PDA

View Full Version : OC Supervisors To Discuss CCW Issuance Again


OCCCWS
05-11-2009, 12:40 PM
Our battle in OC is far from over. The Board of Supervisors, on May 19th, is going to discuss a response to the silly OC Grand Jury Report which suggested that the five supervisors should, in essense, stop being mean to Sheriff Hutchens and let her be as restrictive as she wants with her CCW policy. It is apparent that this report was initiated by those who seek to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to have a means of self defense when away from their home.

Our presence, and the presence of all Second Amendment supporters, is requested at this meeting. The supervisors want, and need, to see that this issue will NOT go away, particularly as we move closer to the 2010 election in Orange County.

The meeting will be held May 19th, 2009, in Santa Ana at 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd. It begins at 9am, but if you wish to speak (please do!) you should arrive by 9:00 to sign up (3 minute time limit on speeches). This can be an all day affair depending on when they get to the issue, but our committment to this issue has kept the Board of Supervisors on our side since Sheriff Hutchens was appointed last year.

Remember that appearance matters in these meetings. We have made great inroads because the opposition has not been able to brand us as stereotypical gun nuts that the media portrays. They see normal folks who simply want the ability to defend themselves.

So come on out and join us. Bring freedom loving friends and family. If you need any info when arriving, look for anyone wearing a green OCCCWS button and they'll help you.

Thank you again to the CalGuns community for your continuing support in this matter.

OCCCWS

N6ATF
05-11-2009, 12:48 PM
Are they compelled to respond to the report? It seems like political flame bait, especially since the Supes are unable to remove Hutchens from power. What purpose does the report or the response serve?

DDT
05-11-2009, 1:04 PM
I am not convinced that the BoS can't legally define "good cause" in their jurisdiction. If they choose to do so it would put the sheriff in a tenuous position if she refused to issue based on the legally defined good cause in her jurisdiction. Now, what impact that has is difficult to determine. Since violating a city or county ordinance is not a felony I don't know what the BoS can do to force her hand but it would certainly send a strong message and would be a significant distraction to her while running for office.

Bruce3
05-11-2009, 1:24 PM
the last BoS meeting i attended i got the message that they couldn't do anything to change the Sheriffs CCW policy..

hoffmang
05-11-2009, 1:39 PM
the last BoS meeting i attended i got the message that they couldn't do anything to change the Sheriffs CCW policy..

I'd be surprised if a BOS couldn't restrain their sheriff from violating people's civil rights - new rights conferred by Nordyke.

-Gene

OCCCWS
05-11-2009, 1:49 PM
This is more about showing the Supervisors AND potential candidates that THIS is a major issue in 2010. Part of our success is owed in large part to the Sheriff herself, who has been an utter disaster in trying to justify her own policy. The supervisors will not be able to change her policy. She is an idealogue. Her behavior is secretive, eratic, and anti-self defense.

Our presence at these meetings are vital, and give us a chance to confront the Sheriff and her idiotic policy head on. She HATES that she has to do this. She HATES that the 'public' won't let this issue die. Our sources within the department have detailed numerous 'blow ups' on her part after being suckerpunched by CCW supporters.

This is not a person who should be Sheriff. This is a person who must be confronted every chance we get. And this is another of those chances.

jb7706
05-11-2009, 1:59 PM
I'd be surprised if a BOS couldn't restrain their sheriff from violating people's civil rights - new rights conferred by Nordyke.

-Gene

Could the County take the stance that if she continues to violate their constituents CR that they will not defend her when she is sued like my Sac County Sheriff has been? He has been sued personally and professionally, are there requirements that the County pay to defend all suits? Or could the BOS simply cut the legal defense budget?

Short of cutting her budget what other avenues do they have?

N6ATF
05-11-2009, 2:02 PM
Could the County take the stance that if she continues to violate their constituents CR that they will not defend her when she is sued like my Sac County Sheriff has been? He has been sued personally and professionally, are there requirements that the County pay to defend all suits? Or could the BOS simply cut the legal defense budget?

Short of cutting her budget what other avenues do they have?

