Apple's Chief Security Officer + Santa Clara County Sheriff's Officials Indicted for Concealed Carry License Bribery

California is one of nine states that leaves law enforcement with broad discretion to decide whether to grant a license.

The Santa Clara County D.A.'s Office released this statement today:

County Undersheriff, Sheriff's Captain, Local Businessman, and Apple's Chief Security Officer Charged with Bribery for CCW Licenses

A grand jury has issued two indictments​ charging the Santa Clara County Undersheriff, a previously indicted sheriff's captain, a local business owner, and the head of Global Security for Apple, Inc. with bribery.

Undersheriff Rick Sung, 48, and Captain James Jensen, 43, are accused of requesting bribes for concealed firearms (CCW) licenses, while insurance broker Harpreet Chadha, 49, and Apple's Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer, 50, are accused of offering bribes to get them.

The defendants will be arraigned on January 11, 2021 at the Hall of Justice in San Jose. If convicted, the defendants could receive prison time.

DA Jeff Rosen said: "Undersheriff Sung and Captain Jensen treated CCW licenses as commodities and found willing buyers. Bribe seekers should be reported to the District Attorney's Office, not rewarded with compliance."

The two-year investigation by the District Attorney's Office revealed that Undersheriff Sung, aided by Captain Jensen in one instance, held up the issuance of CCW licenses, refusing to release them until the applicants gave something of value.

In the case of four CCW licenses withheld from Apple employees, Undersheriff Sung and Cpt. Jensen managed to extract from Thomas Moyer a promise that Apple would donate iPads to the Sheriff's Office. The promised donation of 200 iPads worth close to $70,000 was scuttled at the eleventh hour just after August 2, 2019, when Sung and Moyer learned of the search warrant that the District Attorney's Office executed at the Sheriff's Office seizing all its CCW license records.

In the case of the CCW license withheld from Harpreet Chadha, Sung managed to extract from Chadha a promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game at the SAP Center on Valentine's Day 2019. Sheriff Laurie Smith's family members and some of her biggest political supporters held a small celebration of her re-election as Sheriff in the suite.

The various fees required to obtain a CCW license generally total between $200 and $400. Under state law, it is a crime to carry a concealed firearm without a CCW license. Although state law requires that the applicant demonstrate "good cause" for the license, in addition to completing a firearms course and having good moral character, the sheriff has broad discretion in determining who should qualify.

The may-issue states today are California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island (though I've heard mixed things on just how available permits are in Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island). In 1986, this roughly 80%-20% split in favor of broad concealed carry rights was roughly 80%-20% in the opposite direction; one of the key gun control stories of the last 35 years has been the decontrol of concealed carry. Here is the Wikipedia map of the rules as of 2019, county-by-county; it seems generally right, though I can't speak for all the details:

("Constitutional carry" refers to concealed carry being allowed without a license; shall-issue refers to a regime where law enforcement is required to issue a license so long as the recipient is a law-abiding adult who satisfies some largely objective criteria.)

Comments

[MollyGodiva]

We need a national concealed carry license that would have a requirement to have at least 16 hours of in person training. States would be allowed to have less stringent requirements, but not more.

[John Cuyle]

We need states to do that full faith and credit thing and treat concealed carry permits from other states the way they do drivers' permits or marriage permits.

[MollyGodiva]

Maybe, but some states reasonably want people who CC to undergo a background check, and some want training. It is fair to keep those.

[Aktenberg78]

Every state's permit requires a background check. Stop lying.

And I'm okay with training provided that gay men need training and a license to have sodomy. Maybe they can be taught how to wear condoms.

[MollyGodiva]

Constitutional carry states do not have any checks or paperwork at all.

[Kazinski]

But you do have to undergo a background check to buy a weapon, and if you carry when you are legally barred from possession of a firearm then you are just as much a felon as carrying a concealed weapon without a license in a may issue state.

[StellaLink]

"But you do have to undergo a background check to buy a weapon"

That's not true.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair enough: You have to undergo a background check to buy a weapon from a dealer, because the only basis for the requirement is regulating the dealer as a business engaging in interstate commerce.

