PDA

View Full Version : Fiorina's husband has CCW


berto
06-21-2010, 10:44 AM
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina's support for gun rights isn't just public - it's very personal as well.

Records show her 60-year-old husband, Frank Fiorina, who occasionally doubles as her bodyguard, has carried a concealed-weapon permit since her days as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

Frank Fiorina, a retired AT&T vice president, was first issued a state Department of Justice permit to carry a concealed Glock 9mm pistol in 2000, according to Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department records.

He cited security concerns over his wife's "very visible" role at the head of HP, and said that as her "driver," he should be allowed to pack heat.

"She is very visible in the media," he wrote on the application, adding that there had been incidents in which CEOs "have been targets, including right in our community."

He was granted the permit after he passed a Santa Clara County sheriff's training and firearms qualification course.

His permit has been renewed every two years since, including one for 2010.

In his request for 2008 - the last one immediately available for inspection - he requested permission to carry a .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver as well as the Glock. By then Carly Fiorina was gone from HP, but her husband cited her work as a member of the advisory boards to the CIA, Defense Department and State Department, as well as her position in John McCain's presidential campaign.

"Carly has been a public figure for a very long time and, as every public figure knows, sometimes unfortunately that comes along with inappropriate interest from unsavory characters," campaign spokeswoman Julie Soderlundtold us.

"After several incidents, Frank obtained the permit based on the recommendation of law enforcement," she said.

In fact, campaign insiders tell us that Carly Fiorina has had to endure more than one stalker, including a man who showed up at a number of appearances during a 2006 book tour as well as at her home.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/21/BA661E1FOL.DTL#ixzz0rViZQuOh


Contrast with out current senators.

Full Clip
06-21-2010, 11:03 AM
Can I be my wife's "driver" and get a CCW?

Flopper
06-21-2010, 11:03 AM
Just another example of a Santa Clara Co oligarch able to get a CCW while us plebes can't.

Untamed1972
06-21-2010, 11:04 AM
Contrast with out current senators.

"Carly has been a public figure for a very long time and, as every public figure knows, sometimes unfortunately that comes along with inappropriate interest from unsavory characters," campaign spokeswoman Julie Soderlundtold us."


But aren't most crime victims just regular people who find themselves at the receiving end of "inappropriate interest from unsavory characters"?

Just sounds like more of the same BS CA "special treatment for special people". Now we just need to her to speak out in favor of shall issue for the regular people.

If she gets elected she should have access to Secret Service protection which should mean his GC is now gone right?

cmaynes
06-21-2010, 11:07 AM
Uh- Feinstein has a CCW herself.... she got it after the Harvey Milk and Moscone assassination- She is pretty far from being a gun-rights advocate....

from wiki (yeah, Im lazy)

Dianne Feinstein, who was then President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, saw White quickly exit Mayor Moscone's office from a side door and called after him. White sharply responded with "I have something to do first."[5]
White scurried to his former office, and intercepted Harvey Milk on the way, asking him to step inside for a moment. Milk agreed to join him.[6] Once the door to the office was closed, White positioned himself between the doorway and Milk, pulled out his revolver and opened fire on Milk. The first bullet hit Milk's right wrist, as he tried to protect himself. White continued firing rapidly, hitting Milk twice more in the chest, then fired a fourth bullet at Milk's head, killing him, followed by a fifth shot into his skull at close range.[7]
White fled the scene as Feinstein entered the office where Milk lay dead. She grabbed his wrist for a pulse, her finger entering Milk's bullet wound. Horrified, Feinstein was shaking so badly she required support from the police chief after identifying both bodies.[8] Feinstein then tearfully announced the murders to a stunned public, stating: "As President of the Board of Supervisors, it's my duty to make this announcement. Both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed. The suspect is Supervisor Dan White."[9][10][11]



I think that sort of trumps Carlys' threat.

In all honesty- If Sean Penn can get a CCW in Marin County, it would be startling to see Fiorina's husband be denied one in Santa Clara....

