PDA

View Full Version : Sheriff revokes gun permit for GOP heavyhitter


eazyle
03-20-2009, 3:40 PM
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/hutchens-permits-county-2341444-gun-issue

Mike Schroeder, also a Carona adviser, said he will fight revocation.
BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register
Comments 30 | Recommend 6

Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is taking aim at the most politically charged gun permit in Orange County.

Hutchens this week notified attorney Mike Schroeder, the main adviser and closest ally to former Sheriff Mike Carona, that she is terminating his permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Schroeder, the former chairman of the state Republican Party, said he's not happy and plans to fight back.

"I believe that the action they are taking violates the law. And I'm reviewing what my legal options are at this point," Schroeder said. "I do believe that the sheriff has very broad discretion as to whether or not to issue a CCW, yet her claims that the law requires her to refuse to issue CCWS in most circumstances is simply false."

Schroeder added, "She should own the fact that she comes from a Los Angeles law enforcement perspective that is anti-gun and simply doesn't want most people to be able to receive a (permit)."

Hutchens, a former administrator with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, was out of town Friday and could not be reached for comment.

She has repeatedly argued that Carona granted permits to individuals who did not show good cause under state law.

Schroeder, a key Republican fundraiser, was a central figure in the Carona administration until an October 2007 federal indictment forced the sheriff to resign.

Carona was acquitted of most charges but is awaiting sentencing on one count of witness tampering. He favored handing out concealed gun permits, seeing it as a second amendment issue. Under his tenure, Orange County's permits soared.

Yet federal prosecutors questioned in their indictment whether Carona used the permits to reward campaign donors. Indeed, a Register analysis of gun permits found that at least 95 permits were from campaign supporters who generated more than $68,000 in donations.

Shortly after her appointment on a 3-2 vote by county supervisors last summer, Hutchens announced that she would tighten the rules for getting concealed weapons permits.

County supervisors have held three separate hearings on her gun permit plans since last fall, while the issue has triggered a political firestorm for Hutchens. Supervisors at one point adopted a resolution calling on her to revise her stance.

California allows sheriffs across the state broad discretion on how they distribute concealed gun permits. Yet Hutchens points to a 1977 Attorney General opinion that she said limits her discretion.

At the urging of county supervisors, Hutchens froze revocations temporarily and has spent the last few months working with the California Department of Justice to develop a way that would allow her to take back the permits without harming the person's record.

Before negotiations began with the California DOJ, Hutchens said her department had sent out 423 revocation letters out of more than 1100 current permits.

At a supervisors meeting last month, Hutchens said her negotiations were almost over and the revocations would begin again.

Schroeder, echoing the sentiments of gun advocates, said Hutchens is making a big mistake challenging gun ownership in Orange County.

"There's a reason why all five supervisors are distancing themselves from her, acting as if they couldn't pick her out of a line up," he said. "It's because the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is still a deeply held belief in Orange County and it's an emotional issue."

Others, such as the Orange County Grand Jury, disagree.

Last month, the panel examined the gun permit issue and came down solidly behind Hutchens, arguing that her revisions were reasonable. They also advised county supervisors to "let the sheriff do her job."

"An orderly society is the goal," concluded their report. "Public safety is the paramount consideration. The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant. The immediate revocation will get the issue back to square one. At that time, deserving individuals will qualify and others will be denied."

Contact the writer: 714-796-2221 or nsantana@ocregister.com

yellowfin
03-20-2009, 3:49 PM
Finally someone to take her to task, hopefully to sue for every dime she'll make for the next 3 decades.

Untamed1972
03-20-2009, 3:54 PM
This line right here says it all!!!


"An orderly society is the goal," concluded their report. "Public safety is the paramount consideration. The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant. The immediate revocation will get the issue back to square one. At that time, deserving individuals will qualify and others will be denied."

sgtlmj
03-20-2009, 4:14 PM
Public clamor reaching the ears of politicians is how representative gov't works, if I'm not mistaken. Sounds like she needs to repeat some classes.

pnkssbtz
03-20-2009, 4:50 PM
She has repeatedly argued that Carona granted permits to individuals who did not show good cause under state law.
I thought state law was Sheriff Discretion?

And since Corona was a sheriff at the time, that his discretion as to what constitutes "Good Cause" was valid.


She can't both argue that Corona's "Good Cause" was not good under state law and then equally argue that her "Good Cause" is legit without contradicting herself.

Untamed1972
03-20-2009, 5:08 PM
I thought state law was Sheriff Discretion?