[Hank Ferrous]

Pedantry makes for a compelling argument when one doesn't explain, simply states 'that's not true,' no? Brett touches on one possible instance you may have been referring to, or maybe you were talking about the imaginary gun show loophole? Or internet sales?

[StellaLink]

It was stated that one had to go through a background check in order to buy a weapon. That's not true and I so stated. Nothing pedantic about it. As everyone with a room temperature or better IQ knows, a background check is only required when the seller is a FFL dealer. Or when FFL dealers are involved because of shipping restrictions, I think.

What Brett was referring to, which is quite obviously what I was referring to as well, is that private sales, or sales by a casual dealer, don't require a background check. Some people call this the "gun show" loophole because private sales ofter occur in and around gun shows. As for internet sales, I've never understood how somebody can buy a gun over the internet without going through a FFL dealer. Except it may be possible if everything is done within one state -- I don't know.

[Brett Bellmore]

You can't "buy" a gun over the internet without going through an FFL dealer, (If only to pick it up at his place of business.) but you can "arrange to" buy a gun over the internet, so long as you complete the purchase face to face.

By the way, you don't actually have to go through a background check for every purchase from an FFL dealer: If you already have a CCW permit, obtaining which itself requires the check, the check isn't necessarily required for individual guns bought within the state that issued the permit.

[Jerry B.]

"“But you do have to undergo a background check to buy a weapon”

That’s not true."

Of course, you can buy one illegally, but then you're still looking at a felony charge (unless you live in D.C., where they seldom charge anyone local with illegal possession of a firearm, and just nail folks from somewhere else and don't know about D.C.'s laws).

Some states do allow personal sales of firearms in state, and some require background checks, and some don't.

[StellaLink]

In 2018 there were 28 states (+-) that had no background check requirements for private sales. Since then, at least one state has changed its law. Sure, it's quite possible to violate the law when purchasing a weapon through a private sale but the point is that it's not hard to buy a weapon without going through a background check. Personally, I would neither buy nor sell a firearm without going through a FFL dealer, But, in Texas, it would be completely legal except for some circumstances.

[Toranth]

Every state that allows private sales also severely limits the number of sales that can take place before it declares you no longer a private seller.
No significant number of guns used in crimes were legally sold through private sales - about 2% of legal sales. 90% of guns used in crimes were from illegal transfers.

It's almost as if these cases have been considered and dealt with in the past 100 years.

[txelen]

Constitutional carry just means that no permit is required to carry a gun. It doesn't mean that a permit is granted with no background check.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You are obviously a closet homosexual. Stop hating yourself.

[Hank Ferrous]

His comment is ignorant, as is yours. My guess is that only one of you is smug.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Why? Do states with higher age limits on marriage refuse to recognize marriages made in states with lower age limits? Do states have differing driving tests and requirements?

[Brett Bellmore]

The RKBA is subject to an absurd number of "because guns" exceptions to the normal treatment of constitutional rights. Hopefully now that the Supreme court has a 5-4 conservative majority again, it will resume taking 2nd amendment cases, and do something about that.

[Dilan Esper]

There is no "normal treatment of constitutional rights". There's different levels of scrutiny and different levels of state interest.

When you invent a gun that only fires messages, not bullets, let me know and we can give it the same treatment as speech.

[BillyG]

So you're saying the 2nd amendment is a 2nd class right?

[Brett Bellmore]

"Different levels of scrutiny" exists mostly to degrade to 2nd class status rights the Supreme court doesn't have a lot of use for. But on that scale, the 2nd amendment is more of a 3rd class right in many states.

[DavidWH]

The difference is that marriage is recognized through the full faith and credit clause and drivers licenses are recognized through the Driver License Agreement between the states.

Drivers licenses and Carry Permits are not "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" while marriage is.

[y81]

And some states will want to maximize opportunities for bribery. Who are we to judge?

[Liftertarian]

“Reasonable” and “Fair”, you say?

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

That "full faith and credit thing" does not require states to recognize out of state permits and licenses. And so you got your wish and didn't even know it. Whether or not a concealed carry permit from one state is recognized by some other state is left entirely to that other state, just like a driver's permit or marriage permit(?) (license).

