Sheriff in spotlight for concealed weapons permits

[Gladiator]

Sheriff in spotlight for concealed weapons permits - Total Buzz : The Orange County Register

Sheriff in spotlight for concealed weapons permits

February 24th, 2010, 3:08 pm · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter

Sheriff Sandra Hutchens prompted guffaws from some Second Amendment stalwarts when she said at a Feb. 9 candidate forum that she’s approved 90 percent of applications for concealed weapons permits.

In fact, she’s significantly tightened distribution criteria. There are 22 percent fewer CCW permits than when Hutchens was appointed to the job in 2008. And most permits she’s approved come with restrictions absent from permits issued by predecessor Mike Carona.

The issue is unlikely to determine the outcome of this year’s sheriff’s election. But one challenger – Bill Hunt – has made it a central campaign issue and the other challenger – Craig Hunter – is also a critic of Hutchens’ policy. Voters for whom the permits are important are relatively few, but they are passionate and they could help bring gun-rights dough to Hunt and Hunter.

Both challengers say they would be more lax in handing out the permits. Hunt has said he’d grant requests from any adult with a clean record and no obvious mental health issues, so long as they say they need the weapon for “personal protection.”

Hunter says he’d like state law to allow Hunt’s generous approach, but that a bit more scrutiny is mandated – although not nearly so much scrutiny as Hutchens practices.

Hutchens too cites state law, which requires applicants show “good cause” to qualify for permit to carry a concealed weapon. Is somebody stalking or threatening you? Do you carry large amounts of cash or valuables in the course of your work? Those are the type of “good cause” that qualifies, according to Hutchens.

“The policy under the previous administration was to freely give them out,” Hutchens said. “It comes down to whether you’re going to follow the law. The prior sheriff did not. What I’ve done is look at the mainstream policy and follow what is practical.”

Unlike Carona’s policy, Hutchens usually allows those who qualify because of the nature of their job to carry weapons only while they’re on the job. A total of 85 percent of citizen permits – excluding those issued to reserves and judges – have such restrictions.

After I wrote about Hutchens statement that her department approved 90 percent of applications, I got calls from a few people who’d been denied. One was a real-estate broker who’d had a permit at least since 2002, but had it revoked by Hutchens. He said he needed a weapon because he regularly met strangers in unfamiliar places.

“But it’s not, ‘Why do I need it?’” said Ron Miller of San Juan Capistrano. “It’s, ‘Why shouldn’t I have one if I don’t fall in one of those prohibited groups’” such as ex-cons and the mentally ill.

Another complaint came from an investment manager who been denied a renewal. He said he needed to carry a gun because he carried confidential financial information and checks worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Both of these callers were skeptical that Hutchens approved 90 percent of applications, so I asked her depratment for the numbers. There were 1,069 permits in July 2008, a month after Hutchens took office and before she implemented her new policy. There were 832 permits in circulation as of the report the Sheriff’s Department emailed me on Feb. 19.

She’d issued 564 new and renewed permits, and denied 78 – which at 88 percent is about the 90 percent figure she gave. But that doesn’t included the 132 she either revoked or was planning to revoke but instead allowed to expire early at the request of the gun owner, who didn’t want a “revoked” denotation on their record.

Another 168 others didn’t seek renewal, some because they died or otherwise not longer needed the permit – but others because they didn’t think they would qualify under the new policy, according to Greg Block, one of five contractors who provides mandated training to those approved to carry guns.

Of the 1,069 people with CCW permits just after Hutchens was appointed to the job, 68 percent now have permits. Of 141 new applications processed since then, 76 percent were approved.

Block also argues that there should be no restrictions. If you’re approved to carry a hidden gun, you should be able to carry it 24-7.

“Business owners who are carrying cash or jewelry are usually restricted to carrying a gun when they have that cash or jewelry,” Block said. “So the time to hold them up is when they’re not transporting. Put a gun to their head and make them go to their place of business where they have the valuables.”

