Apple security chief Thomas Moyer indicted in concealed firearm permit bribery case

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 83
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    The 2nd amendment does not require you to provide a need for a CCW.
    mobirdlongpath
  • Reply 42 of 83
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 1,039member
    Sounds like an attempted shakedown by the PoPo.

    Apparently the price of the permits was the shakedown price instead of the proper fee.
    sailorpaulchristophblongpath
  • Reply 43 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    alanh said:
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    First, most people in the US left Europe for a reason, they wanted to get away from the repression and being told what to do by the government, the fact you lack the understanding of our rights is no surprise. The only thing I do not understand are those who leave and come to the US and want to change the US to what they left. The US welcomes everyone, just leave bad ideas from which you come.

    FYI, concealed carry is not a basis right, there are lots of reason to have conceal carry and why there has been some controls placed on it and may not automatically get it. Most of the US has what is known as open carry, meaning any person is allow to have weapon on their person as long as it is visible to everyone, with some limits. This way someone looking for trouble may avoid a situation if they see someone carrying. Does not always work, but it is a deterrent. Conceal carry is not a deterrent so it has a higher level of responsibility to the person carrying. 
    edited November 2020 sailorpaulrazorpitGG1christophb
  • Reply 44 of 83
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 11,421member
    tylersdad said:
    nikon1 said:
    “ Jensen reportedly managed to get Moyer to promise that Apple would donate 200 iPads, worth about $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff sung also extracted from Chadha, the insurance broker, a "promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game."

    In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license that can cost between $200 and $400.

    So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally?  They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.

    What a pair of Morons!



    The issue isn't that they wanted to avoid the $200-$400 (it's actually $400+, when I lived in California I had one). The issue is that even if you pay the money, there is almost no chance you'll get one, since the legislature left it up to the Sheriff and Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. Nearly every other state is "shall issue"...meaning, if you are a law-abiding citizen, the government can't deny you a CCW. 

    California is "may issue", which effectively means no one gets one. 

    It's what happens when those charged with keeping the peace and upholding the law go bad.   The effects spread like a virus -- or how a bad apple can spoil the barrel.

    Law enforcement should be held to the highest standards of ethics and decency, not the lowest.
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 45 of 83

    actually, both a Militia and the people's right shall not be infringe. I find it interesting skipped over the part between the two commas.

    This is not my analysis of the language this is the analysis of people who understand the US constitution far better than anyone on any forum. So the individual has right to have arms whether a person is part of a Militia or not and no law can be pass to infringe on either of those rights.
    ————-

    I think you’ll find private militias & their activities are illegal and/or very “highly regulated” in every state.  Georgetown Law School has a page where you can look up the laws covering such in each  state:
    https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/


    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 46 of 83
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “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.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence.  Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas.  I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision.  Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.  

    It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.

       Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.  

    Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed?  I doubt it.  

    The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.

    For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:

       Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.

    or

       Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask. 

    To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right."  Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen.  If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people."  If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.

    Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.

  • Reply 47 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    actually, both a Militia and the people's right shall not be infringe. I find it interesting skipped over the part between the two commas.

    This is not my analysis of the language this is the analysis of people who understand the US constitution far better than anyone on any forum. So the individual has right to have arms whether a person is part of a Militia or not and no law can be pass to infringe on either of those rights.
    ————-

    I think you’ll find private militias & their activities are illegal and/or very “highly regulated” in every state.  Georgetown Law School has a page where you can look up the laws covering such in each  state:
    https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/our-work/addressing-the-rise-of-unlawful-private-paramilitaries/state-fact-sheets/

    Militia is a state run function and the US constitution says states have a right to a well regulated Militia and can not be infringed. How a state and the people in that state choose to regulate that Militia is up to them.  It also means the average citizen can not bring a band of brother together and decide they are a Militia. I never said anything about private Militia. The problem is most people read the 3 independent statements and try to say they are all the same or they exist together or try to dice and slice it to back up their view or when they realize they can not do that, they go to it is an outdated concept. Or muskets are not machine guns and those are military weapon, but a musket were military weapon before personal protection.