I think someone said county sheriffs are typically indemnified against lawsuits by the county they disserve. Which means the county, by charter, or by contract, has to pay for the professional AND personal.

rkt88edmo
05-11-2009, 2:03 PM
Linky to grand jury report pdf?

OCCCWS
05-11-2009, 2:28 PM
OC Grand Jury Report (http://www.ocgrandjury.org/pdfs/letthesheriffdoherjob/letthesheriffdoherjob.pdf)

OCCCWS
05-11-2009, 2:31 PM
The report is riddled with mistakes. The most glaring of which is the claim that OCSD did not have a written CCW policy before Hutchens. It did. OCCCWS has the screen captures from it directly off the website prior to Hutchens appointment.

This was a politically motivated shoddy attempt to run cover for a Sheriff whose actions are becoming increasingly erratic.

rkt88edmo
05-11-2009, 2:52 PM
The report seems vague as to whether Hutchens has created a written policy yet. When I read it it seems to say she is reveiwing now and will create a policy under which all will be free to reapply. How can you review exisiting permits without a current policy in place to use to evaluate against?

Untamed1972
05-11-2009, 3:03 PM
I think someone said county sheriffs are typically indemnified against lawsuits by the county they disserve. Which means the county, by charter, or by contract, has to pay for the professional AND personal.

I was always under the impression though that when a LEO knowningly violated dept/agency/county policy they did so at their own peril? No perhaps there is no criminal penalty for violating dept. policy, but if sued by the public the LEO could be on their own to defend themselves against it?

I can't see why the county should be held financially responsible for someone who wants to ingnore policies. The only thing the county should be held liable for in such a situation is if they knew of the violations and did nothing to correct it.

Does the BoS have the authority to make CCW policy though? Seems that under the penal code that is left to the discretion of Sheriff.....no mention of BoS having in say in it? So perhaps the county could make a policy but that doesn't mean it would be enforcable against the sheriff as actionable binding policy.

donstarr
05-11-2009, 3:37 PM
Could the Board of Supervisors enact an ordinance defining "good cause" within the context of CCW applications, one that would be binding upon the Sheriff?

Sobriquet
05-11-2009, 3:41 PM
Could the Board of Supervisors enact an ordinance defining "good cause" within the context of CCW applications, one that would be binding upon the Sheriff?

I'm not sure how that would play out with state preemption...

donstarr
05-11-2009, 3:58 PM
I'm not sure how that would play out with state preemption...

I'm in favor of state preemption (at least, as far as it's been applied to the City and County of San Francisco a couple of times), but...

Is "good cause", as it applies to CCW applications, defined by California statute?

ETA: If there was a "state preemption" problem with the definition of "good cause", would we even be having the discussion in the first place? Wouldn't "good cause" be codified, resulting in a uniform application of that term across all counties / cities in the state?

Glock22Fan
05-11-2009, 4:06 PM
I'm in favor of state preemption (at least, as far as it's been applied to the City and County of San Francisco a couple of times), but...

Is "good cause", as it applies to CCW applications, defined by California statute?

ETA: If there was a "state preemption" problem with the definition of "good cause", would we even be having the discussion in the first place? Wouldn't "good cause" be codified, resulting in a uniform application of that term across all counties / cities in the state?

There is no state definition of "Good Cause" beyond the following:

There is a Cal A.G. Opinion as to what "Good Cause" is. This is really out of date and was written before there were so many :Shall Issue" states.

OPINION NO. CR. 77/30 I.L. 'the issuing authority must determine whether the threat to the applicant (or other causal situation) is as real as the applicant asserts (e.g., is there a clear and present danger to the applicant, his spouse, his family or his employees)? Finally, if the danger is manifest, the authority should determine whether that danger cannot be significantly alleviated by alternative means of security and whether in fact can be lawfully mitigated by the applicant's obtaining a concealed weapon license.'

This decision was rendered By Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, August 23, 1977.

Sheriff Hutchens is saying that this is legally binding and is interpreting it in the most narrow way she can.

Attorneys on "our" side (such as Chuck Michel) are saying that an "Opinion" is not a legally binding document, and that sheriffs are free to determine "Good Cause" as they wish.

donstarr
05-11-2009, 4:13 PM
There is a Cal A.G. Opinion as to what "Good Cause" is.

