...Well?

[Quietpi]

...Well?

[Yoda]

OK, I'll bite...

Well What?

[PUNK]

[sealbeach]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

...Well?

deep subject...

[EM2]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

...Well?

Um.......I think he is refering to some sort of meeting today of importance to those in the good ol' OC.

...Well?

[RomanDad]

Went well.

[BonoVox]

County supervisors take aim, again, at Sheriff and grand jury over gun permits | supervisors, hutchens, sheriff, permits, county - News - OCRegister.com

Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Supervisors ding sheriff again over gun permits
BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register
Comments 7| Recommend 2

County supervisors once again took aim at Sheriff Sandra Hutchens Tuesday, calling her changes to concealed weapons permits "arbitrary and capricious" as they formally responded to a report issued by the grand jury, titled "Let the Sheriff do her job."

In a 4-1 vote, with Supervisor John Moorlach dissenting, supervisors also said grand jurors were off-base in their Feb. 23 critique of the board for getting in the middle of the gun permit debate and siding with gun activists against Hutchens.

In their response to the grand jury, supervisors aggressively defended their right to criticize Hutchens' handling of concealed weapons policy revisions. While Moorlach didn't disagree with supervisors' public statements, he said he had legal concerns and said the issue should be discussed in closed session.

The county's attorney, and other supervisors, disagreed, saying giving their opinion doesn't create legal problems.

Then the board told Hutchens and the grand jury what they thought.

"I want the Sheriff to be able to do her job," said Supervisors' Chairwoman Pat Bates. "But I want the people of this county to know that this board stands for their constitutional rights."

Hutchens drew the ire of gun activists last summer after she announced a tightening of rules for securing concealed weapons permits. Hutchens was responding to concerns raised over the potential selling of gun permits to campaign donors during the administration of former Sheriff Mike Carona.

Carona ran three times on a policy of liberalizing concealed gun permits and handed them out both to campaign donors and others. While Orange County had about 300 such permits when he took office, he expanded the number to more than 1100.

When activists heard that Hutchens would likely reverse course, they set their sights on the Republican supervisors who appointed her, arguing that she was infringing upon their rights to have firearms.

Hutchens told supervisors that state law restricts how a sheriff issues such permits but supervisors disagreed, saying the state law gives sheriffs broad discretion. To flesh out the issue, supervisors held a series of hearings on the matter.

In their original report, the grand jury supported Hutchens changes and took issue with the many public hearings called by supervisors to respond to constituent concerns.

"Unnecessary interference causing delays in implementing corrective actions involving the issuance of CCW permits is a waste of county resources," the grand jury wrote, adding "the fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant."

Speaking on behalf of the Orange County Sheriff's Department, Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson took issue with the words "capricious and arbitrary" in the supervisors' resolution.

"That mischaracterizes what has actually been going on," Anderson said. "There has been a concerted effort, not arbitrary or capricious; to make sure everybody has good cause."

Under state law, a local Sheriff decides whether applicants have "good cause" for carrying a concealed weapon in public. Hutchens has said that many of the "good cause" statements under Carona were questionable, pointing to categories such as "avid shooter" and saying that doesn't meet her threshold.

Of the 1133 gun permits reviewed, Anderson said a total of 423 had triggered concern letters warning of revocation last fall. Of those, 290 remained by the spring. Since the department review began, Anderson added later, only 93 out of the original 423 permits questioned have been revoked, which only represents 8 percent of the total permits.

A department spokesman confirmed that the total number of CCW permits in Orange County now hovers around 900, a 20 percent drop since Hutchens took office. Anderson said the lower number represents expirations such as people moving out of the county or situations that change such as threats that no longer exist.

Later Tuesday, Hutchens emailed The Register a statement in response to the supervisor's comments. "It is my responsibility as Sheriff to uphold the law and the public should expect nothing less. Last year I requested an internal audit and the development of a clear and transparent Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) policy to erase public perception that guns were given away to supporters and friends of Mike Carona.

"All active Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) files were reviewed to ensure their issuance was within the guidelines of the new CCW policy and that the supporting documentation of the "good cause" tenet was contained within the files."

But the supervisors were unmoved by either the grand jury or the responses from the sheriff's office.

Supervisor Bill Campbell said the grand jury should stay focused on good government, and not enter the political arena.

"In this particular arena, this is a political issue, it's our responsibility to represent our people in a discussion with the sheriff, where we see a decision she has made against the norm in this county."

Added Supervisor Chris Norby: "We have the right to state our view….We owe it to her."

[Quietpi]

Thank you, BV. You probably saved my life, seeing as how I was dying of curiosity.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by Quietpi

Thank you, BV. You probably saved my life, seeing as how I was dying of curiosity.

I am here to help!

