7 ms·

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. Apple or no Apple, no one in America should be deprived of their Co

> Can't believe all the Apple apologists here. Bribing public officials is a crime, period. Apple or no Apple, no one in America should be deprived of their Constitutional rights. I'm more concerned that authoritarian states like California can get away with depriving the people of our explicit rights under American law than I am with people paying bribes just to exercise those rights.

systemvoltage 6y ago
What is unconstitutional about prosecuting people of crimes that they commit by bribing officials? I’m not following your logic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pageandrew 6y ago
  He's referring to the Right to Keep and Bear arms only being recognized in those who can afford to bribe the local Sheriff. California's gun laws are pretty blatantly unconstitutional, even without the bribery.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    Yes, I would also like to be able to carry around my own personal nuclear warhead. Just in case.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Bay Area Sheriffs withhold a constitutional right in the issuance of permits, which results in something of value being created that they can hold for political or financial favor. Even if you disagree with concealed carry, 2/3 of the counties in CA will issue you a permit no problem that allows you to carry statewide. There is no reasonable argument for not issuing permits here.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    I totally agree with you, but I think the clear implication of baryphonic's comment is that the State of CA was being "authoritarian" here by denying the permit, as opposed to the sheriffs dept. Which, I'd point out, doesn't make much sense given that it is in fact the State of California which is bringing the charges against these people in the sheriffs dept for demanding bribes in exchange for a constitutionally protected government service.
    - baryphonic 6y ago
      > I totally agree with you, but I think the clear implication of baryphonic's comment is that the State of CA was being "authoritarian" here by denying the permit, as opposed to the sheriffs dept. I'd argue that the state is slightly authoritarian by allowing local officials such discretion, but that's more a matter of taste. However, if I was arrogant enough to think the Bay Area, LA and San Diego were representative of the entire state in terms of their approach to gun permits and this is actually not the case, then I apologize. > Which, I'd point out, doesn't make much sense given that it is in fact the State of California which is bringing the charges against these people in the sheriffs dept for demanding bribes in exchange for a constitutionally protected government service. Interesting framing. But the people who should have been entitled to these services and were coerced into paying bribes are also facing charges. The state's foremost goal appears be defending its own authority zealously, and worrying about things like legal rights after the dust settles.
iaw 6y ago
California has the most stringent gun laws but also the a lowest gun violence death rate per capita. More people were allowed to pursue the "life" option in the Declaration of Independence. The first item of unalienable rights our forefathers stated all people had. What do you do when two rights directly infringe upon eachother?
- zests 6y ago
  The lowest? I checked wikipedia and was able to find that Arizona had a 30% lower rate in 2016 and is a "shall issue" state.
  - iaw 6y ago
    2013 rates age adjusted[0], Arizona had a higher per capita death rate at 14.1 vs 7.7 with California. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
    - zests 6y ago
      I found those age adjusted rates some time after I posted. It strikes me as odd. I'm sure if we adjust by enough rates we can come to whatever conclusion we want. What if we adjusted for gang prevalence and suicide rate as well?
- nradov 6y ago
  California has the 7th lowest gun death rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... California is 23rd in homicide rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...
  - iaw 6y ago
    26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point? The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate. Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicid... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the-more-mass-shootings-it-has/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the... [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
prvc 6y ago
Apple leaders have spoken publicly in favor of such deprivations. It would be interesting to check whether the company itself has made contributions to that cause under the guise of charity.
- baryphonic 6y ago
  Fair enough. It is their right. The nature of rights being what they are, the Apple execs can publicly call for eradication of others' rights and the would-be gun owners can get their guns without each other's approval, unless very exacting political-legal hurdles were overcome.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Was there any indication that one of these security personnel failed a background check? Used a straw purchaser or gun show loophole? Had friends and family worried about what he planned to do? Had an active domestic violence case?
ip26 6y ago
Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.
- Reelin 6y ago
  Unless your state is open carry you do in fact need a permit to carry in public. In fact, some open carry states (ex Texas) still require a permit to do so. I'm always frustrated but amused at how uninformed many of my fellow Americans are about the gun laws here (frequently it's the ones pushing for additional laws).
  - ip26 6y ago
    Ok, you appear to be right about California. In my defense, I live elsewhere. One of the minor pitfalls of Federalism- I can't keep track of the laws in all 50 states.
    - PIKAL 6y ago
      Gun activists have been waiting for a Supreme Court majority that actually does its job. I would expect people’s 2nd amendment rights to be restored in CA soon.
- anonfornoreason 6y ago
  You definitely need a ccw to open carry a loaded firearm in many jurisdictions
  - agensaequivocum 6y ago
    25 states are unrestricted plus 6 which may have local restrictions. Over 30 for rifles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_Sta...
- baryphonic 6y ago
  The key language from the courts is "reasonable regulation" on the use of firearms. That's a bit vague, but "we've created a process to let you concealed carry, but we won't actually issue a permit to anyone" pretty obviously fails the "reasonableness" test. If the restriction was that concealed carry is flat out illegal, that might actually be more legally tenable than this discretionary nonsense in places like the Bay Area. Of course, CCW regulations that are clearly limited to safety and competence with firearms and limit the discretion of issuing officials are almost certainly compatible with the Constitution. Just for the sake of comparison, the rule that was struck down in DC v. Heller (which firmly established that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defense, subject to reasonable regulation by the state) required gun owners to keep their weapons "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" at all times.