    There is a saying among gun owners. They respect their neighbors right not to own a gun, and if you come to rob or kill them the gun owner will not defend the neighbors right not own a gun. 
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 48 of 83
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 
    My theory (based on very little, just reading this article and the linked article) is that Apple isn't punishing Moyer because he was transparent with Apple about what he was doing at the time.

    "Moyer allegedly promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed weapons (CCW) permits “withheld from Apple employees,” according to a press release from the Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen."

    If Moyer went to his superiors at Apple and said "hey this sheriff is making it difficult for my guys to get the permits they need for their job; he says he'll take care of us if we donate a bunch of iPads to his office."  If Apple's answer at the time was something along the lines of "yeah, that sucks, do what you gotta do to grease the skids." then of course they wouldn't be inclined to fire him when things hit the fan.

    Apple does "favors" for Cupertino and other governments all the time, in exchange for various accommodations.  If Moyer (and Apple) believed that the beneficiary of this scheme was "the sheriff's department" rather than a corrupt sheriff, one can (possibly) justify his actions.

    In any case, if the facts of the case are anything like what we've read, Moyer is more of a victim than a perp.  If I get pulled over by a cop and he says "I'll make this ticket go away if you donate $100 to the Virginia Policeman's Beneficiary Fund" and I do, that's pretty weak sauce "bribery" in my book (and a great example of extortion under color of authority).
    razorpitgatorguyronnGeorgeBMac
  • Reply 49 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “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.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence.  Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas.  I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision.  Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.  

    It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.

       Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.  

    Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed?  I doubt it.  

    The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.

    For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:

       Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.

    or

       Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask. 

    To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right."  Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen.  If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people."  If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.

    Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.

    That is probably more true and not...

    I have work with lots of lawyer on contracts and what I learn they use language which is specific or broad, and it is done for various reason. If it is specially they want nothing left to interruption, broadly it allows for negotiations or more legal fees to keep you out of court or allow a judge to make the decision.

    One lawyer told me poorly written laws are job programs for lawyers. Most laws are written by lawyers, so either their incompetent of self severing either way it does not look good for them.

    BTW the Heller decision is consider bad law except for the people who wish for you not to defend yourself.
    edited November 2020
  • Reply 50 of 83
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    alanh said:
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    For us Americans it is very difficult to understand how quickly you Europeans forgot it wasn’t possible for Hitler to do what he did until he unarmed you all.
    christophbbeowulfschmidt
  • Reply 51 of 83
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “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.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence.  Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas.  I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision.  Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.  

    It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.

       Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.  

    Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed?  I doubt it.  

    The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.

    For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:

       Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.

    or

       Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask. 

    To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right."  Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen.  If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people."  If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.

    Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.

    It helps to remember that as soon as the ink was dry on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were lawyers working to chip away at both.
    christophb
  • Reply 52 of 83
    larryjwlarryjw Posts: 1,031member
    Unless I misread the facts presented, the Apple employees should be found not guilty. They're defense is simply entrapment. The cops demanded to be bribed in order to fulfill their duties. 

    And, of course, these employees could not go to the police to report the police officers' criminal conduct -- they ARE the police. 

    How deep does official corruption extend? Maybe to the DA's office given that the DA is attempting to prosecute the Apple employees when entrapment is obvious. 
    GeorgeBMacchristophb
  • Reply 53 of 83
    tylersdad said:
    nikon1 said:
    “ Jensen reportedly managed to get Moyer to promise that Apple would donate 200 iPads, worth about $70,000, to the Sheriff's Office. Undersheriff sung also extracted from Chadha, the insurance broker, a "promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game."

    In California, it is illegal to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license that can cost between $200 and $400.

    So these 2 CLOWNS (Moyer & Chadha) risked their careers and wanted to avoid paying between $200 & $400 to legitimately get their CCW legally?  They should be imprisioned for pure greed and stupidity.

    What a pair of Morons!



    The issue isn't that they wanted to avoid the $200-$400 (it's actually $400+, when I lived in California I had one). The issue is that even if you pay the money, there is almost no chance you'll get one, since the legislature left it up to the Sheriff and Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. Nearly every other state is "shall issue"...meaning, if you are a law-abiding citizen, the government can't deny you a CCW. 