[derringer]

Originally Posted by BonoVox

When activists heard that Hutchens would likely reverse course, they set their sights on the Republican supervisors who appointed her, arguing that she was infringing upon their rights to have firearms.

Is that really what you all said? I think the reporter is extremely weak here, or trying to obscure your true arguement. I'd hope it was more likely "...arguing that she was infringing upon their rights to bear firearms." So, what's the real scoop?

Originally Posted by BonoVox

Of the 1133 gun permits reviewed, Anderson said a total of 423 had triggered concern letters warning of revocation last fall. Of those, 290 remained by the spring. Since the department review began, Anderson added later, only 93 out of the original 423 permits questioned have been revoked, which only represents 8 percent of the total permits.

Is this entirely honest? Are they being dishonest by failing to mention that the rest (140 if my math is correct: 1133originally - 900now - 93 revoked = 140 unaccounted) had forfeited their permits under threat of revocation?! They make it sound as though only 93 permit holders in all were affected by Hutchens' action. Again, I wonder about the reporter not being savvy enough to see through this, or deceitful enough to not report the whole truth?

Originally Posted by BonoVox

Later Tuesday, Hutchens emailed The Register a statement in response to the supervisor's comments. "...to erase public perception that guns were given away to supporters and friends of Mike Carona."

Guns were given away?! I thought permits were the only issue, not guns. Is this an accurate quote of what she said, or did the reporter screw this up too?

[Ken_In_Colo]

Originally Posted by derringer

...forfeited their permits under threat of revocation...

Good catch derringer. The article didn't even mention the gyrations Hutch went thru at the DOJ in order to allow permit holders to early expire under the threat of revocation.

BTW, does anyone know how much OCSD (really the taxpayers of OC) was billed by the DOJ for those changes to it's system? No IT organization does these type of system modifications for nothing. Has a public records request for this information been issued?

[kahrguy]

Sorry for my posting inexperience. I don't know how to start a thread, only reply so I hope this works....

I received a letter from PSD dated May 12....

says... The OCSD has & will conduct internal audits of it's active CCW licenses to ensure legal adherence with Ca.... A recent audit revealed that your most recent application did meet the standard of "good cause"...

They ARE requesting that I go in and sign a "reasonable restriction" on my CCW based upon my stated good cause.

In previous threads, I think this means in the scope of my business, etc... which gives me a lot of latitude.

Question, my CCW expires in 4 months. Do my brothers & sisters here on the forum recommend that I go in and sign or ignore the letter?

Thank you! I am a monthly (small but consistent) donor, though it doesn't show on my bio. I appreciate all of the great information here on this site.

Kahr (and Sig..) Guy

[Harry Carry]

Do not ignore the letter. Do what is requested so that you do not jeopardize your CCW.

Originally Posted by kahrguy

Sorry for my posting inexperience. I don't know how to start a thread, only reply so I hope this works....

I received a letter from PSD dated May 12....

says... The OCSD has & will conduct internal audits of it's active CCW licenses to ensure legal adherence with Ca.... A recent audit revealed that your most recent application did meet the standard of "good cause"...

They ARE requesting that I go in and sign a "reasonable restriction" on my CCW based upon my stated good cause.

In previous threads, I think this means in the scope of my business, etc... which gives me a lot of latitude.

Question, my CCW expires in 4 months. Do my brothers & sisters here on the forum recommend that I go in and sign or ignore the letter?

Thank you! I am a monthly (small but consistent) donor, though it doesn't show on my bio. I appreciate all of the great information here on this site.

Kahr (and Sig..) Guy

[swdr]

Anderson said the lower number represents ... or situations that change such as threats that no longer exist.

It must be nice to be an all-knowing god, like this Jack.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by derringer

Is this entirely honest? Are they being dishonest by failing to mention that the rest (140 if my math is correct: 1133originally - 900now - 93 revoked = 140 unaccounted) had forfeited their permits under threat of revocation?! They make it sound as though only 93 permit holders in all were affected by Hutchens' action. Again, I wonder about the reporter not being savvy enough to see through this, or deceitful enough to not report the whole truth?

They have mastered the use of fuzzy math. Every time they/she gets up in front of the BOS they throw out numbers that are totally inaccurate. Whether intentional or from ineptness.

As far as the reporter that reported. Give him a little latitude he has been the main person to put the County CCW issue in front of the OC Register readers.

Another thing I have figured out is reporting is NEVER totally accurate, mostly partially accurate and a lot of times intentionally (scewed by personal agenda) inaccurate. Example, the John and Ken tax revolt event that occurred over the weekend was covered by the channel 4 news and they had some clips of it. They reported hundreds were there, when there were thousands and they reported it was held in Orange County when it was held in Riverside County. They do not even know where their own camera man was.