Hutchens countered that the permits are issued on a case-by-case basis, and if, for example, a jeweler was significantly well known that there could be a 24-hour threat, such restrictions wouldn’t necessarily apply.

[THE Gimper]

Unlike Carona’s policy, Hutchens usually allows those who qualify because of the nature of their job to carry weapons only while they’re on the job. A total of 85 percent of citizen permits – excluding those issued to reserves and judges – have such restrictions.

As I stated when I spoke to the Resolutions Committee of the OC Republican Party, when they were considering their resolution opposing her policy:

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

This despite the fact that there has never been a single instance of a judge in Orange County being attacked, much less murdered. And there are armed officers in the court to protect judges. Furthermore, if a threat is made against a judge, he is automatically entitled to a security detail which will escort him from his home to the court and back. You might ask, “What if he goes out to dinner with his wife, or to the store? Shouldn’t he be able to carry a concealed weapon in order to defend himself then?” Yes. Of course he should. And this points out another unfair aspect of Sheriff Hutchens’ policy. The majority of ordinary citizens who are lucky enough to be issued a CCW license under her restrictive policy have a “Course and Scope of Business” limitation placed on their licenses. This means that they are allowed to carry only during the very specific times and circumstances detailed in their good cause. Are they no less at risk when they go out to dinner or to the store? Is it right that 'special classes' of people are afforded the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, while ordinary law abiding citizens are denied the same?

From Craig Hunter's CCC policy statement:

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves if assaulted, and as your Sheriff I will not enact policies which put criminals at an advantage over the law abiding residents of Orange County.

CCW Policy Statement by Sheriff Candidate Craig Hunter | OCCCWS

[Keith92555]

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves if assaulted, and as your Sheriff I will not enact policies which put criminals at an advantage over the law abiding residents of Orange County.

I know that this guy has been pretty straight forward and all, but I sure would like to see that statement say "from assault" instead of "if assaulted." Color me skeptical, but I just hate seeing public statements from a political figure that could possibly be considered ambiguous. I can definitely see SOME politicians making a statement like that and then saying "if you get assaulted, then you can get a permit." I don't think Hunter would do this based on what has been posted here so far, but ya just never know.

[Akzl]

Originally Posted by Keith92555

I know that this guy has been pretty straight forward and all, but I sure would like to see that statement say "from assault" instead of "if assaulted." Color me skeptical, but I just hate seeing public statements from a political figure that could possibly be considered ambiguous. I can definitely see SOME politicians making a statement like that and then saying "if you get assaulted, then you can get a permit." I don't think Hunter would do this based on what has been posted here so far, but ya just never know.

+1 both of our candidates have some holes in their respective campaigns, we need to be diligent in researching what both say. I do not want to rely on semantics when they get into office as was stated above.

[Gunter]

Over here in Austria a carry permit for a handgun is good for concealed or open (including long guns) carry 24/7. Some issuing authorities interpret the "may issue" very restrictively, and some try to put "only while actually on the job" restrictions on the licences, which although illegal become binding unless they are contested within 14 days of issuance.

[brightside]

Thanks for posting.

I love this line: "Voters for whom the permits are important are relatively few, but they are passionate and they could help bring gun-rights dough to Hunt and Hunter."

Get out your wallets!

And what's with all the Hunt this, Hunter that. Do voters with poor eyesight run the risk of voting for the wrong candidate? Why not a third candidate named Hunts?

All kidding aside, It's great that attention is being brought to the CCW issue. +1

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Keith92555

I know that this guy has been pretty straight forward and all, but I sure would like to see that statement say "from assault" instead of "if assaulted." Color me skeptical, but I just hate seeing public statements from a political figure that could possibly be considered ambiguous. I can definitely see SOME politicians making a statement like that and then saying "if you get assaulted, then you can get a permit." I don't think Hunter would do this based on what has been posted here so far, but ya just never know.

2 things.

