PDA

View Full Version : CCW in The OC is in the news again


marklbucla
11-11-2008, 9:20 PM
Sounds like Hutchens now understands that this is an important issue!

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-gunpermits12-2008nov12,0,5895873.story?track=rss

From the Los Angeles Times
Orange County sheriff's crackdown on gun permits comes under fire
Gun-rights advocates and some permit holders say the review of concealed weapons permits violates the 2nd Amendment. Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is surprised by the reaction.
By Stuart Pfeifer

November 12, 2008

In her first five months in office, newly appointed Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens has brought in a new management team, fired deputies accused of misconduct and tried to distance the department from the legacy of her indicted predecessor, Michael S. Carona.

But the most controversy she has generated has been her decision to review the concealed weapons permits issued by Carona.

Hutchens said she was concerned that more than 1,100 people held concealed carry permits issued by the former sheriff -- nearly three times the number of permits issued in Los Angeles County. She assigned a lieutenant to review each concealed weapons permit to determine whether the holder had a valid reason for carrying a weapon in public and whether these were people whose safety was at risk.

In the months that followed, the department sent 422 letters to permit holders, warning them that they could lose their licenses unless they could provide the department with valid reasons for having them.

The crackdown has infuriated gun-rights advocates and some permit holders, who accuse Hutchens of violating their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. They have addressed the county Board of Supervisors, demanding intervention, and have threatened to back an opponent to challenge Hutchens' reelection in 2010.

"My office has been inundated with e-mails and quite a few phone calls," said Supervisor Chris Norby. "They're concerned and confused as to what's going on."

Hutchens said she was surprised by the reaction. "There's so much important stuff going on with the department, I didn't expect there to be so much feedback on this," she said.

Under California law, sheriffs and police chiefs may issue a concealed carry permit to anyone with "good cause," or a legitimate reason, to carry a firearm in public. The law grants law enforcement executives broad discretion in issuing the permits.

As a result, the number of permits varies widely throughout the state -- with rural counties such as Fresno, Kern and Tulare at the top of the list.

Norby intends to ask his colleagues on Nov. 18 to adopt a new county policy that would require the sheriff to renew all previously issued permits unless the holder committed a crime or misused the permit.

"It's not like there's too many of them out there, relative to our population," Norby said. "I don't think it's excessive, so I don't see the need to reduce them."

Even if the board approved Norby's resolution, there is little chance that it would be binding on the sheriff. State law mandates that sheriffs, not county supervisors, set department policy, said Mario Mainero, chief of staff for Supervisor John Moorlach and a Chapman University law professor. He called the resolution "unconstitutional, illegal and void."

"State law puts it squarely in the sheriffs' arena and that's what county counsel is going to be telling them," Hutchens said.

But Norby said he is responding to what he believes are the legitimate concerns of permit holders and wants to send Hutchens a message, binding or not. "The board owes it to the sheriff to let her know how we feel and we owe it to our constituents," he said.

Hutchens said she doesn't believe this is a 2nd Amendment issue. She said she is doing nothing to prevent people from owning guns; she is simply limiting those people who will be allowed to carry them in public. "What if someone who had been issued a [concealed carry permit] by Carona went out and hurt someone? It certainly wouldn't look good for the county," Hutchens said.

Testimony at Carona's ongoing corruption trial has shed new light on the issuance of concealed weapons permits, which soared during the nine years he served as sheriff.

Former Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl testified that Carona appointed some of his campaign contributors to a volunteer team whose members were issued badges and concealed weapons permits. "In light of the testimony in former Sheriff Carona's trial that he, in essence, sold [concealed carry permits], she has an obligation to look at these," Mainero said.

Said Hutchens: "I would hope that the supervisors are watching the trial."

Pfeifer is a Times staff writer.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

nick
11-11-2008, 10:20 PM
"What if someone who had been issued a [concealed carry permit] by Carona went out and hurt someone? It certainly wouldn't look good for the county," Hutchens said.

What's to prevent the same person to do it without a permit? It's amazing that people just take these arguments seriously.

