Hutchens’ hostility to 2nd Amendment

[Gladiator]

Hutchens’ hostility to 2nd Amendment - Orange Punch - OCRegister.com


Hutchens’ hostility to 2nd Amendment
July 9th, 2008, 5:13 pm · 9 Comments · posted by Steven Greenhut

Register columnist Gordon Dillow published a good column today on new Sheriff Sandra Hutchens’ views on concealed carry. Hutchens is a consummate bureaucrat, so it’s no surprise that she shows a bureaucrat’s (lack of) understanding of freedom. She is going to decide who gets to carry a concealed weapon based on her determination of whether that person needs one. Such a system tends to be abused, as those with political connections fare better than the average person wanting protection.

The basic rule in a free society: Individuals get to decide whether they should own a gun, provided they meet some basic standards (i.e., no criminal record or record of insanity). In Hutchens’ world, the officials decide. Here’s the key passage from Dillow: “‘I probably will tighten it up a bit, but probably not as drastically as some people might assume,’ Hutchens told me. But Hutchens also indicated that she envisions a higher threshold on the ‘good cause’ necessary for a citizen to have a CCW.”

My prediction: If you’re an off-duty law enforcement officer, you will get to have one. But if you are a mere citizen who runs a business or fears crime in your neighborhood, then it will be tough luck.

[Ciderbite]

so now that we know this..................lets start looking for a canidate that is willing to go to bat for the average joe. talking is done. lets get to work

[AMS MIKE]

Originally Posted by Ciderbite

so now that we know this..................lets start looking for a canidate that is willing to go to bat for the average joe. talking is done. lets get to work

thats a great idea. have any suggestions?

[38special]

I thought some forum members had talked to her and felt she was pro-CCW???

[Bombard]

She has been very careful in talking directly with us to not take ANY position. But we are hearing secondary indications that are very un-encouraging.

My family has made it clear to our supervisors - Nguyen and Moorlach - that our support or opposition to them depends entirely on what Sheriff Hutchens does about CCWs. They appointed her, they have responsibility for her. So far, it's not looking good.

[sholling]

Unfortuantely for a supposedly free society "Brad Gates' Law" forbids mere mortals from running for that office. It's a bit like a law saying only a general can run for president/commander in chief or only a congressman can run for congress. Not at all conducive to democracy or fair play and making the sheriff completely unanswerable to the people. It's very telling of how much power a sitting sheriff wields that anybody as crooked as Gates could convince the legislature to pass a law shielding him from being beaten fair and square by a sitting judge. Sending deputies to harass the judge's supporters wasn't enough so he called in some favors and got the law through. Well that's a law that needs repealing.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by 38special

I thought some forum members had talked to her and felt she was pro-CCW???

She did not talk to any of us. You may be thinking about the comments Supervisor Moorlach made about interviewing her and, in his view, her position was closer to Carona's than Walters.

So much for interviews.

[NSP]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

She did not talk to any of us. You may be thinking about the comments Supervisor Moorlach made about interviewing her and, in his view, her position was closer to Carona's than Walters.

So much for interviews.

Wasn't one of us photographed with her and indeed did talk to her. If not I am severely confused

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by NSP

Wasn't one of us photographed with her and indeed did talk to her. If not I am severely confused

Yes that was me in the photograph, twice! Details of that conversation are not posted out of respect for her policy coming out shortly. . . . .

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by NSP

Wasn't one of us photographed with her and indeed did talk to her. If not I am severely confused

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Yes that was me in the photograph, twice! Details of that conversation are not posted out of respect for her policy coming out shortly. . . . .

Yes. But she did not meet with CCWI as a representative of this forum. She met with him as a CCW instructor, and someone who has been a significant person relative to the department's CCW policy.

[Ciderbite]

Originally Posted by AMS MIKE

thats a great idea. have any suggestions?

Yeah.......actually i do

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Yes that was me in the photograph, twice! Details of that conversation are not posted out of respect for her policy coming out shortly. . . . .

Well know you all know. . . .