Sheriff Hutchens is saying that this is legally binding and is interpreting it in the most narrow way she can.

Even presuming that the AG's issued opinion is binding (and is open to "interpretation" by each Sheriff or Chief-of-Police)... if it's not interpreted and applied in the same way by all Sheriffs/Chiefs-of-Police, then the state can hardly (IMNSHO) call "preemption". That is, if the state is allowing each such authority to issue/deny CCW based on those authorities' personal, subjective "good cause" interpretations, then they cannot claim state preemption of the definition.

Unless, of course, the state's preemption is based on a statutory "the Sheriff or Chief-of-Police gets to define 'good cause'" provision.

Kid Stanislaus
05-11-2009, 4:26 PM
Could the Board of Supervisors enact an ordinance defining "good cause" within the context of CCW applications, one that would be binding upon the Sheriff?


They would also need to develop a legal definition of "good moral character".

OCCCWS
05-11-2009, 4:26 PM
Another thing to remember--the AG Opinion is actually an 'Indexed Letter' and was never published as an opinion. It can be seen HERE (http://romandad.com/Youngermemo.pdf).

CCWFacts
05-11-2009, 4:27 PM
Nordyke should make this whole situation a lot more interesting. Before, she could make excuses. Now, it's obvious that she's denying residents their rights, and she will result in the county being sued.

To be fair to Sheriff Hutchens, it's pretty clear that Evelle Younger's informal letter opinion (http://californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf) is quite hostile to CCW issuance and does not at all consider the idea that it's an individual right:

It has been held that the control of licenses by a public agency is for the protection of the public and not primarily for purposes related to the potential licensee. (reference to some older licensing law cases)

With respect to the instant license, it was judicially recognized early that the habit of carrying concealed weapons is a menace to public safety and may be prohibited although the bearing of arms in that manner may be justified under the circumstances of some individual cases.

Some of the alternative [to having a CCW] means of security which should be considered would be normal local law enforcement activity, special police protection, or employment of a private escort or security service.

I think her actions are very consistent with the attitude expressed in the 1977 opinion: CCWers are a public hazard, are not necessary, are not a right, and therefore should not be issued.

Obviously it's time for a new opinion because, as of 3 weeks ago, it's now a right to carry a gun, which undermines the entire basis of that 1977 letter. Concepts of "need", of considering alternatives, and of putting public safety first are now gone. On the public safety aspect, unlike in 1977, we now have a tremendous amount of experience and evidence from other states about the public safety ramifications of shall-issue, so his assertion that it's a "menace" is now proven to be nonsense.

RomanDad
05-11-2009, 4:56 PM
Nordyke should make this whole situation a lot more interesting. Before, she could make excuses. Now, it's obvious that she's denying residents their rights, and she will result in the county being sued.

To be fair to Sheriff Hutchens, it's pretty clear that Evelle Younger's informal letter opinion (http://californiaccw.org/files/ag-1977-ccw-opinion.pdf) is quite hostile to CCW issuance and does not at all consider the idea that it's an individual right:



I think her actions are very consistent with the attitude expressed in the 1977 opinion: CCWers are a public hazard, are not necessary, are not a right, and therefore should not be issued.

Obviously it's time for a new opinion because, as of 3 weeks ago, it's now a right to carry a gun, which undermines the entire basis of that 1977 letter. Concepts of "need", of considering alternatives, and of putting public safety first are now gone. On the public safety aspect, unlike in 1977, we now have a tremendous amount of experience and evidence from other states about the public safety ramifications of shall-issue, so his assertion that it's a "menace" is now proven to be nonsense.
And the Younger memo was written at a time when the national consensus was that the 2nd amendment had no application to individuals...


That time is passed.


This is about keeping the pressure on the Sheriff.

CCWFacts
05-11-2009, 5:03 PM
And the Younger memo was written at a time when the national consensus was that the 2nd amendment had no application to individuals...

That time is passed.