On the side note, I can imagine this kind of argument coming from my rather airheaded ex-girlfriend. Isn't Hutchens supposed to be experienced and have some degree of intelligence?

nick
11-11-2008, 10:26 PM
Duplicate post.

56Chevy
11-11-2008, 11:07 PM
Isn't Hutchens supposed to be experienced and have some degree of intelligence?
A snail has some degree of intelligence.:rolleyes:

nicki
11-11-2008, 11:53 PM
Will someone who is going to the meeting please ask the supervisors if they support what Art 1 Sec 7B of the California Constitution regarding equal protection says:

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or
revoked.

After asking all of them the question, follow up with, how can you apply the current ccw "good cause" process under this constitutional restriction without violating someones rights.

Ask, why can't we just scrap discriminatory ccw issue since 40 other states have non discriminatory issue policies and problems with people who legally carry guns is rare.

Officially sanctioned discrimination is a violation of the public trust.



Nicki

dreyna14
11-11-2008, 11:56 PM
Hutchens said she doesn't believe this is a 2nd Amendment issue. She said she is doing nothing to prevent people from owning guns; she is simply limiting those people who will be allowed to carry them in public. "What if someone who had been issued a [concealed carry permit] by Carona went out and hurt someone? It certainly wouldn't look good for the county," Hutchens said.

Doesn't believe it's a 2A issue? Maybe she's never read the 2A.

keep=own
bear=carry

And yes, it is as simple as that.

nick
11-11-2008, 11:57 PM
A snail has some degree of intelligence.:rolleyes:

Nope, it has reflexes, i.e. involuntary responses to changing conditions. I mean, actual intelligence, something possessed by humans and higher mammals.

Lee F. Smith
11-12-2008, 12:08 AM
Nope, it has reflexes, i.e. involuntary responses to changing conditions. I mean, actual intelligence, something possessed by humans and higher mammals.

Yep that would be her...;)

pnkssbtz
11-12-2008, 1:29 AM
Doesn't believe it's a 2A issue? Maybe she's never read the 2A.

keep=own
bear=carry

And yes, it is as simple as that.

Hutchins is the sherrif, not SCOTUS Judge, she doesn't get to make that decision.

56Chevy
11-12-2008, 7:00 AM
Nope, it has reflexes, i.e. involuntary responses to changing conditions. I mean, actual intelligence, something possessed by humans and higher mammals.
I meant to say a dog, but I wanted to pick something dumb.

RomanDad
11-12-2008, 7:10 AM
Hutchins is the sherrif, not SCOTUS Judge, she doesn't get to make that decision.

Thats not true.... Nothing prevents her from reading the 2nd Amendment and 12050 CORRECTLY as the MAJORITY of other sheriffs in the state do.... Where do you see that her hands are tied? We have a supreme court decision that says the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to SELF DEFENSE. She took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. She doesnt have to WAIT for a Supreme Court decision to specifically apply the document to HER OFFICE for her to DO THE RIGHT THING.

tomhenry
11-12-2008, 8:49 AM
"My office has been inundated with e-mails and quite a few phone calls," said Supervisor Chris Norby. "They're concerned and confused as to what's going on."

Hutchens said she was surprised by the reaction. "There's so much important stuff going on with the department, I didn't expect there to be so much feedback on this," she said.


Typical. How'd this broad get to be sheriff, anyway? That's an elected position, right? Can't OC recall her?

RomanDad
11-12-2008, 8:56 AM
Typical. How'd this broad get to be sheriff, anyway? That's an elected position, right? Can't OC recall her?
She was appointed by the Board of Supervisors to replace Mike Carona when he was indicted.

Glock22Fan
11-12-2008, 9:09 AM
Don't forget the meeting on the 18th. That's next Tuesday. Orange County gun owners would like a big turnout.

Dan M.
11-12-2008, 9:14 AM
Don't forget the meeting on the 14th. That's only two days off. Orange County gun owners would like a big turnout.

18th! The meeting's on the 18th! But don't forget anyway!