[Rossami]

I don't believe that's true. This scenario most recently came up in the same-sex marriage litigations. If you get married in state A (which, for example, allowed same-sex marriages early), you were still married and could legally enforce all marriage-related rights even if you subsequently moved to state B.

Drivers licenses are a little different in that they have to be re-issued when you move to another state but until you do change residence, the license must be recognized by the other states. You cannot, for example, be charged in Montana for Driving Without a License just because your license was issued by Delaware.

By analogy, if you have a concealed carry permit issued by state A, state B could require you to re-apply when you move - and maybe even forbid it if they have different rules. But while you're a non-resident who happens to be in state B, they are supposed to honor state A's permit.

[StellaLink]

As to concealed carry permits, some states offer reciprocity, some states don't, and some states have more complicated rules. There is no federal requirement that any state recognize any other state's permit. Take Connecticut, for example. It's my understanding that Connecticut law recognizes no other state's concealed carry permit. If you don't have a CT permit, you can't carry in CT. Maybe exceptions for LEOs and other special cases, don't know.

As to drivers' licenses, I don't believe that there is a federal requirement that out of state drivers' licenses must be recognized, I think that it's just a fact that all the states have agreed to recognize the licenses of all other states.

[Donald O'Shei]

Wyoming, for example, is a constitutional carry state. For a resident no permit is needed to carry there. That does not, however, mean that Wyoming doesn't issue permits. I have one. They require training and a background check and Wyoming issues them specifically so that residents can have reciprocity with other states. The assertion that other states would have to accept carriers with no training or background check is an ill informed canard.

[Cal Cetín]

"Bribe seekers should be reported to the District Attorney's Office, not rewarded with compliance."

Did the victims have a crystal ball telling them that the DA would decide to prosecute? What assurance did they have?

[Pavel Petrovich]

Gonna need a license to exercise 1A soon....the jewish administration of Biden will bury the Constitution.

[MollyGodiva]

Wow. You are an antisemitic shit.

[jjsaz]

That’s the second virulently anti Semitic comment you have made here Dick snot. I pay that one day, a Jewish lawyer refuses your case leading to your lifetime incarceration. You’re a disgrace to yourself and your entire family.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

He's a semi-irregular feature. Doesn't post often, not creatively, always the same drivel. Too boring and repetitive to be a good troll; and dumb enough to make you wonder why here.

[Jerry B.]

I suspect he's the Rev's other personality.

[Aktenberg78]

Anyone participating in an unconstitutional may issue scheme should be prosecuted for violating civil rights. And no, it's unconstitutional because the text of the 2nd Amendment is clear. I don't care about what any judges in the mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (may her memory not be a blessing, and may pork fat be poured on her grave for eternity) ruled.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

According to Kavanaugh’s “text and tradition” standard—traditionally pro-2A states have heavily regulated handguns outside the home so that means states can regulate concealed carry. Now, we do have a right to open carry but it too can be regulated fairly liberally. And another issue with open carry is what appears to have happened with Kyle Rittenhouse in which a suicidal homeless man appears to have instigated a suicide by cop situation because Rittenhouse was open carrying...so with more mentally ill homeless people I would be very careful about open carrying even though we have that right.

[Donald O'Shei]

California, for example, does not allow open carry and in many counties does not, to any practical degree, allow concealed carry.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

That has to do with Reagan peeing his panties when the Black Panthers started open carrying...so for most of California’s history they allowed open carry.

[Bored Lawyer]

Gee, it's almost like granting unfettered discretion to local authorities to grant licenses to an activity the public wants to do leads to corruption. Who could have predicted that?

[KevinP]

It's a feature, not a bug.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

Please explain to the class how shall-issue concealed carry can be "Constitutional carry" when concealed carry is not a constitutional right. Certainly not under the Federal Constitution, and I doubt under any state's constitution, let alone those labeled as constitutional carry.

You wrote, "Constitutional carry" refers to concealed carry being allowed without a license..."