Sure, that opinion is an anachronism. It was already an anachronism by, say, 2000, when most of the US had gone shall-issue and proven the "CCW is a menace" concept to be false. It became 100x more of an anachronism 3 weeks ago, when it stopped being consistent with not only public policy evidence and common sense, but also the constitution itself.

She's following the opinion correctly, but the opinion now belongs in the dustbin of history.

What she's doing is like some school board in Georgia digging up a dusty 1920 school board opinion about racial segregation and trying to apply it today. Um, no. You can't dredge up rotten, discarded policies and point to them and say, "see, I'm just following the policy!"

1JimMarch
05-11-2009, 5:27 PM
Here's the REAL question the Board of Supes ought to be asking: who's going to pay for the now-inevitable post-Heller/Nordyke lawsuit?

A: the Board of Supes, as the main monetary controllers for the county.

Heller and Nordyke combine to totally re-write the rules, kicking prior cases like Hickman, Fresno Rifle and even Salute totally under the bus.

And Orange County is a huge potential target in large part because of the Federal criminal complaint against Carona which claimed he was charging a grand under the table for permits. Granted, that was dropped in the plea process but it's still there and usable in a civil rights complaint. Combine that with the current sheriff's public statements about being stingy with 'em, and a huge pool of possible plaintiffs among the people being *stripped* of permits, and you've got a lawsuit waiting to happen.

The goal should be to have the Board of Supes define "good cause" via county ordinance. State law doesn't define it at all, therefore it's something left under local legislative control. The Board of Supes should act to limit their legal liability.

I was going to suggest as a fallback that they ask for an AG's opinion, but it turns out that's impossible because the issue is in litigation. Never mind :).

RomanDad
05-11-2009, 5:29 PM
I was going to suggest as a fallback that they ask for an AG's opinion, but it turns out that's impossible because the issue is in litigation. Never mind :).

yep... That one cuts both ways.

Here's the REAL question the Board of Supes ought to be asking: who's going to pay for the now-inevitable post-Heller/Nordyke lawsuit?

A: the Board of Supes, as the main monetary controllers for the county.


The goal should be to have the Board of Supes define "good cause" via county ordinance. State law doesn't define it at all, therefore it's something left under local legislative control. The Board of Supes should act to limit their legal liability.




Theyve tried... She refuses to follow the resolution....

CCWFacts
05-11-2009, 5:30 PM
I was going to suggest as a fallback that they ask for an AG's opinion, but it turns out that's impossible because the issue is in litigation. Never mind :).

Ah good point.

Well I did ask the AG to write a new opinion before it was in litigation and I got a letter back from Allison saying, "the 2A isn't an individual right so screw you".

A new opinion would be timely but it looks like that opinion will be called a "settlement" instead of an "informal letter".

DDT
05-11-2009, 5:34 PM
Theyve tried... She refuses to follow the resolution....

resolution or ordinance? This was my suggestion from the beginning.

1JimMarch
05-11-2009, 5:40 PM
We need an ordinance regarding our ordinance.

:D

curtisfong
05-11-2009, 7:22 PM
Well I did ask the AG to write a new opinion before it was in litigation and I got a letter back from Allison saying, "the 2A isn't an individual right so screw you".

A new opinion would be timely but it looks like that opinion will be called a "settlement" instead of an "informal letter".

It can't hurt to ask for one another can it? Or will her likely response be "I can't comment because of pending litigation"?

1JimMarch
05-11-2009, 9:53 PM
I should lave included the link and hard info:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/faqs.php

#
Will opinions be issued on legal questions involving pending litigation?

The Attorney General's office has traditionally declined to provide opinions on legal questions that are before a court or an administrative proceeding. First, resolution of the litigation will often provide the answer to the question. More significantly, the issuance of an Attorney General's opinion while litigation is pending on the issue might be considered as an attempt to interfere with or influence the litigation. When the Attorney General's office becomes aware of the litigation, the assignment to prepare the opinion will be cancelled.

RomanDad
05-11-2009, 10:53 PM
It can't hurt to ask for one another can it? Or will her likely response be "I can't comment because of pending litigation"?

We KNOW her opinion already.... Her opinion is ordinary citizens dont need guns for protection....

