Apple’s security chief should be fired over this.
But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.
But, this is common practice where there are ‘may issue’ CCW permits. Either have shall issue, or no issue. Having the sheriff decide just creates a valuable commodity.
> He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program including Apple’s Business Conduct Policy, governing the ethical and legal obligations of Apple’s Board, executives and over 130,000 employees around the world,
A delivery of 200 iPads as a bribe to get CCW permits makes me think it's more involved. Although this may be with his discretionary power, it's shocking to me that the donation was aborted as soon as warrants went out. I'd like to better understand what happened at Apple.
Beyond the problem of "may issue" permits you raise, I'd love to remove this kind of discretion for discovery. For example, when bringing charges like this the DA must be obligated to initiate discovery of the company documents to investigate how far reaching the problem may be (settlements can't begin to be negotiated until the DA completes discovery).
What information source did you use to come to the conclusion that he was just hired?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/nov/17/twitter-h...
"He has overall responsibility for Apple’s ethics and compliance program"
The head of Ethics being involved in bribery? Yeah, that's a problem.
On the other hand, I think he’s in difficult position given that this kind of shakedown is common practice.
What’s especially absurd is that there are many people who carry concealed guns into the Bay Area legally every day, who just happen to live in counties where CCW’s are easily approved.
I wonder what the legal implications of "moving for CCW" would look like. In Florida, you just have to notify the state that you moved... do a little scoot to the right county, get the CCW, move back.
This could be a hot fangled startup, "GunCCW"... "move to where you get your rights". Wonder what the legal penalty for letting someone change their address to your house for a bit would look like.
This is currently what is the case with shall-issue vs may-issue, at least until SCOTUS clarifies otherwise.
Seems like denying some people the right to bear arms would pretty plainly constitute an infringement, no?
2. Only SCOTUS can definitively say whether or not may-issue contradicts the 2nd.
I'm not alone in thinking that California's oppressive may-issue CCW laws deny citizens the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and would welcome Federal intervention in this specific instance.
Of course, concealed carry restrictions aren't the only gun laws in the country, but I have to admit I'm just not very informed on any others. I do know California's handgun registry has gotten stricter.
This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either.
Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.
Her Majesty Laurie only bestows a few CCWs to a handful of business people and her buddies. People can apply for CCWs all they want, but she'll never issue them willingly. She's a bureaucrat and a crook keeping the populace defenseless and maintaining LE job security.
It's a situation where there are two classes, the haves and have nots. If you aren't politically connected in NJ, NY, CA, etc - good luck. If you exercise these rights, you will end up in a prison cell.
Even places like PA - a very gun friendly state - this is working its way through the courts for other reasons. For example, in Philadelphia they have closed the permitting office repeatedly for COVID, bystepping the law which requires them to issue a permit in 45 days, by simply not accepting applications.
That's America.
I can only hope the SCOTUS will take up new cases on this.
edit: I can't spell :/
I suppose we _might_ get changes to the CCW laws; but, anything more complicated than that is never returning in the United States.
Reagan did a whole lot worse than this. He signed the Hughes Amendment, which cut off the supply of new, civilian-transferrable machine guns. I just can't understand how anyone likes the guy in spite of the awful things he did to gun rights. The Republican party is only somewhat less awful for gun rights than the Democrats.
This was a HUGE deal in the PA gun community, and I simply cannot understand why.
1. PA extended the expiration date on existing permits that expired after February until Dec 31. It was only new permits requests where the delay actually effected anyone.
2. The delays weren't specific to guns. Government offices closed and then opened at reduced capacity. This also happened for DLs.
3. The remedy provided by the state was also not specific to guns. Again, e.g., expiring driver's licenses were extended.
4. The state's choice not to prioritize streamlining this paperwork was reasonable. It had huge budget shortfalls and more important things to worry about (acquiring/distributing PPE, acquiring/distributing respirators, high unemployment, evictions, running elections, finding overflow space for hospitals, moving schools to remote, figuring out how to safely open up service businesses/schools, and the list goes on...)
5. To the extent that streamlining paper work should have been a larger priority, given the severe stress on logistics networks, I'd imagine CDLs would be the place to spend those limited resources rather than CCW applications.
So, an unavoidable delay happened in LOTS of government processes -- only one of which was CCW issuance -- and the government provided uniform remediation to help partially mitigate the impact of delays in all of those processes.
No one was coming for anyone's guns.
TBH the foaming-at-the-mouth response to unavoidable reasonable delays in processing concealed carry permits during a public health emergency is the sort of thing that makes me (a gun owner) feel completely antagonistic toward the PA 2A advocacy community.
Because I currently cannot get a LCTF from the city. That's why I give a damn. It is currently effecting me. I had no need for that before corona virus, I do need one now.
Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time.
Again, they set up a complicated process for applications, then shut it down, all of which is of their own (the cities) volition.
It's not reasonable delays. There are people who don't have their appointment until December, 2021. more than a year out.
Anyway, it's all really arguing something that should be moot - A persons right should not depend on the government service choosing to open its office.
I'm not questioning that you really do need a LTCF, but with COVID and the protests and the election suddenly everyone "needs" a gun.
So there's reduced capacity + HUGE surge in demand + severe budget shortfalls. It's not a conspiracy. It's just queuing theory.
> Bucks county is issuing it in 15 minutes. Philly does a whole interview process which goes beyond a basic NICS check and they have chosen to be poorly staffed for a very long time.
Allegheny is far less onerous than Philly but also has long wait times.
Also, these super long wait times are a relatively recent development. I expect Sheriff's offices will do what they can to address the problem in the new FY.
> Anyway, it's all really arguing something that should be moot - A persons right should not depend on the government service choosing to open its office.
Again, priorities. Tell that to the people waiting in jail for far longer than constitutionally permissible for hearings because of delays in the courts. Should we reallocate cash from judicial processes to CCW processes and have those folks wait in jail an extra few months so that folks who got all jittery a few months before the election can forget to show up to their CCW appointments?
I am uninterested in the government itself creating onerous requirements to execute basic rights and then complaining when they can't manage it in a reasonable time.
And of course, the courts have ruled there is a reasonable amount of time, that's 45 days. It's been litigated.
I guess it doesn't need saying, but government offices have no such incentive. In fact, we don't want government offices to have such an incentive, and we even make it illegal to construct such an incentive in certain ways. See: the article.
> the courts have ruled there is a reasonable amount of time, that's 45 days. It's been litigated.
Courts don't control purse strings, and the remedy you're asking for here is pretty extreme given the circumstances.
People are queuing for hours to get COVID tests, hospitals are reaching capacity, and people are rotting in prison because they can't get an appointment in front of a judge. In normal times I would be more sympathetic. There are greater injustices than waiting a few months for your LTCF, and more important forms of justice (habeas corpus) being delayed.
If they do get fired, it will be as a scapegoat, probably with a large severance, and any company in the world would hire them up immediately.