First, here is the whole policy statement:

Current California law requires that good cause be established by those desiring a CCW. Courts have ruled that Sheriffs in California have almost unfettered latitude in determining what good cause is. Our current Sheriff has adopted a restrictive interpretation of good cause. I will not.

Everyone’s circumstances are different. Some travel through areas with little cell coverage and extended law enforcement response time. Many exercise at night away from home in locations which make them vulnerable. Some transport valuable property which makes them targets for criminals. The reality is that individuals have different reasons for desiring a CCW for purposes of self-defense, and when I am Sheriff of Orange County, reasonable expressions of good cause will be sufficient.


Police Chiefs and Sheriffs from throughout the United States agree that their initial reluctance in issuing CCW permits was unnecessary, and they have been pleasantly surprised by the absence of problems. Anyone who believes a self-protection firearm is not a deterrent to crime is simply being unrealistic.

I believe that everyone has the right to defend themselves if assaulted, and as your Sheriff I will not enact policies which put criminals at an advantage over the law abiding residents of Orange County.

I believe this statement, taken in its entirety, shows that Hunter clearly views CCW as a means to prevent crime, not as a response to it.

Second, I was at the fundraiser last Friday, and Hunter was asked several questions about his CCW policy. One of those questions was "What kind of restrictions would you put on a CCW?" His answer was, "None. I don't see a need for restrictions. It's your right to carry."

[CalCCW03]

I moved Rudigan's question to Gunter re: Austrian Olympic athletes to Sam's Saloon. More appropriate than this forum.

http://www.calccw.com/Forums/sams-sa...-athletes.html

[ghschirtz]

I think the portrayal of one sheriff as “lax” and another as “tight” is foolish. The question about CA’s “may issue” is what is “good cause”.

Having been stalked for more than a year, and knowing the limits of “police protection” in a very personal and practical way, good cause is self-defense. Sheriffs in locales with low population density, relatively small forces, are mature enough to recognize they probably cannot respond timely to a call for help. Tthey are realistic about their situation, and, functionally, “self-defense” is adequate good cause.

Sherrifs like Baca, Hutchens (trained by Baca) and in urban locales feel they have to pretend they can control crime. Big elections, big money, big egos get in the way of the reality that 99% of time, their troops are responding to, not preventing, crime.

This is not to slam the people in the field in any way. There simply is no mechanical way they can cover everybody, which is why they legitimately have no legal liability to do so. I have been on the sharp end of this situation.

CA should be a “shall issue” state, and is regressive in its attitude toward gun control. The stark comparison of many shall issue states and CA, with its #1 Brady Campaign rating for strict gun controls, in murders per capita is quiet testimony that disarming the law-abiding fails miserably. Try 6.8 murders per 100,000 people in CA in 2008. In Vermont, where no license is required to carry concealed, that rate is .9.

This inverse trend between strict gun controls and murder rates is undeniable, and there are decades of information that show “shall issue” laws reduce ALL violent crime, every time.

CA law enforcement can either be “progressive” in learning what works or they can cling to ideology and what they think will get them elected next time around. They can make a true commitment to citizens or play a game. They can educate all voters as to their limitations, honestly, or carry stars on their collar points as a badge of honor and superiority. Hutchens got her training from Baca. She is a loser if you are interested in reducing crime and allowing the law-abiding to defend themselves when they have to, which is a matter Hutchens has no control over, and is a liar if she says she does.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by ghschirtz

I think the portrayal of one sheriff as “lax” and another as “tight” is foolish. The question about CA’s “may issue” is what is “good cause”.

Having been stalked for more than a year, and knowing the limits of “police protection” in a very personal and practical way, good cause is self-defense. Sheriffs in locales with low population density, relatively small forces, are mature enough to recognize they probably cannot respond timely to a call for help. Tthey are realistic about their situation, and, functionally, “self-defense” is adequate good cause.

Sherrifs like Baca, Hutchens (trained by Baca) and in urban locales feel they have to pretend they can control crime. Big elections, big money, big egos get in the way of the reality that 99% of time, their troops are responding to, not preventing, crime.

