Hutchens Addresses CCWs

[Gladiator]

Hutchens Addresses CCWs - OC BLOG, Part of the Red County Network


Hutchens Addresses CCWs

Posted by: Jubal | 07/23/2008 2:23 PM

Before getting to introducing her new command staff, Sheriff Hutchens wanted to make a statement regarding her review of the OCSD's CCW policy.

It doesn't sounds like much will change. Hutchens said her "CCW policy will follow industry standard practices" and that "CCWs will not be issued for political, social or other reasons"

Disqualifers will include a "previous felony conviction, or a misdemeanor conviction in last five years" for an office involving violence. She also said "applicants may -- I repeat, may -- be required to be undergo psychiatric evaluation."

She also said CCWs may have "situation-specific restrictions" such as can only carry a concealed weapon during certain hours.

Hutchens: "There was a feeling I was going to be restrictive and that's not my intent, but to implement a fair and equitable process."

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by Gladiator

Hutchens Addresses CCWs - OC BLOG, Part of the Red County Network


Hutchens Addresses CCWs

Posted by: Jubal | 07/23/2008 2:23 PM

Before getting to introducing her new command staff, Sheriff Hutchens wanted to make a statement regarding her review of the OCSD's CCW policy.

It doesn't sounds like much will change. Hutchens said her "CCW policy will follow industry standard practices" and that "CCWs will not be issued for political, social or other reasons"

Disqualifers will include a "previous felony conviction, or a misdemeanor conviction in last five years" for an office involving violence. She also said "applicants may -- I repeat, may -- be required to be undergo psychiatric evaluation."

She also said CCWs may have "situation-specific restrictions" such as can only carry a concealed weapon during certain hours.

Hutchens: "There was a feeling I was going to be restrictive and that's not my intent, but to implement a fair and equitable process."

She needs some help writing statements because that one contradicts itself.... I THINK I know what she meant to say, but because its articulated so poorly, I CANT BE SURE....

"CCWs will not be issued for political, social or other reasons"

This sounds like CCWs WILL NOT BE ISSUED FOR ANY REASON???? I dont know any other way to interpret this sentence. Yet, I DONT THINK ITS WHAT SHE MEANS TO SAY!!!!

Because she then ends with:

"There was a feeling I was going to be restrictive and that's not my intent, but to implement a fair and equitable process."

Which sounds like CCWs WILL be issued but its just the process shes changing?

[CCWInstructor]

Hutchens issues draft concealed weapons policy - Total Buzz - OCRegister.com

Hutchens issues draft concealed weapons policy
July 23rd, 2008, 3:19 pm · Post a Comment · posted by PEGGY LOWE

permit.jpgBefore Sheriff Sandra Hutchens revealed her new comand staff today, she told reporters about a policy she has drafted on concealed weapons permits.

Responding to criticisms of former Sheriff Mike Carona’s policy as rewarding his political cronies, Hutchens said she will bar the issuing of any CCWs as a political or social favor. Anyone seeking to get a permit must demonstrate “credible, significant and substantiated” threats to their safety, she said, and they will be subjected to a background check. Anyone with a felony conviction, a misdemeanor charge involving violence or a misdemeanor charge in the last five years will be barred from the permits, Hutchens said.

Hutchens said her aim is to be “consistent, equitable and fair.”

[Quietpi]

Heh, the answer to the big question remains -- We won't know what she's going to do until she actually starts doing it. Nothing she has said or done really communicates anything meaningful.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by CCWInstructor

Hutchens issues draft concealed weapons policy - Total Buzz - OCRegister.com

Hutchens issues draft concealed weapons policy
July 23rd, 2008, 3:19 pm · Post a Comment · posted by PEGGY LOWE

permit.jpgBefore Sheriff Sandra Hutchens revealed her new comand staff today, she told reporters about a policy she has drafted on concealed weapons permits.

Responding to criticisms of former Sheriff Mike Carona’s policy as rewarding his political cronies, Hutchens said she will bar the issuing of any CCWs as a political or social favor. Anyone seeking to get a permit must demonstrate “credible, significant and substantiated” threats to their safety, she said, and they will be subjected to a background check. Anyone with a felony conviction, a misdemeanor charge involving violence or a misdemeanor charge in the last five years will be barred from the permits, Hutchens said.

Hutchens said her aim is to be “consistent, equitable and fair.”

Significant? Substantiated? So, are business people going to lose or not get their CCWs renewed also? Would they actually need to wait until they were robbed to show good cause for transporting money or jewels? Under that policy would reserve deputies even get CCWs? Would they have to wait for a credible, significat, and substantiated threat to their safety to happen before they were issued?

Also, maybe her statement about felons was to let the uniformed know, but felons can't own firearms. Why would they need a license to CCW?

[THE Gimper]

Anyone seeking to get a permit must demonstrate “credible, significant and substantiated” threats to their safety,

What that means is no one will be issued because he engages in an activity that puts him at greater risk, such as a business owner making large cash deposits, but only if he can document specific threats. How many people who are robbed, first receive threats that they're going to be attacked by their attacker? Zilch. This is a huge change from the policy under Carona.

Issuance is going to go way down.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Spicy McHaggis

Would they actually need to wait until they were robbed to show good cause for transporting money or jewels?

And how many times would they have to be robbed before they can document a credible risk? It could be argued that being robbed once is a random thing, and not likely to happen again, so no CCW.

So you have to hope you get attacked more than once, and survive each time? Yeah. That sounds fair.

[Glock32]

The next few weeks will show what her policy really looks like. I am sorry but I can't take this BS serious any more.

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

And how many times would they have to be robbed before they can document a credible risk? It could be argued that being robbed once is a random thing, and not likely to happen again, so no CCW.

So you have to hope you get attacked more than once, and survive each time? Yeah. That sounds fair.

Dont be so cynical.... I think its safe to say that if youre murdered, youll have good cause.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Dont be so cynical.... I think its safe to say that if youre murdered, youll had good cause.

Fixed it for you.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Originally Posted by RomanDad

Dont be so cynical.... I think its safe to say that if youre murdered, youll have good cause.

I don't think that would work either, because it is only a one time thing. Like another post said, a one time thing is random and not a substantiated threat.

[Gr8OCGuy]

You can't figure out her statements, because she's making them for that very reason! I think it's fair to say, her statements are not clear, as they are being made for politcal purposes, not for meaningful and critical analysis... For instance, just after indicating a MUCH more invasive, aggressive review process, and potentially MUCH more expensive, and certainly MUCH more time consuming, she says..."There was a feeling I was going to be restrictive and that's not my intent (even though the direct result will be more restrictive), but to implement a fair and equitable process." (even though I may or may not require a psych eval, depending on what???).... It's the ole, do as I want and just keep saying nice sounds bites....'do the right thing', 'fair and equitable', 'pretty safe'...blah blah....OK, I'm really off the deep end now.... I'll take a few deep breaths now and go pet the dogs...hehe....

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Spicy McHaggis

I don't think that would work either, because it is only a one time thing. Like another post said, a one time thing is random and not a substantiated threat.

Now you're beginning to get it.

[EM2]

You guys in OC are in a pickle.
How long til you can vote her out and get someone CCW friendly?

This is exactly why shall issue CCW is needed.

We here in Fresno county were in a similar situation until we got Sheriff Mimms voted in. I tried a few years ago to get a CCW and they flat out refused to send me the application after a phone interviewing deputy determined my "cause" was not good enough.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by EM2

You guys in OC are in a pickle.
How long til you can vote her out and get someone CCW friendly?

About 18 months.

Originally Posted by EM2

This is exactly why shall issue CCW is needed.

Absolutely!