QuarterBoreGunner
06-21-2010, 11:10 AM
Just another example of a Santa Clara Co oligarch able to get a CCW while us plebes can't.

Points for the use of the word 'oligarch'.

Oh and I'm a plebe and I'm pretty sure this guy Fiorina was in my last re-qual in December 09. Almost positive it was him.

IrishPirate
06-21-2010, 11:15 AM
Just another example of a Santa Clara Co oligarch able to get a CCW while us plebes can't.

"Carly has been a public figure for a very long time and, as every public figure knows, sometimes unfortunately that comes along with inappropriate interest from unsavory characters," campaign spokeswoman Julie Soderlundtold us."


But aren't most crime victims just regular people who find themselves at the receiving end of "inappropriate interest from unsavory characters"?

Just sounds like more of the same BS CA "special treatment for special people". Now we just need to her to speak out in favor of shall issue for the regular people.

If she gets elected she should have access to Secret Service protection which should mean his GC is now gone right?

i think you guys are missing the point....she's got pro-gun roots, and that's what counts. We would all take advantage of ANY edge possible to be granted a CCW, so let's not pretend that we're better than him. If you can prove you're around someone who has or could have credible threats against them, and it's somewhat in your job description to protect them...you'll get a CCW. That's how GC works: you prove that there's a reason why you might need a gun. I'm all for eliminating the GC requirement, but i can see the GC in his request for a CCW.

I'm glad to see that at least her husband is pro-gun, hopefully the sentiment is mutual between the two. Has she made any public comments about her stance on RKBA?

Californio
06-21-2010, 11:22 AM
I love Special Classes of People have Rights the unwashed masses don't.

Flopper
06-21-2010, 11:22 AM
That's how GC works: you prove that there's a reason why you might need a gun. I'm all for eliminating the GC requirement, but i can see the GC in his request for a CCW.


GC has nothing to do with getting a CCW in SCC.

Window_Seat
06-21-2010, 12:16 PM
Last time I looked, Fiorina is pro-2A. She should not be confused with people like Whitman, Boxer, others who are rabidly anti. Just because a candidate or his/her spouse has a CCW doesn't necessarily make them better than us. We are "subjects" to those who favor gun control.

Erik.

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 3:08 PM
I can't stand Fiorina.

Remember when Hewlett-Packard Co. decided to do all those lay offs in Palo Alto? They set plans to get rid of almost 26,000 jobs in 2001. In 2002, HP's CEO, Carly Fiorina, saw her pay rise 231 percent from 2001, to $4.1 million.

Flopper
06-21-2010, 3:29 PM
I can't stand Fiorina.

Remember when Hewlett-Packard Co. decided to do all those lay offs in Palo Alto? They set plans to get rid of almost 26,000 jobs in 2001. In 2002, HP's CEO, Carly Fiorina, saw her pay rise 231 percent from 2001, to $4.1 million.

I can't stand her, but for different reasons.

Assuming a low average salary of $40k per employee laid off, she saved HP a little over $1 BILLION in dead weight.

Yeah, getting laid off sucks, but consider the alternative of fabricated full employment in a communist nation. I've yet to meet a non-politburo member from a communist nation that thought communism > capitalism.

GearHead
06-21-2010, 3:34 PM
Doesn't Pelosi have a CCW too?

haveyourmile
06-21-2010, 3:34 PM
I can't stand her, but for different reasons.

Assuming a low average salary of $40k per employee laid off, she saved HP a little over $1 BILLION in dead weight.

Yeah, getting laid off sucks, but consider the alternative of fabricated full employment in a communist nation. I've yet to meet a non-politburo member from a communist nation that thought communism > capitalism.

