Seems a bit odd that Apple's Thomas Moyer is getting charged or at least that the headline suggests he instigated the whole thing. Unless Moyer was trying to bypass some process or law to obtain the permits, it sounds like the county police are more at fault for demanding the bribe and Moyer just made the bad call of agreeing to pay it.
The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so it seems likely Apple/Moyer would rather pay the bribe rather than get mixed PR of being a whistle blower (e.g large news outlet runs a piece on how many CW permits Apple requests).
Those who pay bribes for non-essential special treatment are as much criminals as those who ask for bribes. This guy has serious resources at his disposal and is allegedly willing to pay bribes. One must wonder if he has paid any others. I have little sympathy.
Hidden carry is never essential for security teams. It is about looks. They dont want the guns appearing in potential photos of Apple events. The guards can carry guns openly just like every single street cop.
The requirements to get your "guard card" in CA with the endorsement to carry a firearm a very low bar to pass. You see plenty of people making barely over minimum wage doing this. It is the "concealed" portion that requires the permit that can not be readily obtained by security guards without jumping through the same process as Joe Public which is regulated by the local City and County law enforcement in CA.
Thanks, it looks like this is the correct answer. Seems like that option should have been open and what they should have done instead of agreeing to the bribe.
Then keep them unloaded. It takes less than a second for a pro to load a handgun. This isnt hollywood. Close protection details for large US corps virtually never fire a shot in anger. It is a once-per-decade event.
California forbids carrying a concealed firearm even if it is unloaded.[1]
Also California's legal definition of a loaded gun is not what everyone thinks it means. For example, PC 25400 has extra penalties if the firearm is loaded or if, "...the unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from it are in the immediate possession of the person or readily accessible to that person." That makes your suggestion just as illegal as carrying a loaded handgun.
> Close protection details for large US corps virtually never fire a shot in anger. It is a once-per-decade event.
The point of a concealed handgun is to react as quickly as possible to what is usually a once-in-a-lifetime event. Even if it only takes an extra second to load a magazine into a firearm, that second can mean the difference between preventing a murder or not. It doesn't matter how rare the event is. It matters what the consequences are.
A determined attacker could seriously injure or kill someone in the time it takes to load your weapon and chamber a round.
Your kind of ignorance almost makes me physically ill... you sound just like those women who take a self-defense course and think they can take down a 6'4" 295 lb. guy who looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger's bigger cousin.
I'd love to see the look in your eyes when someone rushes you at 10 feet and stabs you with the blue plastic prop knife 99 times out of 100. Its the same look those women get when they realize, "Oh shit... it turns out someone who's got 150 lbs. of muscle over me can fight off my puny attacks."
If guns were truly the ultimate force multiplier, military and police would never train for close quarters hand-to-hand combat. They aren't, so we do.
If a 295 lb guy charges you it doesn't really matter what you do, they will flatten you unless the weight is somewhat similar. At some point physics takes over.
No you dont. It would be silly if you needed a license to open or concealed carry on your own property. That would make it impossible for most Californians to perform gun maintenance at home or defend themselves from an intruder.
If you wanna go straight to the source, section 26035 of the CA Penal Code is a good start:
"Nothing in Section 25850 shall prevent any person engaged in any lawful business... or any officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm within the person’s place of business"
25525 PC is also relevant as it reiterates the home & business exemption to concealed carry laws
The problem is you're looking at one statute in isolation and not how courts have interpreted it in concert with other statutes.
Yes, sometimes you can lawfully open or concealed carry on your own property without needing a permit. But if it's open to the public, you need a permit.
I was speaking specifically about California. Guards don't need CCWs to carry loaded and exposed. They just need a guard card and a firearms qualifications card issued by the BSIS.
The challenge is that it was (I'm pretty sure) within the sheriff's discretion to deny these permits in the first place. So while the sheriff's office was surely wrong to demand a bribe, there was no reason Moyer had to agree to pay it either.
> it seems likely Apple/Moyer would rather pay the bribe.
It sounds like we agree on the facts. Apple, and specifically Moyer, decided to pay a bribe to a government official. Bribery is a crime. Why do you find it odd that he's being charged?
The article notes that the county/police had been doing this racket for years so it seems likely Apple/Moyer would rather pay the bribe rather than get mixed PR of being a whistle blower (e.g large news outlet runs a piece on how many CW permits Apple requests).