    California is "may issue", which effectively means no one gets one. 
    California is a "may issue" state, but I don't know anyone who's ever been denied a CCW. They really aren't difficult to get. I was easily able to get one. Maybe it depends on the county though. 
  • Reply 54 of 83
    California is a "may issue" state, but I don't know anyone who's ever been denied a CCW. They really aren't difficult to get. I was easily able to get one. Maybe it depends on the county though.

    You live in a county where the sheriff has a liberal policy.  Most likely it is a rural county.  I lived in CoCo County for 64 years and all the time when I was an adult the only county residents who had CC permits were members of the sheriff's posse or judges. 
    ronn
  • Reply 55 of 83
    razorpit said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    The 2nd amendment does not require you to provide a need for a CCW.
    Where does the 2nd amendment mention the right to carry a CONCEALED weapon?

    I am for the rights of responsible gun ownership and do not agree with California’s crazy gun laws. All they do is restrict citizen’s rights to defend themselves if attacked and almost guarantee that if you follow the law and get into an altercation where the aggressor is armed illegally, you’re pretty much going to die. 

    To me I think legal open carry is a better deterrent than concealing a weapon. I have seen firsthand, aggressive people change their attitude after noticing another person carrying a sidearm. 

    Luckily, I live in a state where as long as your weapon is in a holster, you can keep it anywhere.

     
    randominternetpersonmobird
  • Reply 56 of 83
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    tylersdad said:
    flydog said:

    mobird said:
    Is the Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer still employed at Apple?
    Why wouldn't he be?  Did he steal something from Apple?  Jerk off in his office? Not show up for work?   There's nothing here to suggest he committed any misconduct while in the scope of his employment. 
    He attempted to bribe a public official. I can't think of a single company that would allow someone to stay on their roster of employees after that. 
    My theory (based on very little, just reading this article and the linked article) is that Apple isn't punishing Moyer because he was transparent with Apple about what he was doing at the time.

    "Moyer allegedly promised to donate 200 iPads worth $70,000 to the Sheriff’s Office in exchange for four concealed weapons (CCW) permits “withheld from Apple employees,” according to a press release from the Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen."

    If Moyer went to his superiors at Apple and said "hey this sheriff is making it difficult for my guys to get the permits they need for their job; he says he'll take care of us if we donate a bunch of iPads to his office."  If Apple's answer at the time was something along the lines of "yeah, that sucks, do what you gotta do to grease the skids." then of course they wouldn't be inclined to fire him when things hit the fan.

    Apple does "favors" for Cupertino and other governments all the time, in exchange for various accommodations.  If Moyer (and Apple) believed that the beneficiary of this scheme was "the sheriff's department" rather than a corrupt sheriff, one can (possibly) justify his actions.

    In any case, if the facts of the case are anything like what we've read, Moyer is more of a victim than a perp.  If I get pulled over by a cop and he says "I'll make this ticket go away if you donate $100 to the Virginia Policeman's Beneficiary Fund" and I do, that's pretty weak sauce "bribery" in my book (and a great example of extortion under color of authority).
    Apple would have not told anyone to do what is necessary, this act alone is illegal. This can be even be illegal for a company to so this in other countries where "greasing the skids" condone or acceptable. If anyone at Apple condone this activity, they too could be in trouble. I suspect there is more to the story than what the DA is sharing.
  • Reply 57 of 83
    maestro64 said:
    flippysch said:
    mobird said:
    Lots of unanswered questions. Did he really need a CCW? If so, why didn’t corporate use their influence into getting him one, unless it wasn’t for his job and was personal. 

    I am amused that San Jose has a “Hall of Justice” and reading that made me miss Ted Knight and his narration of the Superfriends cartoon. 
    It's called the Constitution - 2nd Amendment. Nowhere does it state that you have to have a reason to purchase a gun.

    Glad I live in a state that upholds the 2nd Amendment instead of trampling on it.
    The 2nd Amendment:  “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.” 

    If it was not for the last comma, I would agree with you that the people can keep and bear arms. Unfortunately, I read it as a well-regulated Militia, such as the National Guard, shall not be infringed.
    That's a strange way to parse this poorly punctuated sentence.  Personally, when I read this, the most coherent correction would be to remove the first and last commas.  I believe this was also the interpretation by the Supreme Court in the Heller decision.  Everything before the middle comma was interpreted as an "independent clause" providing explanation for the second half of the sentence.  

