CA Law & YouTube Policy Ensured Law-Abiding Employees are Unarmed

As usual, police arrived in time to roll out the yellow tape.

USA – -( The nation’s eyes have been riveted on the unfolding story Tuesday of a speculated “workplace shooting” at YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California, that has resulted in at several people being wounded and the shooter, reportedly a “white woman wearing  a headscarf,” reportedly died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Much is yet unknown as bits of information that may or may not pan out make their way through various reports, such as witnesses say the woman shot her boyfriend and authorities don’t think this an act of is terrorism.

We’ll learn more in coming days, although with the way officials can keep information to themselves, we’ll have to see what they choose to share, and significantly, what we later find out they have not. But despite the uncertainty, there are a few things that we do know. While CBS News is reporting “YouTube already employed armed security guards around the campus,” individual employees obeying the law and company policy were and are essentially sitting ducks.

First, the state's penal code effectively bans public open carry of handguns, and California is a “may issue” concealed carry permit state. That means — especially in urban areas — politically-minded police chiefs and sheriffs most likely will not issue approval unless a citizen is prominent and well-connected.

Even if you could get a permit, it would do you no good on YouTube’s campus.  As a subsidiary of Google, the following “safe workplace” policy is in effect:

“We are committed to a violence-free work environment, and we will not tolerate any level of violence or the threat of violence in the workplace. Under no circumstances should anyone bring a weapon to work. If you become aware of a violation of this policy, you should report it to Human Resources immediately. In case of potential violence, contact Google Security.”

That’s assuming the guards could hustle through the 200,000 square foot facility and get to a shooting location in time to stop an armed attacker — which they clearly could not.

Basically, the only option employees and visitors to YouTube’s campus have is what we saw unfold on television news reports: If not among the victims, wait for armed authorities to show up and then run out with their hands in the air and await the official groping.

The other thing that's clear is that the perp broke all kinds of “gun control” edicts just to transport and carry the firearm before she ever fired a shot. The required background checks and  waiting periods and registration and host of other edicts didn't seem to slow her down either. Despite California's “award-winning” gun laws, none of them made the least bit of difference in stopping this — nor can they.


“The NBC Bay Area Investigative Unit has confirmed the identity of the shooter who opened fire on YouTube’s campus in San Bruno Tuesday. Nasim Aghdam, 39, lived in Southern California and appears to have had a robust presence on YouTube.”

She self-identified as an Iranian vegan. Her website appears to have been taken down. Here's the archive link via The Wayback Machine.

About David Codrea:David Codrea

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 12 thoughts on “CA Law & YouTube Policy Ensured Law-Abiding Employees are Unarmed

    1. Feinstein commented that we NEED stricter gun laws, almost immediately. How could it be possible for commiefornia to have stronger gun laws unless Feinstein gives her gun up and those of her armed guards.
      This muslim that shot things up at boob tube did it because she didn’t like their policies. The only better place this could happened would have been farcebook.

      1. She was an Iranian “refugee.” Yet another benefit of our vibrant and diverse immigration policy.

    2. Should make for interesting piggy slop from the Left and the putrid politicians. Wonder what the relic Pelosi will regurgitate? Bound to be epic stuff….

    3. Depending on what part of So California is her den, she could easily have gotten a Mother May I Card and been transporting and carrying a loaded handgun legally. I know Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino counties have a pretty solid shall issue policy. Of course, the company Certified Defenseless Victim Zone policy may make the locals feel a bit more secure, knowing the “thoughts ahd feelings” behind it. But in reality, until TSA style airport security is imposed on the campus, any dirtbag can simply bring their own, as now proven, undetected. U til its too late and the Only Ones to have guns are all at least seventy two seconds away. Oh, just a minute, hold tight till I grab my roll of yellow tape…….

      Interesting the new twist….. when I first caught wind of the “active shooter at YooToob HQ in San Bruno I thought “someone does not like their new antigun vid policy and is “expressing their dissatisfaction”. The recent update is not definitve yet, but it certaily does lean in that direction.

      Just think……. how many honest harmless employees were within range when the perp opened fire? How many of the harmless MIGHT have been armed and skilled were it not for company insanity, er, policy?

    4. she’s an animal rights activist?, she’s a vegan?, hmmm, she doesnt believe in shooting animals, but she shoots people, go figure

    5. This is probably the best policy for Crappyfornia as it ensures a reduction in the population of idiots who think gun free zones actually do something other than make some people feel good. Me? I see a GFZ and I worry….for the very reason this article points to.

      1. Oh, hell no! Don’t reduce the number of TAX PAYERS in California please ! Just hastens the Federal Bailout they are going to tell us we have to pay for.

    6. Between 1994 and 2014, there were 1200 instances of attacks by eco / animal rights warriors. So much so that the FBI listed them as the number 1 domestic terror threat so this should not come as a surprise.
      You Tube is closing down gun channels so the personalities there just change to another forum, meanwhile one eco/animal rights warrior loses it and thinks that it would be a good idea to shoot up the forum that she believes is filtering her.
      Which ones are the most rational?

    7. Wait, this is illegal in CA who have some of the strictest gun laws in the country. So this couldn’t happen in CA. The anti-gun left says so all the time.

    Comments are closed.