Please visit my website - https://CaliforniaOpenCarry.com

[MollyGodiva]

“Constitutional carry” is a political marketing term, albeit a good one.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

“Constitutional carry” is a political marketing term, albeit a good one."

"Constitutional" is too big of a word for the morons who believe it.

Don't take my word for it. The next time you come across someone who tells you concealed carry is, or is part of, "Constitutional" carry, ask him to spell "constitutional."

And then put the icing on the cake by asking him to spell "illiterate."

[JSinAZ]

Nice! Now do literacy testing as a voter requirement with emphasis on the ignorant “other” who ought to be weeded from serious society; it would fit this thematic mode in many ways.

[ThePublius]

Please explain to the class how concealed carry is not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

[MollyGodiva]

Because one can reasonably read "A well regulated...." to allow limitations on CC. It is a matter of interpretation.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

"Please explain to the class how concealed carry is not covered by the 2nd Amendment."

The very first thing the Supreme Court said in Section III of the Heller decision (the section that told us what the Second Amendment is not) is that prohibiting concealed carry does not infringe the Second Amendment right.

All four justices in the minority agreed with the five justices in the majority that concealed carry is not a 2A right.

5 justices plus 4 justices = 9 justices = a unanimous court in agreement that concealed carry is not a right.

That answers your "how." The "why" goes back to at least ca 1260 in England when simply carrying a concealed weapon was punished by life in prison.

Now it's your turn to explain how and why the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to concealed carry.

[JSinAZ]

So in Griswold, the court can announce that there are penumbra and eminences from the Constitution that disallow states’ anti-contraception laws, and yet the actual Constitutional text that (yes, with the hand-wave toward the need to maintain the nations’ independence) states flatly that Congress “shall make no law” requires additional argument?

Really, isn’t this just pretense now? Cut to the chase and start that call for a Constitutional Convention wherein those pesky amendments can be trimmed as needed: it would be a veritable boon for our Progressive Future to come; mankind can be perfected if only we could make scary things against the law.

[Charles Nichols - CRTC]

JSinAZ - SCOTUS can decide whatever it wants. It can, and has, decided whether and when a tomato is a vegetable and when it is a fruit. And, as a matter of law, it is right.

Take abortion for example. A right to abortion is something SCOTUS pulled out of its ass. But unless and until some future court overrules Roe v. Wade, the fiction that abortion is a right will remain a legal reality.

The Heller decision was a gift to the owners of handguns. There was plenty of case law SCOTUS could have cited to hold that firearms that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed are not arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead, the majority in Heller chose Nunn (likewise Chandler) to label as the case that perfectly captured the meaning of the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A decade ago, I was still applauding that choice. Today, I think it was a mistake. Allow the possession of firearms that are easily carried concealed and there will be tens of millions of cowards, criminals, and immoral bottom-dwellers who will carry them concealed.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

In other words: conclusion first, rationale last.

[JSinAZ]

I’m unsure of your particular point; cowards, criminals and immoral bottom-dwellers already carry concealed at will whether it is within a state or county on the map colored red, yellow or blue. In those areas labeled green, I’m not aware of any statistics supporting the notion that a tide of newly-empowered criminals committing weapons crimes with concealed firearms has made an appearance.
Are you?

[ThePublius]

First, you state "The very first thing the Supreme Court said in Section III of the Heller decision (the section that told us what the Second Amendment is not) is that prohibiting concealed carry does not infringe the Second Amendment right." That is not so. They cite 19th century decisions restricting concealed carry as an example that the right isn't absolute, but never say, as you contend, that "prohibiting concealed carry does not infringe the Second Amendment right." If they come to that conclusion somewhere and state it unequivocally, I can't find it in the decision.

My interpretation of the 2nd is that it doesn't make ANY distinction between concealed and open carry, it only says that keeping and bearing are not to be infringed. Is "bearing," in your mind, meant to describe displaying arms for public view? Not in mine. There are many cases where one might protect the arm form the ravages of weather, and also from the view of those who might be alarmed by the presence of an arm, or those inclined to steal it. One might make a similar analogy regarding cash. Criminals conceal cash used in criminal enterprises, should we require honest citizens to carry it in clear view? Why?