The AG, whos opinion might have mattered to her (I suspect if he agreed with her, and not if he didnt) cant issue an opinion now that the Sykes case has been filed.

1JimMarch
05-12-2009, 10:50 AM
I've just been made aware of an unbelievably detailed stash of CCW corruption records from another county. I'm trying to get ahold of it now. If it's as bad as it appears to be, reading choice bits to the OC Board of Supes and asking "do you want to risk this here!?" may be worth trying.

More details soon, I hope.

RomanDad
05-12-2009, 11:47 AM
I've just been made aware of an unbelievably detailed stash of CCW corruption records from another county. I'm trying to get ahold of it now. If it's as bad as it appears to be, reading choice bits to the OC Board of Supes and asking "do you want to risk this here!?" may be worth trying.

More details soon, I hope.

I may know what you know... Want to compare notes by PM?

swhatb
05-12-2009, 11:49 AM
thanks for linking

1BigPea
05-12-2009, 12:28 PM
I'll see if I can get off work for this one...

M. D. Van Norman
05-12-2009, 1:42 PM
I’ve just been made aware of an unbelievably detailed stash of CCW corruption records from another county.…

Do tell, though Sheriff Hutchens claimed to be fighting corruption when she started revoking concealed-carry licenses.

Bill_in_SD
05-12-2009, 6:59 PM
I've just been made aware of an unbelievably detailed stash of CCW corruption records from another county. I'm trying to get ahold of it now. If it's as bad as it appears to be, reading choice bits to the OC Board of Supes and asking "do you want to risk this here!?" may be worth trying.

More details soon, I hope.

Let me guess - public servants dumping public records in the trash again? :)

Kind of like those voting folks you have been after? Dumpsters can be a gold mine....

obeygiant
05-12-2009, 8:23 PM
For those interested here is the contact info for the OC BOS as well as directions, link to the live webcast and where to submit online opinions.

Who They Are

Patricia C. Bates, Chair
Fifth District
714.834.3550

Janet Nguyen, Vice Chair
First District
714.834.3110

John M.W. Moorlach
Second District
714.834.3220

Bill Campbell
Third District
714.834.3330

Chris Norby
Fouth District
714.834.3440

Opinion Online (http://www.ocgov.com/opinion/scripts/Main.asp)

Opinion Online has been closed for comments!
Comments are available only From Wednesday 12:00pm noon to Friday 12:00pm noon
Thank you.

Board Meetings on Demand - Watch the live webcast (http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Government/Board%20of%20Supervisors/Board%20Meetings%20On-Demand)

Board Meeting Directions

Board meetings are held at the Hall of Administration at 333 W. Santa Ana Blvd. on the corner of Broadway and Santa Ana Blvd. in Santa Ana.

From the South:

Take 5 Fwy north.
Exit on Grand Ave.
Turn left on Grand Ave.
Turn right on Santa Ana Blvd.
You will travel several blocks.
After you cross Main Street, the next light is at Broadway.
The white, five-story building across the intersection on the right is the Hall of Administration.
Drive to the end of the block past the building and turn right on Ross. Make an immediate right turn into the parking lot.

From the North:

Take 5 Fwy south.
Exit on Grand Ave.
Turn right on Santa Ana Blvd.
You will travel several blocks. After you cross Main Street, the next light is at Broadway.
The white, five-story building across the intersection on the right is the Hall of Administration.
Drive to the end of the block past the building and turn right on Ross. Make an immediate right turn into the parking lot.

To view a map to the Hall of Administration and other County buildings, click here (http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Maps%20&%20Directions).

For telephone directions to finding Civic Center locations, please call 714.834.5400

M. D. Van Norman
05-13-2009, 11:57 AM
By the way, it looks like the only piece of this matter before the Board of Supervisors is an approval of the grand jury’s report. Will any discussion be allowed, or is approval just a pro forma affair?

OCCCWS
05-13-2009, 1:13 PM
By the way, it looks like the only piece of this matter before the Board of Supervisors is an approval of the grand jury’s report. Will any discussion be allowed, or is approval just a pro forma affair?