My little rant was only the beginning. I could name a dozen reasons I think she stinks but that was a big part. It wasn't so much that she laid off so many employees, it was that coupled with the fact that her salary increased some 230%. I can't stand her

ke6guj
06-21-2010, 3:35 PM
Uh- Feinstein has a CCW herself.... she got it after the Harvey Milk and Moscone assassination- She is pretty far from being a gun-rights advocate....AFAIK, that is "had a CCW herself". IIRC, she no longer has the CCW. the :TFH: rumor is that she had herself appointed a federal deputy so she can carry anywhere, but that is unproven.

cmaynes
06-21-2010, 3:37 PM
AFAIK, that is "had a CCW herself". IIRC, she no longer has the CCW. the :TFH: rumor is that she had herself appointed a federal deputy so she can carry anywhere, but that is unproven.

thanks for the update.... I was unaware of that....

CalNRA
06-21-2010, 3:41 PM
this is undisguised character smear by Mattier and Ross trying to help Boxer stay in power.

You will never find them writing about Don Perata's CCW permit, even though he is looking to stay in public trough by runningfor mayor of Oakland.

gunsmith
06-21-2010, 4:27 PM
this is undisguised character smear by Mattier and Ross trying to help Boxer stay in power.

You will never find them writing about Don Perata's CCW permit, even though he is looking to stay in public trough by runningfor mayor of Oakland.

I seem to remember Peratta getting carjacked & the newspaper said his ccw expired and he didn't renew

QuarterBoreGunner
06-21-2010, 4:28 PM
^That is correct, I do believe.

odysseus
06-21-2010, 4:36 PM
You will never find them writing about Don Perata's CCW permit, even though he is looking to stay in public trough by runningfor mayor of Oakland.

The "Don" Perata (CCW or not) is certainly one whom makes me want to literally puke at his sight. Corrupt, bottom dredging, anti-RKBA politician that he is - a real SOB.

On Fiorina, while he may be in this "oligarch" class and us mere plebes as asserted here, I am not going to hammer down about any issue about it, since it seems the NRA backs Carly Fiorina as well.

jeffyboy
06-21-2010, 4:36 PM
^ Yes, you are correct

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/02/08/don-perata-to-surrender-his-gun-tomorrow/

press1280
06-21-2010, 4:49 PM
We'll see if she's pro-CCW if elected, the national reciprocity bill is bound to show up again.

socalblue
06-21-2010, 5:50 PM
Doesn't Pelosi have a CCW too?

Hers is labeled US Secret Service

advocatusdiaboli
06-21-2010, 10:13 PM
Just another example of a Santa Clara Co oligarch able to get a CCW while us plebes can't.

Double points for oligarch and plebe in the same post. If you'd added plutocracy it would have been three for a hat trick and the win.

Most liberal political regimes end up in plutocracy--most conservative ones are from the beginning--it's just that different set of cronies get the power in the end--though all with money do. But rest assured, neither set ever includes the rest of us.

Remember the founders only allowed men of means holding large tracts of land the vote at all--most of us would not have qualified. But at least they recognized the value of allowing everyone to be armed. These celebrity CCWs only remind me of the privilege of money and the connections it brings--under any political regime. We won't make a perfect system ever, but we can get damn closer than this. Just waiting for SCOTUS at this point.

GuyW
06-21-2010, 10:47 PM
Remember the founders only allowed men of means holding large tracts of land the vote at all--most of us would not have qualified.

Is that what you were fed in government school?

...its not true - craftsmen, tradesmen, and regular farmers all could vote - destitute bums and drunks couldn't....

.

CalNRA
06-22-2010, 1:05 AM
I seem to remember Peratta getting carjacked & the newspaper said his ccw expired and he didn't renew

:shrug:

Perata had his permit for many years and M&R never even blinked twice over it, but all the sudden interest in Fiorina's husband...

Do you agree that this is a character smear or were you just trying to clarify a technical point?

advocatusdiaboli
06-22-2010, 6:17 AM
Is that what you were fed in government school?

...its not true - craftsmen, tradesmen, and regular farmers all could vote - destitute bums and drunks couldn't....

.


No, it's a matter of record no constitutional scholar denies. Look it up.

bodger
06-22-2010, 6:28 AM
I don't care who has a CCW. I just want mine.

FirstFlight
06-22-2010, 6:51 AM
I can't stand Fiorina.