[VinniUSMC]

I believe, but certainly could be wrong, that the interpretation of Heller is something more along the lines of "States may Constitutionally prohibit open carry, or prohibit concealed carry, but not both at the same time".

[Brett Bellmore]

The right is to carry. A state has to allow some form of carry, but has a choice about whether it's open or concealed, or both.

Though I'd say that, as a matter of historical practice, open carry is very much favored.

The problem is that 2nd amendment jurisprudence is very underdeveloped relative to other rights, because the Supreme court did Heller and McDonald, and then resumed dodging the issue for, so far, a decade.

[Hank Ferrous]

Exactly so, he is wrong in his interpretation of Heller, and being a dick about it, from what I can see.

[Harvey Mosley]

Let me get this straight. Government agents solicit a bribe for a permit on a Constitutional right and the citizen who pays the bribe gets arrested?

[mulch]

Watch as the DA cuts a deal with the crooked cops to testify against the permit-seekers they extorted.

[JSinAZ]

Following previous examples, we can expect that potentially embarrassing information held by the government on private citizens will be released to the media in order to put the squeeze on anyone not able to implicate an otherwise un-indicted official.

[Jerry B.]

"Your Honor, our clients had never been instructed that taking a bribe in $100 bills was illegal, because all previous bribery cases involved $20 bills."

"Qualified immunity. Case dismissed."

[MollyGodiva]

You have that correct. It is very difficult now to nail government officials for bribery, SCOTUS has seen to that.

[Jimmy the Dane]

New Jersey is basically no issue. The courts won't even issue permits to people who have successfully sought PFA orders that have been violated by the respondent. Also business owners who carry large sums of cash and/or valuables have been refused permits by the courts (upheld on appeal in dozens of cases.) Saw a public records request that showed only a few thousand active permits in the entire state. (Those are probably armored car drivers, private security, detectives, and quasi-law enforcement that can't carry as a matter of statute who can generally get highly restricted carry permits, but only after going through a lengthy process.)

Delaware is a little bit more of a mixed bag. You can open carry without a permit everywhere except Dover (local ordinance that is grandfathered) and permits are available but you have to go through a rather expensive court proceeding. Up north, they are harder to get but down south (in lower slower DE) they are much easier to get from a judge.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

How cute: hockey for Valentine's Day.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

I've lived in New Jersey most of my life, when I left I was shocked at the amount of guns that people own everywhere.

Honesty, imo, if someone wants a gun for hunting or sport or to protect themselves at home, they ought to have a right to do so. But I dont really understand why people need to carry a weapon on them at all times.

I dont know the history of the 2nd amendment, so I dont know how courts should rule on it ... but purely as a pragmatic matter, why do people need to carry weapons on them? I only see it can cause trouble, someone gets angry enough to punch someone but instead of a fist fight, which at most will end up with someone spending the night in jail and maybe a fine, ususally nothing will even happen ... you wind up with a dead guy and some other guy getting charged with murder.

I'm relatively conservative, but I guess I've never been around guns so I never got the appeal. Would anyone explain why carrying it is so important?

[Liftertarian]

Why does it have to be a “need” and not a “want”?

People have died after being punched once.

[JSinAZ]

You ought to ask a tow-truck driver about that; I did during an 80-mile tow when my car broke down miles from where I wanted to be. His line of work meant that he was dealing with very distressed, potentially intoxicated individuals on dark roads far from anywhere.

Seriously, though: do you really not envision that someone who lives away from law enforcement might rationally feel inclined to be able to act in defense during the time before assistance arrives?

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Why do people have home fire extinguishers? Why do people have fire extinguishers in their cars? Why do phones recognize 9-1-1 at all times, even when there is no SIM card? Why do people wear seat belts? Why do cars have anti-lock brakes? Why do motorcyclists wear helmets and heavy thick riding suits even in summer?

[Noscitur a sociis]

Would anyone explain why carrying it is so important?

Sometimes there are dangerous situations outside of your house.