There WILL be discussion, and they are not inclined to approve it. The Sheriff had a DISASTROUS BOS meeting yesterday (the 12th) when her LA crony Office of Independent Review official, who 'investigated' the Sheriff's department's egregious conduct at the 11-18-08 and 1-13-09 BOS meetings, issued a whitewash report defending her actions, whereupon the supervisors tore him a new one. And where we learned he is not so 'independent' after all, with reports surfacing that he may be attending her command staff meetings.

Again, this is par for the course with her and her secretive, erratic behavior.

So, yes, the supervisors WANT people there to assist in keeping pressure on the sheriff.

7x57
05-13-2009, 1:39 PM
Again, this is par for the course with her and her secretive, erratic behavior.


:eek:

She's becoming the Allison of the South.


So, yes, the supervisors WANT people there to assist in keeping pressure on the sheriff.

Well they should. The sheriff in a large department is an administrator, and an administrator's job is to make things run smoothly--to administrate. Any competent administrator would know that playing the games she's played would lead to investigations, and investigations lead to controversy, waste, inefficiency, and (worst of all if you're a bureaucrat) poor resume fodder. Aside from CCW, she's completely unfit for the job she was hired for.

Isn't that a terrible shame? :43:

I suppose it would be inappropriate to give her a big fat kiss to express our heartfelt appreciation for being the best anti-gunner she can possibly be? :thumbsup:

7x57

DDT
05-13-2009, 1:45 PM
I guess with all the cronyism, cover ups and corruption can we start calling her "Little Carona?"

That is a very inside joke for some of the folks here from OC.

RomanDad
05-13-2009, 5:39 PM
By the way, it looks like the only piece of this matter before the Board of Supervisors is an approval of the grand jury’s report. Will any discussion be allowed, or is approval just a pro forma affair?

Ive already seen the "Disapproval" resolution....

Do tell, though Sheriff Hutchens claimed to be fighting corruption when she started revoking concealed-carry licenses.

In a very ODD sense, I think there may be some truth to that. Given what we've learned about her former department and CCWs, its very likely she learned over the years that by definition, CCW issuance=corruption. Given that's all she knows, she may actually be doing the RIGHT THING, in the WRONG Department.

1JimMarch
05-15-2009, 11:26 AM
Want some huge, explosive, powerful ammo regarding what can go wrong with CCW?

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=2483465

That is the single most detailed statement on CCW malpractice ever, by a retired member of the *brass*.

Copies of this need to be on the OC Supervisor's desks Monday AM, with choice bits highlighted. They'll need to understand that they must prevent this horsecrap in their county via an ordinance.

Table Rock Arms
05-19-2009, 8:27 AM
Can I watch this online? And if so, where at?

glbtrottr
05-19-2009, 9:26 AM
Copies of said material was provided to the BOS via their personal email addresses-by myself. Hopefully some of them reviewed it, and at least one will bring it up...

Doheny
05-19-2009, 9:29 AM
Can I watch this online? And if so, where at?

http://egov.ocgov.com/ocgov/Government/Board%20of%20Supervisors/Board%20Meetings%20On-Demand

JDoe
05-19-2009, 11:08 AM
It's on now...anyone else watching?

Bruce3
05-19-2009, 11:45 AM
what just happened? i saw them vote 4-1 on agenda 44

Table Rock Arms
05-19-2009, 11:45 AM
It's on now...anyone else watching?

Only caught the end of it. What exacty happened?

JDoe
05-19-2009, 12:08 PM
Only caught the end of it. What exacty happened?

Had to take a phone call and missed most of it but from another Calgunner...

They voted on a resolution basically accepting the Grand Jury findings that they can't prevent the Sheriff from crafting her own CCW policy within the confines of the law. It was a waste of time. Only Moorlach voted against it, based on some technicality in the language.

The resolution passed 4 to 1.

tango-52
05-19-2009, 12:12 PM
Supervisor Nguyen had prepared a response to the Grand Jury. After some discussion, they approved it 4 to 1, with Moorlach (aka Hutchens' pet flying monkey) voting against it. The video from the morning session should be available later this afternoon. Nothing really exciting though. The Sheriff didn't go. She sent Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson to try and argue that her arbitrary and capricious revocations weren't really arbitrary or capricious.