    It would be like if a legislature voted this sentence into law.

       Face masks, being protective from viruses, the right of businesses to deny service, shall not be infringed.  

    Would anyone argue that this means that face masks shall not be infringed?  I doubt it.  

    The problem with how the 2nd Amendment was written (and with my example) is that you can't definitely tell whether the first part (about militias or masks) is supposed to be an example of why the second part exists or is supposed to be a limiting phrase.

    For my example, more clear formulations (depending on the intent) would be either:

       Face masks protect against viruses, this is one example that explains why we prohibit the government from infringing on the right of a business to deny service.

    or

       Face masks protect against viruses, thus, in this specific context, businesses shall be allowed to deny service to patrons who refuse to wear a mask. 

    To me, the critical word in the 2nd Amendment is "right."  Everywhere else in the Constitution, we interpret "right" and "freedom" broadly in favor of the citizen.  If the framers (and states ratifying the amendment) wanted this to be more restrictive, they could have phrased it without using the word "right" and certainly without the flowery "the right of the people."  If they wanted to say "Congress shall pass no law interfering with the rights of States to govern their militia" they could have just said that.

    Perhaps because there were a lot of lawyers present they wanted to ensure full attorney employment for the entire history of the new republic.

    ....

    BTW the Heller decision is consider bad law except for the people who wish for you not to defend yourself.
    ... or commit mass murder of school kids.   One can only wonder why one would buy an assault weapon (there's a reason why they're called "assault" weapons!) with a 30 or 100 round clip for self defense.  It's verges on prima facia proof that they're too crazy to own a gun.

    larryjwronn
  • Reply 58 of 83
    razorpit said:
    alanh said:
    tylersdad said:
    marsorry said:
    Unbelievable, happens to the best of them I suppose. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and safer to just get a permit???
    They weren't trying to avoid the fees. California is a "may issue" state. The legislature left it up to the local Sheriff or Chief of Police to decide who does or doesn't get one. The majority of Californians are denied this basic right that the majority of the rest of the country enjoy. 

    When I had mine, I paid nearly $500 (to cover the 16-hour class, range time, and the permit fees). I paid $250 every other year to renew. In WA state, I paid $50 for a 5-year permit. And unless you have a criminal record, you cannot be denied a permit. 

    Wow, for us Europeans it's very difficult to understand the mindset that sees carrying a concealed weapon a 'basic right'!  You certainly live in a different world to us! So happy not to be in that world.
    For us Americans it is very difficult to understand how quickly you Europeans forgot it wasn’t possible for Hitler to do what he did until he unarmed you all.

    That's a popular myth among gunsters.   But Hitler's Panzers and Luftwaffe rolled over multiple well trained and well equipped armies of many hundreds of thousands.  A couple guys with some guns would not have slowed them down much less stopped them.
    ronn
  • Reply 59 of 83
    ronnronn Posts: 668member
    I’m intrigued. Wondering if the Sheriff will finally be ensnared, and if the completed set of indictments and/or grand jury proceedings will be unsealed. What the hell is taking the DA so long to prosecute these A-holes after years of suspicious dealings!
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 60 of 83
    JD_Daily said:
    California is a "may issue" state, but I don't know anyone who's ever been denied a CCW. They really aren't difficult to get. I was easily able to get one. Maybe it depends on the county though.

    You live in a county where the sheriff has a liberal policy.  Most likely it is a rural county.  I lived in CoCo County for 64 years and all the time when I was an adult the only county residents who had CC permits were members of the sheriff's posse or judges. 
    Nope, got mine in SD County. Actually have a friend up in CoCo County who got one. From what I've heard, you have a pretty decent chance getting one there compared to the other counties in the Bay Area. Maybe things have changed in the last few years. Probably should have added to my original post that CCW's aren't that difficult to get as long as you are not in LA County. You have a pretty much zero chance getting one there. Not sure if mine is still valid since I moved out of state recently. I already have a CCW in the current state I live in. 
Sign In or Register to comment.