[Doug Huffman]

Carrying a gun is important for the same reasons that wearing a CoViD mask is important, and a bicycle helmet, and a fire extinguisher, SAFETY-ISM. It’s for the chilldrun! (A la Joycelyn Elders SG).

[Brett Bellmore]

To be fair, people outside New Jersey are frequently shocked at just how will people living in New Jersey are to submit to a police state.

Anyway, it's a "right". This means it's not a question of "need", it's a question of "want". "Rights" are what you get to do without having to convince anybody else you need to do it.

[Hank Ferrous]

Some people choose to not depend on other people for everything once they have grown past childhood. This includes providing for their own defense.

[Ed Grinberg]

I dont know the history of the 2nd amendment...

Here's a free tutorial:
Bunch of colonists decided the king and Parliament were oppressing them; declared independence; fought an eight-year war; won. They then agreed to set up a federal government, but only after certain rights (of the people) were specifically listed (to prevent oppression by the new federal government). The second item on the list was "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms."
(The "and bear" part tells you "how courts should rule on" the question of whether people should be able to carry guns in public.)

I’ve never been around guns so I never got the appeal. Would anyone explain why carrying it is so important?

"The appeal" is being able to defend oneself and one's loved ones from bad people. You really couldn't come up with that on your own?!

[Harvey Mosley]

Look at the map above. If the "blood in the streets" scenario you describe had any basis in reality the anti-gun mainstream media would be shouting it from the rooftops daily. As it is the statistics I've seen show that crimes by CCWers are less than that of LEOs. In fact the crime rate of CCWers is statistically insignifigant.

[BillyG]

I’m relatively conservative, but I guess I’ve never been around guns so I never got the appeal. Would anyone explain why carrying it is so important?

I'll give you a few examples.

Imagine, if you will, you're at the mall. Some mentally ill person decides the sign out front saying "Gun Free Zone" doesn't matter and goes on a shooting spree. Would you be better off with only your fists? The people at the Mayfair Mall in Milwaukee were just as harmless as you.

A co-worker of my Girlfriend was murdered on his way home from work. It was an pre-planned attempted robbery where they decided to kill him.

I was at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007. I was in a building next to Norris Hall where a mentally ill person decided to murder a bunch of his fellow students.

Crime, Assaults, and Murders don't all take place in your home. Why should you be defenseless when you leave? Do you think the businesses you visit accept responsibility for your safety?

[TangoDelta]

All isn't rosy even in "shall issue" states. Thanks to ancient Jim Crow laws in places like NC where you need to get a handgun purchase permit from the county sheriff and be of "good moral character" [formerly(?) translated as "be white"] in order to buy a handgun you'll find there's often a backlog of 90 days or more in some counties because "Covid". A rifle or shotgun is easy because no "good moral character" applies and the very same NICS system they ulitmately use for handguns works just fine without the backlog.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, the NICS system works fine right now. It's anybody's guess whether it will be working fine a year from now; It wouldn't be the first time a Democratic President screwed with the NICS system to inconvenience people trying to buy guns, or turn background checks into covert gun registration.

[John F. Carr]

The map of Massachusetts is misleading. The map is by county.
Permits are granted by cities and towns, not counties. Under the old regime licenses were granted based on the whim of the police chief. In some towns you could get an unrestricted license ("all lawful purposes") as long as you weren't legally prohibited from having a gun. In some cities you wouldn't get a permit without connections, and it was likely to be very limited in scope. Under the new rules, as I understand them, the burden of proof is on the police chief to provide a legitimate reason to refuse a license.

[Brett Bellmore]

I gather his mistake was assuming that he was entitled to get the bribes. The bribes are supposed to be paid directly to the Democratic party in the form of donations.

[Absaroka]

Perhaps worth remembering: Apple today, Facebook a couple of months ago.

I'm surprised they didn't do the Bloomberg 'hire retired cops who can carry via LEOSA' thing.

[Brett Bellmore]

That certainly describes Heller. Even the Miller decision paid the 2nd amendment more respect; Miller would have won if anybody had pointed out a sawn off shot gun had military utility. Scalia severed the 2nd amendment entirely from its military basis.