Remember when Hewlett-Packard Co. decided to do all those lay offs in Palo Alto? They set plans to get rid of almost 26,000 jobs in 2001. In 2002, HP's CEO, Carly Fiorina, saw her pay rise 231 percent from 2001, to $4.1 million.

So.....you going to vote for Boxer?

johnny_22
06-22-2010, 7:40 AM
:shrug:

Perata had his permit for many years and M&R never even blinked twice over it, but all the sudden interest in Fiorina's husband...

Do you agree that this is a character smear or were you just trying to clarify a technical point?

They did cover it in 2003:

"Most notable of those with a "real need" is state senator and gun control advocate Don Perata, who has had one for years because of reported threats against him."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-04-30/bay-area/17487611_1_concealed-permit-guns

1st5
06-22-2010, 7:53 AM
Right now Fiorina is our only choice in unseating boxer.

I agree this article, which was in Matier and Ross in the SF Comicle,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/21/BA661E1FOL.DTL&feed=rss.news_politics , is an attack on Fiorina. I mean, who needs to carry a gun, much less two guns? He's packin' heat for God's sake! Do we want that kind of person in office? Yeah. And no mention of all the libs who have CCW.

I love this comment...

I'll bet Frank's gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.

GuyW
06-22-2010, 11:11 AM
only allowed men of means holding large tracts of land the vote[/b] all--most of us would not have qualified.

No, it's a matter of record no constitutional scholar denies. Look it up.

More Anti-America liberal BS.

Founding Fathers like Ben Franklin (a printer), Paul Revere (a silversmith) etc obviously could vote, even tho they weren't ("filthy") rich. Tradesmen, merchants, small business owners, craftsmen, small farmers, etc could all vote. Those small backwoods farmers didn't put their butts on the line when they would have no say over government matters...

"Property requirements were widespread. Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value. Others required personal property of a certain value, or payment of a certain amount of taxes. Examples from 1763 show the variety of these requirements. Delaware expected voters to own fifty acres of land or property worth 40. Rhode Island set the limit at land valued at 40 or worth an annual rent of 2. Connecticut required land worth an annual rent of 2 or livestock worth 40.

Such requirements tended to delay a male colonist's entry into the voter ranks until he was settled down and established. They reflected the belief that freeholders, as property owners were called, had a legitimate interest in a community's success and well-being, paid taxes and deserved a voice in public affairs, had demonstrated they were energetic and intelligent enough to be trusted with a role in governance, and had enough resources to be independent thinkers not beholden to the wealthiest class. English jurist William Blackstone wrote in the 1700s:

The true reason of requiring any qualification, with regard to property, in voters, is to exclude such persons as are in so mean a situation that they are esteemed to have no will of their own. If these persons had votes, they would be tempted to dispose of them under some undue influence or other. This would give a great, an artful, or a wealthy man, a larger share in elections than is consistent with general liberty.

....Benjamin Franklin lampooned them when he wrote:

Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote;"

http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

.

yellowfin
06-22-2010, 1:17 PM
^ Very true, and also having that requirement meant that only those who paid taxes could vote as to prevent people who didn't from pillaging those who contributed to the system.

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 1:40 PM
From the sounds of it - you guys are saying that the only people who should be allowed to vote - are those who are wealthy and/or powerful enough not to be beholden to others.

I'm not sure how well off you are, or think you are, but unfortunately that eliminates a good 75-80% of the population from voting these days....

Maybe i'm just an anti-american liberal - but something sounds oddly wrong about that...

GuyW
06-22-2010, 1:48 PM
From the sounds of it - you guys are saying that the only people who should be allowed to vote - are those who are wealthy and/or powerful enough not to be beholden to others.

I'm not sure how well off you are, or think you are, but unfortunately that eliminates a good 75-80% of the population from voting these days....

Maybe i'm just an anti-american liberal - but something sounds oddly wrong about that...

you have a problem with reading comprehension?

.

Flopper
06-22-2010, 1:53 PM
From the sounds of it - you guys are saying that the only people who should be allowed to vote - are those who are wealthy and/or powerful enough not to be beholden to others.

