. I asked how it was possible for the people who had permits in SF to receive them if their was no process to apply and no permits issued. I was met with silence.

Contra Costa County isn’t much better. It used to be pay to play but has slightly improved. It was suspicious how many members of the Sheriffs Posse, his charitable arm, had permits while those who weren’t members had to largely go without.

A friends dad in Berkeley managed a permit. His application was on his very large law firm letterhead. The sheriff got that message loud and clear.

Records requests pulled the good cause statements from many counties. They were illuminating.

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
A CA State legislator, can't remember the name, was one of the most ardent anti 2A/CCW in the state. Someone noted to him, he had a CCW for a 9mm Beretta. His reply was along the lines of "yes I carry a Beretta, I never know when someone might want to take a potshot at me".

Pretty sure that was Leland Yee.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Pretty sure that was Leland Yee.

Wasn’t he also the guy charged with illegal gun racketeering? Not only did he not want the public to be armed, he was actively arming the criminals and profiting from it. Corrupt to the core.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
A CA State legislator, can't remember the name, was one of the most ardent anti 2A/CCW in the state. Someone noted to him, he had a CCW for a 9mm Beretta. His reply was along the lines of "yes I carry a Beretta, I never know when someone might want to take a potshot at me".

Pretty sure that was Leland Yee.

Wasn’t he also the guy charged with illegal gun racketeering? Not only did he not want the public to be armed, he was actively arming the criminals and profiting from it. Corrupt to the core.

Now known as inmate 883939282767

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
A CA State legislator, can't remember the name, was one of the most ardent anti 2A/CCW in the state. Someone noted to him, he had a CCW for a 9mm Beretta. His reply was along the lines of "yes I carry a Beretta, I never know when someone might want to take a potshot at me".

Pretty sure that was Leland Yee.

Don’t think Yee carried.

Pretty sure it was Bill Lockyer the former CA attorney general who was against all guns except for the one he carried because some gun nut might take a shot at him.

quote:

Originally posted by Aglifter:
Due to the perceived hazard, entailed with his job, a CCW would be presumed to be granted.

what does his job have to do with it? I see no place in 2A where it says "The right of Corp Security and other executives to Keep and Bear Arms."

it's pretty much for everyone.

I think that was Bill Lockyer a 40+ year career politician who’s wife, 30 years his junior was batshit nuts and got herself arrested as well. Ruining her budding political career he set up for her with curiously obtained funds. She was also a meth head for a while and was banging the guy she met in rehab. Didn’t his car get stolen and that’s when it came to light he had a gun in the car but it was cool cause he had an impossible for a plebe to obtain CcW? Oh what a fun area we live in

quote:

Originally posted by Scoutmaster:


IIRC, CCW's in CA are for a particular serial number handgun. If you have two handguns you might carry, you need two CCW permits. A CA State legislator, can't remember the name, was one of the most ardent anti 2A/CCW in the state. Someone noted to him, he had a CCW for a 9mm Beretta. His reply was along the lines of "yes I carry a Beretta, I never know when someone might want to take a potshot at me".