3 ms·

This article discusses the two circumstances under which US states may attribute criminal liability to a corporation: https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-

This article discusses the two circumstances under which US states may attribute criminal liability to a corporation: https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsibility-American-standards-corporate-criminal-liability.html https://law.jrank.org/pages/744/Corporate-Criminal-Responsib... Either of these standards would probably apply to a head of security who commits the crime as part of seeking concealed carry permits for an Apple security team.

giantg2 6y ago
CCW is the wrong kind of permit for armed employment. There's a different kind for that. The CCWs would only benefit the individuals, not the company.
- jkaplowitz 6y ago
  Maybe the news article was being informal, or maybe they specifically wanted to carry concealed and not open. It still seems like whatever was being requested was on behalf of the security team he was overseeing as his primary job duty at Apple.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    It's possible the journalist was wrong, but I believe the BSIS issues the professional license, not the sherriff. Open or concealed doesn't matter when it's for armed employment - the license from BSIS is what's needed. So it seems this was for personal CCW. Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid and requires a state license to carry a firearm for employment but would then also require a license from the sheriff to conceal it.
    - jkaplowitz 6y ago
      As discussed in the other subthread, CCW and BSIS would both be needed for concealed carry executive protection in California.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        Hence my comment about not minding my comment and CA being stupid.