And since Corona was a sheriff at the time, that his discretion as to what constitutes "Good Cause" was valid.


She can't both argue that Corona's "Good Cause" was not good under state law and then equally argue that her "Good Cause" is legit without contradicting herself.

Roger that! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Hopefully the lawyeers will shred her on that contradiction.

tiki
03-20-2009, 6:00 PM
Public clamor reaching the ears of politicians is how representative gov't works, if I'm not mistaken. Sounds like she needs to repeat some classes.

I think that was the wording from the grand jury report. So, one idiot is backed by a panel of others.

zachary2287
03-20-2009, 6:29 PM
Yeah that was the grand jury. As much as Hutchens disgusts me, when I first read what the grand jury said when their report was released nearly made me vomit.

:63:"Public safety is the paramount consideration.":52:

eazyle
03-20-2009, 6:54 PM
There are too many idiots commenting on the article so far... :mad:

dreyna14
03-20-2009, 7:00 PM
As much as I hate this b****, I think this may be a fast track to a shall issue ruling here in CA. Any judge with half a brain will be able to see the "good cause" as a means of abuse from her actions and overturn both her actions and state law. Maybe she'll revoke enough attorneys' CCW's to make this interesting.

SimpleCountryActuary
03-20-2009, 7:45 PM
"Schroeder, the former chairman of the state Republican Party, said he's not happy and plans to fight back."

Nothing is as frightening as a really p^ss#d off lawyer...except a really p^ss#d off wife at three in the morning.

Been there. Done that. Oiled the locks.

SteveH
03-20-2009, 9:31 PM
This should be an interesting develoment.

Capaholic
03-20-2009, 9:49 PM
What a *****.

Electricboy
03-20-2009, 10:03 PM
i'm glad i live in a "shall issue" county

Window_Seat
03-20-2009, 10:34 PM
Sheriff Hutchens seems to have been quite reckless in her effort to push her agenda. Usually when a person is engaging in a constant & reckless pattern (as much as Sheriff Hutchens), they will do something so damaging that it just can't be looked at blindly. That is when things will fall to pieces for them. This could be the beginning of her moves that ultimately cause the demise of her career (hopefully), and it could be a blessing in it's disguise for the ultimate long term.

Erik; watching with interest

TheBundo
03-20-2009, 11:16 PM
As much as I hate this b****, I think this may be a fast track to a shall issue ruling here in CA. Any judge with half a brain will be able to see the "good cause" as a means of abuse from her actions and overturn both her actions and state law. Maybe she'll revoke enough attorneys' CCW's to make this interesting.

+!, AGREE, this is going to anger a somewhat powerful (at least formerly), influencial, well-known in LEO circles in the area, and now angry attorney who will work for himself pro-bono forever. How far does this idiot sherriff think she can push people into a corner and not have a backlash? I'm GLAD she went after him, NOW the FIGHT IS ON

U2BassAce
03-21-2009, 8:43 AM
http://www.occcws.com/?p=698

Check out her choice for Assistant Sheriff. Someone posted this link in the comment section of the article. Unreal!!!:eek:

DDT
03-21-2009, 8:54 AM
"Schroeder, the former chairman of the state Republican Party, said he's not happy and plans to fight back."

Nothing is as frightening as a really p^ss#d off lawyer...except a really p^ss#d off wife at three in the morning.


I guess the lesson here is "don't marry a lawyer."

SuperSet
03-21-2009, 9:27 AM
What is the truth to this statement?

"Yet federal prosecutors questioned in their indictment whether Carona used the permits to reward campaign donors. Indeed, a Register analysis of gun permits found that at least 95 permits were from campaign supporters who generated more than $68,000 in donations."

As much as I would love CCW, this practice sounds especially odious.

jmlivingston
03-21-2009, 9:31 AM
I think Hutchens just fed caffeine to the gorillas, the zoo will get interesting.


Hehe, yes. This one's going to get interesting, for sure! There are certain people that you don't just go and recklessly piss off. Former heads of the state GOP fall in that category, especially in conservative areas.

I do believe that Hutchens is about to learn the difference between that of a beat cop and that of a political office. She's doing a fine job of making political enemies in this county. The good news about that is she won't likely be able to keep her post past the next election and somebody decent can take over.

John

Jonar
03-21-2009, 9:38 AM
"An orderly society is the goal," concluded their report. "Public safety is the paramount consideration. The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant. The immediate revocation will get the issue back to square one. At that time, deserving individuals will qualify and others will be denied."