RomanDad
05-19-2009, 12:56 PM
Supervisor Nguyen had prepared a response to the Grand Jury. After some discussion, they approved it 4 to 1, with Moorlach (aka Hutchens' pet flying monkey) voting against it. The video from the morning session should be available later this afternoon. Nothing really exciting though. The Sheriff didn't go. She sent Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson to try and argue that her arbitrary and capricious revocations weren't really arbitrary or capricious.

Working on getting a copy.

glbtrottr
05-19-2009, 1:34 PM
From someone that was present, Jack Anderson was a douchebag. While involved in the Republican Party of OC heavily and claiming to be pro-2A, apparently he sold out for his own career interests now becoming the Sheriff's lapdog and carring her water. He grunted, hmmmd and ha'd, interrupted and otherwise got b*tchslapped by Janet Nguyen and more.

Anderson is not our friend. Hopefully he'll be fired when the next Sheriff gets elected. Nice to see the Board make the right call...

RomanDad
05-19-2009, 2:26 PM
From someone that was present, Jack Anderson was a douchebag. While involved in the Republican Party of OC heavily and claiming to be pro-2A, apparently he sold out for his own career interests now becoming the Sheriff's lapdog and carring her water. He grunted, hmmmd and ha'd, interrupted and otherwise got b*tchslapped by Janet Nguyen and more.

Anderson is not our friend. Hopefully he'll be fired when the next Sheriff gets elected. Nice to see the Board make the right call...

One thing we have learned is there are ALOT of dynamics in this issue. Clearly, Anderson wasn't the choice we thought he would have been. I think even when we supported him AS acting Sheriff, what he was doing and saying didn't look good but we supported him anyways.

Going forward, we're not going to make that mistake again....

If nothing else, I have learned from the mistakes of the past.... And wont repeat them.

kertong
05-19-2009, 2:30 PM
I've read all 6 pages of this thread, but I'm still confused.

Moorlach, referenced as Hutchen's flying pet monkey, voted against this resolution, but still passed 4-1? Does that mean this resolution was passing is in our favor? What are its implications?

Sorry to be such a noob. Law speak confuses the hell out of me. :(

jkchan83
05-19-2009, 2:32 PM
I watched the proceedings from the internet live, and it didn't seem like Jack Anderson was all that bad. He was definitely defending the Sheriff's position, but that was his job.

The resolution that was agreed upon basically finds that the Sheriff is free to do her job. However, the BOS disagrees with her actions regarding the revocation or notice of revocation of CCWs. Additionally, they were not happy with the Sheriff convening a Grand Jury prior to the matter being fully discussed by the BOS.

Norby, as usual, was on our side, as were Nguyen, Campbell, and Bates. Moorlach tried what he could to delay/obfuscate the issue. What really got me was that he wanted to move the discussion to a closed session. Basically, he wanted to try and kill it behind closed doors.

Here is the draft of the response. There were a couple of minor changes made during the meeting in order to have a legal CYA.

bulgron
05-19-2009, 2:33 PM
I've read all 6 pages of this thread, but I'm still confused.

Moorlach, referenced as Hutchen's flying pet monkey, voted against this resolution, but still passed 4-1? Does that mean this resolution was passing is in our favor? What are its implications?

Sorry to be such a noob. Law speak confuses the hell out of me. :(

Actually, OC politics confuse the hell out of me. But I'm sure they'd make much more sense if I was actually living there.

M. D. Van Norman
05-19-2009, 2:50 PM
In short, Supervisor Moorlach didn’t want a resolution that declared the Sheriff’s licensing policy arbitrary and capricious. The legal implications are just starting to dawn on some folks.…

yellowfin
05-19-2009, 2:54 PM
Interesting little resolution there. I suppose this will come in handy.

RomanDad
05-19-2009, 3:58 PM
In short, Supervisor Moorlach didn’t want a resolution that declared the Sheriff’s licensing policy arbitrary and capricious. The legal implications are just starting to dawn on some folks.…

Which is EXACTLY what the majority passed....

