News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case. Parent comment

Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by giantg2 on Monday November 23, 2020 @10:11PM (#25194874)
Arming someone for employment is under a different permit from the CCW listed in the story. CCWs would not benefit Apple.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by rkt88edmo on Monday November 23, 2020 @10:16PM (#25194901)
It absolutely benefits them. Nearly all executive protection teams are concealing. There is no public concealed carry of firearms in CA outside your property without a CCW. There is no parallel professional license that will allow you to do so in public. This is part of what lead to this weird situation for Apple.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by giantg2 on Monday November 23, 2020 @10:28PM (#25194980)
Concealed or exposed, you need a BSIS license as an armed guard (executive protection) in CA.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by rkt88edmo on Monday November 23, 2020 @10:34PM (#25195008)
No one is debating that, and the BSIS standards are absurdly low and they are available to everyone. There is no taint in the process for BSIS issuance that has been raised.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by giantg2 on Monday November 23, 2020 @10:40PM (#25195044)
And this article isn't about bribing for BSIS licenses, it's about bribing for CCWs. So if the BSIS license is the one needed for professional carry, the CCW is moot from the company's perspective.

Edit: Never mind. CA is super stupid.

[ Parent | on HN ]