A grand jury said this? wow. Can't wait till the supreme court comes down with a big bag of wtfpwn on them for ignoring the whole basis of our government in the first place.
If the people speak, and you don't listen, or deem it irrelevant, -- uh... this just isn't a path you want to go down.

CCWFacts
03-21-2009, 10:31 AM
I think Hutchens just fed caffeine to the gorillas, the zoo will get interesting.

Yes. This thing shows a few things:


No permit is secure. No one should ever think, "I've got my permit, I don't have to work for shall-issue." Even a Republican VIP in Republican Orange County is only one sheriff away from losing his permit.
I'm never happy when someone loses his permit (without a good reason), but this may have a benefit for us of putting CCW reform (AB 357) higher up on the Republican agenda. That's ultimately the only solution to these types of problems: both the corruption that the Grand Jury found, and the problem of having a permit yanked based on which way the winds of sheriffs' politics happen to be blowing.

DDT
03-21-2009, 10:34 AM
What is the truth to this statement?

"Yet federal prosecutors questioned in their indictment whether Carona used the permits to reward campaign donors. Indeed, a Register analysis of gun permits found that at least 95 permits were from campaign supporters who generated more than $68,000 in donations."

As much as I would love CCW, this practice sounds especially odious.

How many permits did he issue? How many did he refuse? If he issued 9500 permits the fact that 10% were supporters is not particularly odious. If he didn't deny anyone with similar good cause who wasn't a prohibited person then even if 50% were supporters shouldn't raise any red flags.

The more affluent are more likely to apply for a legal CCW and the more affluent are also more likely to contribute to political campaigns. Plus there could have been 3 or 4 major supporters who gave the bulk of the money and 91 or 92 supporters who gave less than $200. The numbers are not relevant in the given context.

And with CCW being a pretty big issue in the minds of man gun rights activists it is not at all surprising that people who are interested in CCW would donate money to those who are more likely to accept "personal protection" as good cause. What I am saying is that perhaps the CCWs weren't issued because they donated money but maybe they donated money because of his CCW policy.

CCWFacts
03-21-2009, 10:40 AM
How many permits did he issue? How many did he refuse? If he issued 9500 permits the fact that 10% were supporters is not particularly odious. If he didn't deny anyone with similar good cause who wasn't a prohibited person then even if 50% were supporters shouldn't raise any red flags.

Right. I know for a fact that he issued plenty of permits to "ordinary Joes", who never contributed to him, who never met him, who were not VIPs in any sense, and who didn't have any truly exceptional circumstances. I don't see anything wrong with him issuing permits to contributors, because he was issuing so many permits to people who had no connection to him. I don't see how someone can be accused of selling permits when the bulk of his permits were to people who had nothing to do with him. If his contributors also got permits, what's wrong with that? If they thought they needed to contribute to get a permit from him, they were very mistaken about that.

SuperSet
03-21-2009, 10:54 AM
DDT and CCWFacts,
Thanks for your responses. I hear you and understand what you are trying to say. If it is true that he issued permits equally and on merit, then there is no issue here.
It's just that when I read that article and arrived at that line starting with 'federal prosecuctors questioned..', it gave me serious pause. Any allusion to the practice that there is one set of standards for the affluent and another set of standards to 'regular joes' is abhorrent to me. It just smacks of abuse of power. Maybe I missed an article or two but is there any evidence of this?

Doheny
03-21-2009, 10:55 AM
i'm glad i live in a "shall issue" county

There is no such thing as a shall issue county in California. Many thought Orange County was shall issue, then Corona got replaced. It could happen in your county next time a new sheriff is installed. One day you have a sheriff that issues, the next day you have one that doesn't.

We're not safe until we get shall issue at the state level.

.

squishyhead
03-21-2009, 11:08 AM
"An orderly society is the goal," concluded their report. "Public safety is the paramount consideration. The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant. The immediate revocation will get the issue back to square one. At that time, deserving individuals will qualify and others will be denied."


Rhetoric like this is quite frankly scary! This short sentence not only affirms the need for the 2nd Amendment, but also illustrates the very reason why the founders included it in the Bill of Rights to begin with. Although these people do not speak for our government as a whole, they do represent a growing group that is fighting to strip citizens of their liberties. This group makes it clear that they're not interested in the opinions of the public, of which they've been elected to serve. Nor are they interested in allowing the public a means to force their will onto their elected officials. Fortunately, our founders put a safegaurd into our constitution that is there to ensure that the people will "always" have the means to put down their government should it ever ignore them and turn tyranical.