This is not to slam the people in the field in any way. There simply is no mechanical way they can cover everybody, which is why they legitimately have no legal liability to do so. I have been on the sharp end of this situation.

CA should be a “shall issue” state, and is regressive in its attitude toward gun control. The stark comparison of many shall issue states and CA, with its #1 Brady Campaign rating for strict gun controls, in murders per capita is quiet testimony that disarming the law-abiding fails miserably. Try 6.8 murders per 100,000 people in CA in 2008. In Vermont, where no license is required to carry concealed, that rate is .9.

This inverse trend between strict gun controls and murder rates is undeniable, and there are decades of information that show “shall issue” laws reduce ALL violent crime, every time.

CA law enforcement can either be “progressive” in learning what works or they can cling to ideology and what they think will get them elected next time around. They can make a true commitment to citizens or play a game. They can educate all voters as to their limitations, honestly, or carry stars on their collar points as a badge of honor and superiority. Hutchens got her training from Baca. She is a loser if you are interested in reducing crime and allowing the law-abiding to defend themselves when they have to, which is a matter Hutchens has no control over, and is a liar if she says she does.

Hey ghschirtz! Good to hear from you. You're absolutely correct. CA should be Shall Issue, and hopefully, with either the passage of AB357 or a ruling from the US Supreme Court in June incorporating the 2nd Amendment, CA will become a Shall Issue state. In the meantime, we're trying to make the best of the situation as it is. We want to dump Hutchens, and as much as we'd love to have a sheriff with a Shall Issue policy (a.k.a. personal protection) we realize that OC can't get away with that. It would prompt legal action by the AG and Cal DOJ against the Sheriff. That's why we're supporting Craig Hunter. His policy gets us as close to Shall Issue as possible while satisfying the requirement that applicants show good cause.

[EM2]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

We want to dump Hutchens, and as much as we'd love to have a sheriff with a Shall Issue policy (a.k.a. personal protection) we realize that OC can't get away with that. It would prompt legal action by the AG and Cal DOJ against the Sheriff. That's why we're supporting Craig Hunter. His policy gets us as close to Shall Issue as possible while satisfying the requirement that applicants show good cause.

I still do not get this issue. I understand that the AG may try and find some legal problem with shall issue but why is it that apparently the OC sheriff and/or folk down there are affraid of this where as other sheriffs are not?
There are ways of being defacto 'shall issue' without actually saying so.

[DVSmith]

Originally Posted by EM2

I still do not get this issue. I understand that the AG may try and find some legal problem with shall issue but why is it that apparently the OC sheriff and/or folk down there are affraid of this where as other sheriffs are not?
There are ways of being defacto 'shall issue' without actually saying so.

And this is the part that Hunter gets and that Hunt does not.

[tango-52]

The other Sheriffs are not in high-population density counties. The AG & DOJ is not concerned if a hundred people in Modoc County get CCWs by putting down Personal Protection. But if the same population percentage did that in Orange or LA Counties, it would be tens of thousands. That is politically unpalatable to them. They would take the position that the Sheriff wasn't following his obligation under the law (as determined in previous court cases) to use discretion in carefully reviewing and issuing each single CCW to ensure that the applicant had sufficient good cause. You need to remember, the woman running the DOJ Bureau of Firearms, Allison Merilees, takes her marching orders from the Brady Campaign. That has been documented by the good folks over on Calguns. It is going to take a couple of court cases (McDonald v. Chicago, followed by Sykes v. Sacramento) to get California to be Shall Issue.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by EM2

I still do not get this issue. I understand that the AG may try and find some legal problem with shall issue but why is it that apparently the OC sheriff and/or folk down there are affraid of this where as other sheriffs are not?
There are ways of being defacto 'shall issue' without actually saying so.

Originally Posted by DVSmith

And this is the part that Hunter gets and that Hunt does not.

Precisely my point. Hunter's policy gets us to a de facto shall issue policy without actually saying so.