Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County CCW case

Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by TaylorAlexander on Monday November 23, 2020 @10:23PM (#25194947)

But that’s the whole point of a CCW permit. If you’re at risk you should be allowed to have one, and yet she works to make that impossible for all but the powerful and connected. It’s fine that she has one but it’s not fine that she doesn’t let regular Californians go through the same application process without money or connections.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by scurvy on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @12:16AM (#25195518)

My point was to show that she had a legitimate need, then let the permit lapse when she no longer had a need. She didn't have one for an abuse of power.

I wasn't debating the merits of the CA shall issue policy.

In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by unishark on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @06:40AM (#25197551)

Don't senators get (armed) govt security protection anyway when they are threatened?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by scurvy on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @05:31PM (#25203767)

She was mayor of San Francisco at the time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Apple’s head of security indicted in Santa Clara County C... by tw158f23915e2a on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @01:05AM (#25195760)

> My point was to show that she had a legitimate need

No one was arguing otherwise. The comments you were replying to were clearly about the hypocrisy of anti-gun politicians.

> In other words, don't pick a fight where there isn't one.

Indeed.

[ Parent | on HN ]