Unlike Nazi Germany or Communist Russia, this group of politicians have foolishly put the horse before the cart. They've made the mistake of making their apathy toward public will known, long before they've managed to disarm us. I say we don't respond in kind, rather mobilize the populace and make them aware so that these clowns will all be voted out of office during the next election cycle!

MP301
03-21-2009, 11:19 AM
:popcorn:

I think Hutchens just fed caffeine to the gorillas, the zoo will get interesting.

Rumpled
03-21-2009, 11:20 AM
The one key point in this whole revocation mess that I don't get is that there is no basis in law for her to revoke based upon good cause. A permit, once issued, is good until it expires. By law, she can only revoke one for specified criminal actions, right?
Why is this point not brought up in the public discussions?

Doheny
03-21-2009, 11:22 AM
The one key point in this whole revocation mess that I don't get is that there is basis in law for her to revoke based upon good cause. A permit, once issued, is good until it expires. By law, she can only revoke one for specified criminal actions, right?
Why is this point not brought up in the public discussions?

The point has been brought up numerous times.

CCWFacts
03-21-2009, 11:24 AM
DDT and CCWFacts,
Thanks for your responses. I hear you and understand what you are trying to say. If it is true that he issued permits equally and on merit, then there is no issue here.

I would say that he even issued permits without merit, to people who really didn't have any exceptional reasons.

One of the theories I've heard is that Sheriff Carona issued all those "ordinary Joe" permits to mask the fact that he was also issuing to supporters. That's what the Grand Jury there is saying; they are focusing on the supporters who got permits. But that makes no logical sense. In a fair issuance system, supporters would also be able to get permits.

I'm not sure what the alternative is; should supporters be denied permits? "You and your friends contributed $10,000, so I'm afraid we can't issue you a permit. We issued five permits this morning, one to a construction contractor, another to an attorney, another to a guy who goes to shooting events every weekend, and so on, but for anyone who makes a contribution to the sheriff, we don't issue a permit otherwise it might seem like you're buying a permit." Huh? That seems to be what the Grand Jury and the news article are saying should happen, and that's crazy.

Yes, there is a concept that in certain situations, some people recuse themselves to avoid the appearance of unfairness. For example, if a judge has stock in some company, and that company has some involvement in a lawsuit, even if it's peripheral involvement, the judge will say, "I've had some connection to a company that's involved, so I must recuse myself." But CCW permits are not like that! They should be available to everyone who qualifies, and furthermore, it seems very natural that someone who got a CCW would be supportive of the sheriff who issued it. If my sheriff issued me one, I would say, "cool, this is a great sheriff, I want him to be re-elected!" That seems very natural and normal.

The problem is in places like LA where basically only supporters, VIPs and certain government officials can get permits.

It's just that when I read that article and arrived at that line starting with 'federal prosecuctors questioned..', it gave me serious pause. Any allusion to the practice that there is one set of standards for the affluent and another set of standards to 'regular joes' is abhorrent to me.

It wasn't that way. I have absolute certainty that he issued many many permits to a lot of "ordinary Joes" who never contributed to him, never met him, never had any connection to him at all, and who had some fairly weak GCs. I don't see how his standards could have been any more relaxed than they were. Almost anyone who could come in and was a good guy (no problems or trouble-indicators) and who had enough brain cells to articulate some risk to himself could get a permit under Carona. And that's the way it should be. I don't see how that's unfair. That's what AB 357 will give us if we can ever get it to pass.

It just smacks of abuse of power. Maybe I missed an article or two but is there any evidence of this?

No, the evidence is to the contrary; he issued to hundreds of ordinary people with no connection to him.

Ok, he also issued to supporters but there's nothing wrong with that.

ad6mj
03-21-2009, 11:30 AM
What is the truth to this statement?

"Yet federal prosecutors questioned in their indictment whether Carona used the permits to reward campaign donors. Indeed, a Register analysis of gun permits found that at least 95 permits were from campaign supporters who generated more than $68,000 in donations."

As much as I would love CCW, this practice sounds especially odious.

I would think most of the members here would make campaign contributions to a pro-ccw sheriff. Doesn't necessarily mean quid pro quo.

yellowfin
03-21-2009, 12:21 PM
The real question is that if it's a crime to issue CCW's to campaign donors then why aren't sheriffs who issue almost exclusively to campaign donors and are far more blatant about it crucified for doing so on an equal or even more harsh basis.