M. D. Van Norman
05-19-2009, 4:23 PM
Yep! :thumbsup:

kertong
05-19-2009, 4:31 PM
So.. this is a Good Thing?

RomanDad
05-19-2009, 8:56 PM
So.. this is a Good Thing?

Yes. Again on three fronts:

1. It keeps her name in the paper... And not in a good way. I was talking to my colleague on this issue today and he posed the question: "Has anybody in the history of the country, been appointed to fill a vacant political position and in their first year in office gotten THIS MUCH, CONSTANT, BAD PUBLICITY, INCLUDING from the VERY PEOPLE who appointed them to the office?"

The answer: Not in my memory.

She has not had a SINGLE good news article written about her.... And that does not bode well for her political future.

2. The language of the resolution is scathing, and as already pointed out, uses some very IMPORTANT legal terms of art, OVER and OVER again, that do not speak well for the LEGALITY of the Sheriff's actions.

3. We have some new developments coming out of the Sheriff's CCW department that should cause even MORE confusion. People who the SHERIFF HERSELF, granted CCWs to, have now received letters that their good cause has been "REAPPROVED" (is that even a word and why did it need to be "REAPPROVED" when she herself SIGNED THE PERMIT?) but that they were getting added restrictions to their licenses. When one takes this turn of events in the context of the resolution (Confusion, lack of standard etc.) it just adds more fuel to the fire.

kertong
05-19-2009, 9:04 PM
Great! Thank you for the clear and concise explanation, RomanDad!

I'm a computer sysadmin/programmer, so legal speak is really confusing to me. Thank you for the clear cut answer :)

DDT
05-19-2009, 9:05 PM
If the stakes weren't so high this would be incredibly entertaining.

vrand
05-19-2009, 10:17 PM
Which is EXACTLY what the majority passed....

:thumbsup:

yellowfin
05-19-2009, 11:54 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, commence your lawsuits... :thumbsup: :popcorn:

Doheny
05-19-2009, 11:58 PM
....3. We have some new developments coming out of the Sheriff's CCW department that should cause even MORE confusion. People who the SHERIFF HERSELF, granted CCWs to, have now received letters that their good cause has been "REAPPROVED" (is that even a word and why did it need to be "REAPPROVED" when she herself SIGNED THE PERMIT?) but that they were getting added restrictions to their licenses. When one takes this turn of events in the context of the resolution (Confusion, lack of standard etc.) it just adds more fuel to the fire.

She just doesn't know when to quit, does she!

RomanDad
05-20-2009, 7:12 AM
She just doesn't know when to quit, does she!

The gift that keeps on giving....

AndrewMendez
05-24-2009, 1:17 PM
I know LA County doesn't have the same issues as Orange County, but would there be anything we could do to make it easier for LA County residence to obtain a CCW without having to invite the Chief to all the Hollywood Parties??

Glock22Fan
05-24-2009, 1:54 PM
I know LA County doesn't have the same issues as Orange County, but would there be anything we could do to make it easier for LA County residence to obtain a CCW without having to invite the Chief to all the Hollywood Parties??


Do you mean Chief Bratton, because the Hollywood parties is more a Sheriff Baca thing.

If you do live in LAPD jurisdiction, you should read two of the blogs on Billy Jack's page - this first (top) one and the one further down the page entitled "LAPD Applicants."

blog (http://californiaconcealedcarry.com/blog/)

BunnySlayer
05-31-2009, 2:07 AM
Apparently the new Sheriff is forgetting an old lesson. One learned here by Mike Corona when he was first elected. Mr. Corona was elected coincidentaly by almost the exact number of votes as there are NRA members in O.C. Without our support and votes he would never have made it and he well knew it. She will learn this lesson one way or another.

nemesis99
06-01-2009, 12:22 AM
CCW issuance=corruption

Considering CCW issuance practices in certain parts of California I'd say this belief of the Sheriff to be accurate. :D

SteveH
06-19-2009, 12:07 PM
OP,
IM sent about some alleged recent revokations in OC.

Shotgun Man
06-19-2009, 6:14 PM
So has one taken the BOS's resolution and cited it in lawsuit yet?

Someone should take that and run with it.