CalNRA
11-12-2008, 10:13 AM
Hutchins is the sherrif, not SCOTUS Judge, she doesn't get to make that decision.

she does. She decides her policy on CCW, so on the ground she has more power than the SCOTUS justices. She could implement shall-issue if she wanted to, so it is a choice that is up to her.

GaryPowersLives
11-12-2008, 10:24 AM
she does. She decides her policy on CCW, so on the ground she has more power than the SCOTUS justices. She could implement shall-issue if she wanted to, so it is a choice that is up to her.

But she is required to apply it consistently. The notice of intention to revoke that are being sent out are not being handled consistently.

CalNRA
11-12-2008, 10:33 AM
But she is required to apply it consistently. The notice of intention to revoke that are being sent out are not being handled consistently.

that would make her either anti-CCW or just plain incompetent.

pnkssbtz
11-12-2008, 10:37 AM
she does. She decides her policy on CCW, so on the ground she has more power than the SCOTUS justices. She could implement shall-issue if she wanted to, so it is a choice that is up to her.
No, she gets to decide ONLY what constitutes "Good Cause" and "Good Moral Character".

She DOES NOT get to decide the definition of what being a "resident of the county" is and she doesn't get to decide if CCW is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Alan Block
11-12-2008, 10:53 AM
she needs to review good cause statements although good cause could be anything from 'Self Protection' to 'MS13 has tried to kill me 16 times'. I dont think she has the option of declaring a shall-issue policy.

RomanDad
11-12-2008, 10:57 AM
No, she gets to decide ONLY what constitutes "Good Cause" and "Good Moral Character".

She DOES NOT get to decide the definition of what being a "resident of the county" is and she doesn't get to decide if CCW is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

You're wrong on the 2nd amendment thing....

She could very easily say "Ive read the Heller decision, and based on that there is clearly an individual right to self defense, and the way we regulate that in California is CCW. Therefore Im going to spare the county the expense of being sued and make my policy "Individual Self Defense" as the constitutionally protected definition of "good cause." "

If the sheriff thinks "good cause" beyond that threshold violates the rights of her constituents shes under no obligation to continue the abuse of power. Any more than a sheriff in Alabama in 1956 had a duty to prohibit African Americans from eating at a segregated lunch counter, because Brown v. Board only covered desegregation in schools.

Elected officials with discretion (as most have in the conduct of their duties) are under NO OBLIGATION to act in a way that DENIES people rights because the SUPREME COURT HASN'T SPOKEN ON AN ISSUE YET.

GaryPowersLives
11-12-2008, 10:58 AM
she needs to review good cause statements although good cause could be anything from 'Self Protection' to 'MS13 has tried to kill me 16 times'. I dont think she has the option of declaring a shall-issue policy.


She cannot "declare" OC as shall-issue, but she can lower the threshold on what is good cause to 'self-protection' making it effectively shall issue.

Liberty1
11-12-2008, 11:00 AM
Don't forget the meeting on the 14th. That's only two days off. Orange County gun owners would like a big turnout.


NO, it's on NOV 18th http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=128865

ATTENTION SOUTHERN CALIFNORNIA CCW HOLDERS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This applies most directly to those in Orange County, but anybody within driving distance (Los Angeles, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Kern counties) is urged to read and consider acting.

If you have a current CCW, or if you have recently been denied or revoked by Sheriff Hutchens, you need to know that on November 18, 2008, Sheriff Hutchens will be addressing the Orange County Board of Supervisors regarding the recent implementation of her new CCW policy. The Board needs to see that CCW is a vitally important issue to the citizens of Orange County, and that other counties are watching what is happening in Orange County. The best way for that to happen is to have people in that meeting room to show their support.

RomanDad
11-12-2008, 11:01 AM
she needs to review good cause statements although good cause could be anything from 'Self Protection' to 'MS13 has tried to kill me 16 times'. I dont think she has the option of declaring a shall-issue policy.

Nope... She cant make california "shall issue". Thats correct. Only the Legislature or the Courts can change that. (and the AG could go a long way to making the case as well).