7x57
03-21-2009, 12:30 PM
The real question is that if it's a crime to issue CCW's to campaign donors then why aren't sheriffs who issue almost exclusively to campaign donors and are far more blatant about it crucified for doing so on an equal or even more harsh basis.

Yes, precisely. There is something to this story I haven't worked out yet about how someone who issued to a lot of non-supporters gets hauled into court when certain nameless spoils-distributing sheriffs do not. That's been bothering me for a while.

7x57

DDT
03-21-2009, 12:56 PM
DDT and CCWFacts,

It's just that when I read that article and arrived at that line starting with 'federal prosecuctors questioned..', it gave me serious pause. Any allusion to the practice that there is one set of standards for the affluent and another set of standards to 'regular joes' is abhorrent to me. It just smacks of abuse of power. Maybe I missed an article or two but is there any evidence of this?

That illusion is EXACTLY what the prosecutors want to create. They say these things because they can make him look bad without telling a lie. Did they also look up how many dollars others that he issued to may have given to his opponent in the race? If they did do you think they would have mentioned it if he refused to issue to his opponents supporters when they applied? The problem is that the statements were made specifically to make someone look bad, and they worked. As consumers of news it is incumbent upon us to attempt to understand how the reporters' and sources' biases effect the stories that get written.

U2BassAce
03-21-2009, 4:18 PM
Right. I know for a fact that he issued plenty of permits to "ordinary Joes", who never contributed to him, who never met him, who were not VIPs in any sense, and who didn't have any truly exceptional circumstances. I don't see anything wrong with him issuing permits to contributors, because he was issuing so many permits to people who had no connection to him. I don't see how someone can be accused of selling permits when the bulk of his permits were to people who had nothing to do with him. If his contributors also got permits, what's wrong with that? If they thought they needed to contribute to get a permit from him, they were very mistaken about that.

Exactly!

I know of one CCW holder who contributed to him because he knew he was pro CCW. NOT to get a CCW. He received that without contributing. So the whole exercise of connecting all of those 95 or so people and say their contribution bought them a CCW is BS too!

Trust me the pro CCW candidate that runs against Hutchens will be getting plenty of contributions from me. Now does that mean if I have a CCW that I bought it?

nicki
03-21-2009, 5:04 PM
Does anyone have contact with Mike Schroeder?

Is he a person with a "closed mind" or is he a "out of the box" thinker.

I would like to talk with him and make some proposals. He is a grown man, he can make his own decisions.

This could be one of the best things that could have happened, he already has contacts and his contacts could help us in many ways.

The issue for him is now personal.

Nicki

PTL
03-21-2009, 7:02 PM
Does anyone have contact with Mike Schroeder?

Is he a person with a "closed mind" or is he a "out of the box" thinker.

I would like to talk with him and make some proposals. He is a grown man, he can make his own decisions.

This could be one of the best things that could have happened, he already has contacts and his contacts could help us in many ways.

The issue for him is now personal.

Nicki

from one feMALE to another....

i would not reccomend talking to him.

Aegis
03-21-2009, 7:05 PM
A lawyer once told me "I am a lawyer I can sue for free". I think the Sheriff forgot this.

GunSlut
03-21-2009, 7:09 PM
That's what the Grand Jury there is saying; they are focusing on the supporters who got permits.




You need to understand the GJ only talked to one person, Mario Manure. It's hog wash. The feds in their court case looked at every single CCW file he ever issued and tried to find one to convict on that charge. Thy did not find one. The jury found him not guilty on that count.

Kid Stanislaus
03-21-2009, 7:11 PM
You know, if you folks down there in OC can't get together and find a better sheriff than that then there's just not much I can say for ya!! You all need to get behind a pro-ccw candidate and give your money and your time to get him/her elected.

smokingloon
03-21-2009, 7:18 PM
You know, if you folks down there in OC can't get together and find a better sheriff than that then there's just not much I can say for ya!! You all need to get behind a pro-ccw candidate and give your money and your time to get him/her elected.

She was not voted in by the people. 3 out of the 5 Board of Superiors choose for us.

It isn't so much as backing a candidate, it is finding someone who is pro-CCW to run for that position.

yellowfin
03-21-2009, 7:21 PM
Any chance of getting the Bates law repealed?

Troutman
03-21-2009, 7:24 PM
You know, if you folks down there in OC can't get together and find a better sheriff than that then there's just not much I can say for ya!! You all need to get behind a pro-ccw candidate and give your money and your time to get him/her elected.

http://www.OCCCWS.com