systemvoltage 6y ago

What is unconstitutional about prosecuting people of crimes that they commit by bribing officials? I’m not following your logic.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pageandrew 6y ago
He's referring to the Right to Keep and Bear arms only being recognized in those who can afford to bribe the local Sheriff. California's gun laws are pretty blatantly unconstitutional, even without the bribery.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  Yes, I would also like to be able to carry around my own personal nuclear warhead. Just in case.
mike_d 6y ago
Bay Area Sheriffs withhold a constitutional right in the issuance of permits, which results in something of value being created that they can hold for political or financial favor. Even if you disagree with concealed carry, 2/3 of the counties in CA will issue you a permit no problem that allows you to carry statewide. There is no reasonable argument for not issuing permits here.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  I totally agree with you, but I think the clear implication of baryphonic's comment is that the State of CA was being "authoritarian" here by denying the permit, as opposed to the sheriffs dept. Which, I'd point out, doesn't make much sense given that it is in fact the State of California which is bringing the charges against these people in the sheriffs dept for demanding bribes in exchange for a constitutionally protected government service.
  - baryphonic 6y ago
    > I totally agree with you, but I think the clear implication of baryphonic's comment is that the State of CA was being "authoritarian" here by denying the permit, as opposed to the sheriffs dept. I'd argue that the state is slightly authoritarian by allowing local officials such discretion, but that's more a matter of taste. However, if I was arrogant enough to think the Bay Area, LA and San Diego were representative of the entire state in terms of their approach to gun permits and this is actually not the case, then I apologize. > Which, I'd point out, doesn't make much sense given that it is in fact the State of California which is bringing the charges against these people in the sheriffs dept for demanding bribes in exchange for a constitutionally protected government service. Interesting framing. But the people who should have been entitled to these services and were coerced into paying bribes are also facing charges. The state's foremost goal appears be defending its own authority zealously, and worrying about things like legal rights after the dust settles.

iaw 6y ago

California has the most stringent gun laws but also the a lowest gun violence death rate per capita. More people were allowed to pursue the "life" option in the Declaration of Independence. The first item of unalienable rights our forefathers stated all people had. What do you do when two rights directly infringe upon eachother?

zests 6y ago
The lowest? I checked wikipedia and was able to find that Arizona had a 30% lower rate in 2016 and is a "shall issue" state.
- iaw 6y ago
  2013 rates age adjusted[0], Arizona had a higher per capita death rate at 14.1 vs 7.7 with California. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_Uni...
  - zests 6y ago
    I found those age adjusted rates some time after I posted. It strikes me as odd. I'm sure if we adjust by enough rates we can come to whatever conclusion we want. What if we adjusted for gang prevalence and suicide rate as well?
nradov 6y ago
California has the 7th lowest gun death rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/firearm.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm_mortality/... California is 23rd in homicide rate. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality...
- iaw 6y ago
  26th in homicide according to wikipedia [0] but what is your point? The 'typical' murder involves people that know each other and has a motive. Loose firearm regulations enable mass shootings [1][2] which are more indiscriminate. Everyone has the right to bear arms but what do we do when that infringes on other peoples right to life? I think it's a cogent question. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicid... [1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the-more-mass-shootings-it-has/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser-a-states-gun-laws-the... [2] https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542 https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

prvc 6y ago

Apple leaders have spoken publicly in favor of such deprivations. It would be interesting to check whether the company itself has made contributions to that cause under the guise of charity.

baryphonic 6y ago
Fair enough. It is their right. The nature of rights being what they are, the Apple execs can publicly call for eradication of others' rights and the would-be gun owners can get their guns without each other's approval, unless very exacting political-legal hurdles were overcome.
closeparen 6y ago
Was there any indication that one of these security personnel failed a background check? Used a straw purchaser or gun show loophole? Had friends and family worried about what he planned to do? Had an active domestic violence case?

ip26 6y ago

Since when was CCW a Constitutional right? You don't need one to carry.

Reelin 6y ago
Unless your state is open carry you do in fact need a permit to carry in public. In fact, some open carry states (ex Texas) still require a permit to do so. I'm always frustrated but amused at how uninformed many of my fellow Americans are about the gun laws here (frequently it's the ones pushing for additional laws).
- ip26 6y ago
  Ok, you appear to be right about California. In my defense, I live elsewhere. One of the minor pitfalls of Federalism- I can't keep track of the laws in all 50 states.
  - PIKAL 6y ago
    Gun activists have been waiting for a Supreme Court majority that actually does its job. I would expect people’s 2nd amendment rights to be restored in CA soon.
anonfornoreason 6y ago
You definitely need a ccw to open carry a loaded firearm in many jurisdictions
- agensaequivocum 6y ago
  25 states are unrestricted plus 6 which may have local restrictions. Over 30 for rifles. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_Sta...
baryphonic 6y ago
The key language from the courts is "reasonable regulation" on the use of firearms. That's a bit vague, but "we've created a process to let you concealed carry, but we won't actually issue a permit to anyone" pretty obviously fails the "reasonableness" test. If the restriction was that concealed carry is flat out illegal, that might actually be more legally tenable than this discretionary nonsense in places like the Bay Area. Of course, CCW regulations that are clearly limited to safety and competence with firearms and limit the discretion of issuing officials are almost certainly compatible with the Constitution. Just for the sake of comparison, the rule that was struck down in DC v. Heller (which firmly established that the Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for defense, subject to reasonable regulation by the state) required gun owners to keep their weapons "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" at all times.