However, each and every sheriff has the legal authority to say "self defense" is sufficient good cause,and then that county basically becomes SHALL ISSUE, because "Self defense or Personal protection" are OBJECTIVE STANDARDS that anybody can meet regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation, employment status, or socio-political status. (as Kern, San Bernardino and many others already are).

NOTHING in 12050 prevents her from making her COUNTY SHALL ISSUE if thats what she thinks is right.

383green
11-12-2008, 11:10 AM
No, she gets to decide ONLY what constitutes "Good Cause" and "Good Moral Character".

This statement led me to think about how I would want to administrate CCW issuance if I was in her shoes. Although I believe that we should have shall-issue, that is not presently what we have in California. If I was in her shoes, I would consider it my responsibility to use the discretion that I was given, even if my policy was very close to shall-issue.

This brought up a question in my mind: Is it legally required that "Good Cause" and "Good Moral Character" be considered independently and each judged against a single inflexible standard, or can the two be considered in combination? In other words, can the required level of good cause be adjusted based on the goodness of the applicant's moral character, or are the two things independent binary values?

I am curious about this, because in this hypothetical situation, I would prefer to enact my CCW policy as follows:

1) Applicants with no prior convictions of violent crimes shall be assumed to have good moral character. For these applicants, a desire for "self-protection" shall be considered good cause, without the need to elaborate specific threats or risks. This would essentially be a rubber-stamp shall-issue for eligible applicants with no prior convictions of violent crimes.

2) Applicants with any prior conviction of a violent crime shall be considered to have diminished moral character vs. applicants with no such convictions. However, I would wish to use my discretion to determine whether their combination of cause and moral character would still justify CCW issuance. For these applicants, specific threats and/or risk factors would need to be elaborated and documented, such as death threats, carrying large sums of money, etc. These would be the usual things that are considered "good cause" here in California. Discretion would be used to determine whether their moral character is sufficient, and their cause and character would be considered together to determine whether they get their permit.

3) Renewals would be rubber-stamped as long as nothing has changed in the applicant's criminal record.


Would such a policy be legal, or would it be considered an unfair double standard?

Glock22Fan
11-12-2008, 11:19 AM
18th! The meeting's on the 18th! But don't forget anyway!

Sorry! Thanks for the correction, I'll alter my post.

JDay
11-12-2008, 11:30 AM
she does. She decides her policy on CCW, so on the ground she has more power than the SCOTUS justices. She could implement shall-issue if she wanted to, so it is a choice that is up to her.

Someone should find out if she's issued herself a CCW.

GaryPowersLives
11-12-2008, 11:35 AM
Someone should find out if she's issued herself a CCW.

She doesn't need it, she is sworn.

nick
11-12-2008, 1:35 PM
Hutchins is the sherrif, not SCOTUS Judge, she doesn't get to make that decision.

Per CA legislature, she does.

nick
11-12-2008, 1:42 PM
2) Applicants with any prior conviction of a violent crime shall be considered to have diminished moral character vs. applicants with no such convictions. However, I would wish to use my discretion to determine whether their combination of cause and moral character would still justify CCW issuance. For these applicants, specific threats and/or risk factors would need to be elaborated and documented, such as death threats, carrying large sums of money, etc. These would be the usual things that are considered "good cause" here in California. Discretion would be used to determine whether their moral character is sufficient, and their cause and character would be considered together to determine whether they get their permit.

That probably wouldn't fly, and I'm not sure it should in the first place. Such people wouldn't be able to buy a gun, anyway.

CalNRA
11-14-2008, 2:34 AM
I should clarify. When I say she could make it "shall-issue" I don't mean coming out and say "anyone without a record can get one". The discretion that she exercise is the key, as already been pointed out, the "good cause" and "good character" are the two hurdles that the anti-CCW sheriffs set to limit the number of permits issued. She could DECIDE that "protection of one' family" to be a good enough "good cause". It is up to her to set her policy within guidelines of the law, which in California the law is surprisingly open barring the conduct of the CLEOs.