I'm not sure how well off you are, or think you are, but unfortunately that eliminates a good 75-80% of the population from voting these days....

Maybe i'm just an anti-american liberal - but something sounds oddly wrong about that...

The reason for this was not to let only the plutarchy (more brownie points, anyone? :D) vote or hold office.

It was--as several have already said--to ensure that the leeches of society could not dictate public policy to those who actually contributed. Otherwise the irresponsible underemployed drunks could vote to give themselves handouts; sound familiar?

These requirements to vote were not onerous and were not used to disenfranchise.

These requirements helped the early nation to function as a REPUBLIC. . . their erosion helped to turn this nation into the ridiculous DEMOCRACY it is today.

advocatusdiaboli
06-22-2010, 2:13 PM
More Anti-America liberal BS.

Calling me a liberal is an insult--one of the few I let get to me. I am not anti-american nor liberal as a general rule. telling me wht I think or believe doesn't make it so.

Some colonies required a voter to own a certain amount of land or land of a specified value.

Your own quote confirms my assertion (simply that voting rights were far more restrictive then than today and skewed towards the well-to-do) and negates your's. Maybe tradesmen in some cities and towns could vote, but not all everywhere. Unlike today where a homeless veteran, a black man, and a woman can vote, voting rights were unevenly applied and restrictions varied widely--which was my point--and my only point--that privilege to the well off is not new but was there from the beginning. Thanks for helping me prove it.

CalNRA
06-22-2010, 2:18 PM
They did cover it in 2003:

"Most notable of those with a "real need" is state senator and gun control advocate Don Perata, who has had one for years because of reported threats against him."

http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-04-30/bay-area/17487611_1_concealed-permit-guns

oh WOW!!!! you are right, A whole sentence. Since they were so fair it was also an election year where Perata was trying to challenge a long time incumbent.

Boy I was SO wrong, they totally covered Perata's permit with as much vigor and scrutiny as Fiorina's. Such fair journalism.

advocatusdiaboli
06-22-2010, 3:37 PM
Face it folks, we have a Hobson's choice: we don't want Boxer for many reasons including her sense of entitlement and her anti-RKBA stance but Fiorina, faux or true supporter of RKBA not withstanding, has corporate leadership and behavior issues many dislike.

But like it not, those are our two choices. RKBA is the overriding one for me right now--especially given all the rest of Boxer's baggage. So I'll vote Fiorina despite my misgivings on her offshoring of jobs while enriching herself--that skill will help her fit right in the US Senate anyway :(

Sinixstar
06-22-2010, 4:21 PM
The reason for this was not to let only the plutarchy (more brownie points, anyone? :D) vote or hold office.

It was--as several have already said--to ensure that the leeches of society could not dictate public policy to those who actually contributed. Otherwise the irresponsible underemployed drunks could vote to give themselves handouts; sound familiar?

These requirements to vote were not onerous and were not used to disenfranchise.

These requirements helped the early nation to function as a REPUBLIC. . . their erosion helped to turn this nation into the ridiculous DEMOCRACY it is today.

Right.
Only upstanding respectable members of society should be able to vote. :rolleyes:

johnny_22
06-22-2010, 4:27 PM
oh WOW!!!! you are right, A whole sentence. Since they were so fair it was also an election year where Perata was trying to challenge a long time incumbent.

Boy I was SO wrong, they totally covered Perata's permit with as much vigor and scrutiny as Fiorina's. Such fair journalism.

The San Jose Mercury News has not mentioned either person's license to carry concealed. The last time the San Jose Mercury News mentioned a licensed carrier, that person was being charged with brandishing. No question as to why he was more worthy than the rest of us.

CalNRA
06-22-2010, 5:28 PM
The San Jose Mercury News has not mentioned either person's license to carry concealed. The last time the San Jose Mercury News mentioned a licensed carrier, that person was being charged with brandishing. No question as to why he was more worthy than the rest of us.

huh?

Who brought up Mercury News?