UPDATE: Supervisors tell Sheriff to ease concealed gun policy

[Gladiator]

News: County supervisors and Sheriff battle over gun permits | hutchens, gun, supervisors, permits, law - OCRegister.com

Tuesday, November 18, 2008
UPDATE: Supervisors tell Sheriff to ease concealed gun policy
More than 100 protesters show up at county board meeting to show anger over reversal of Carona gun policy
BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register
Comments 30 | Recommend 50

County supervisors, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and hundreds of gun activists engaged Tuesday in a Wild West-style shootout over restrictive concealed gun policies Hutchens has introduced during her first six months in office.
After hearing more than 80 speakers present compelling stories of threats and safety concerns, supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution calling on Hutchens to ease her review of concealed weapons permits and broaden the reasons why a member of the public could carry a concealed handgun.
Hutchens – who sat through the entire eight-hour hearing – was gracious about the debate afterward saying, “I was happy to hear what the issues are,” and called the session a “respectful debate.”
It might have been respectful. But it was also forceful.
“You’re being extremely restrictive,” said County Supervisors Pat Bates.
Hutchens replied, “I do not view my policy to be restrictive,” which triggered massive laughter from the audience.
The hearing was also precedent-setting. No one could remember an Orange County Sheriff sitting through such aggressive questioning by county supervisors - and with a smile.
County Supervisors’ Chairman John Moorlach also set an ironic precedent with his chief of staff joining the county counsel in a briefing that angered several supervisors. While Moorlach told the crowd that he was a proponent of concealed weapons, his staff member was arguing supervisors should not even pass a resolution telling the sheriff what to do.
In the end, that’s just what they did.
However, Hutchens noted that the resolution adopted by supervisors, “isn’t far from what I’m implementing.”
She also said she would consider how to handle the 423 revocation letters that she has issued after hearing concerns that a revocation would end up in people’s case files with the Department of Justice. “I may take a look at that,” she said after the hearing.
According to Hutchens, 1,069 concealed weapons permits have been reviewed and 646 have remained untouched. A total of 423 revocation letters have been sent out advising residents that they need to provide more proof of their need for carrying a concealed handgun. Hutchens also noted that since she took office, 64 applications have been received and 32 approved.
Hutchens – who was appointed by county supervisors in June after former Sheriff Mike Carona resigned in the wake of a federal indictment – began reviewing the concealed weapons permits issued by Carona after hearing of several irregularities in the process.
“When you come behind an indicted Sheriff, it’s prudent to look at everything,” she said.
Federal officials noted a questionable permit granted to a Carona contributor in their indictment and former Assistant Sheriff Don Haidl has testified in Carona’s trial that concealed weapons permits and badges were handed out to contributors. Indeed, the Orange County Register did find 95 instances where Carona campaign donors – who gave more than $68,000 - received gun permits.
Under California state law, Sheriffs are granted wide discretion on setting policies that define the “good cause” needed to carry a concealed weapon. Carona was known in the gun community for his liberal interpretation of the standard. In fact, many rural counties do grant many more licenses than Sheriffs in urban areas.
But Hutchens argues that wide discretion is misleading. She sees the state law as very clear. Concealed weapons permits are an exception. And there are guidelines for granted the permits, even though it’s only a 1977 attorney general letter. But without any kind of regulatory body to enforce standards, Hutchens says all of California’s 58 Sheriff’s are on “the honor system.” And she believes in enforcing the spirit of the law, even when no one is looking.
“Just as I expect my deputies to follow the intent of the law, especially when no one is looking,” Hutchens told supervisors on Tuesday.
In October, Hutchens announced her new policy noting that specific proof of threats or workplace needs would be required, in addition to possible psychological and medical checks. Later that month, county supervisors questioned her and she made a misstep by saying none had yet to be revoked. She forgot to add that hundreds of residents were receiving letters advising them that their licenses would be revoked in 30 days without further good cause information.
The revisions triggered an avalanche of activist ire. And county supervisors got an earful. Soon, they were asking aggressive questions using information provided by activists.
“You have massive confusion in this state over good cause,” said Ed Worley, a California state liaison for the National Rifle Association. Worley said he was inundated by messages from Orange County members voicing concerns that concealed weapons permits were being denied. Other NRA officials at Tuesday’s meeting indicated they were monitoring the events and considering whether to become more involved in fundraising for local elections based on the decisions made.
Most of the speakers at the podium before supervisors told stories of being affected by crime, or having professions such as pilots that made them vulnerable to terrorist attacks.
Richard Gilbert, 44, of Buena Park, told supervisors he wanted to apply for a permit because his disability – spina bifida – made it impossible for him to run away from an attacker. After reading stories of random violence, he asked how people could even show credible threats.
“Criminals don’t just attack some random class of people,” he said.
Jack Sobelman, 58, of Costa Mesa, told supervisors his concealed weapon permit had been revoked despite being “a political nobody.”
Sobelman said as a private pilot, he flew many dignitaries around and could be under threat from terrorists looking to hijack a small plane. He said a friend with similar cause had not had his license revoked.
“There’s no down side to having good, honest, competent people having a CCW,” Sobleman said.
However, Mary and Charles Blek – who lost their son to gun violence – made a point of showing up to the hearing so county supervisors would hear a different point of view on guns.
“The presence of a gun can escalate situations,” Blek said, adding that she and others who were not present approved of Hutchens policy.
“For example, do you want to be at a Ducks game, surrounded by tons of beer and people carrying concealed weapons,” asked Mary Blek.
She told supervisors that while she and her husband respected the views and passion of the audience, they are a small, vocal and organized minority in Orange County.

[Dusty45]

Thanks for the thorough report.

[SenorJefe]

“The presence of a gun can escalate situations,” Blek said, adding that she and others who were not present approved of Hutchens policy.

“For example, do you want to be at a Ducks game, surrounded by tons of beer and people carrying concealed weapons,” asked Mary Blek.

She makes it sound like the CCW holders are getting wasted in public while stowing firearms.

She told supervisors that while she and her husband respected the views and passion of the audience, they are a small, vocal and organized minority in Orange County.

Yeah Mary, as opposed the the incredibly LARGE, disorganized group of "others who were not present"? Give me a break.

I feel for anyone who has lost a loved one that way, but people are really irrational about this. I have lost family members to car wrecks with elderly people behind the wheel. Not many people are trying to ban "the public display of being old while driving a weapon."

[38special]

Some googled info on Mary and Charles Blek:
On the side of gun control were Charles Blek of the Orange County Citizens For Prevention Of Gun Violence (and husband to Million Mom March general Mary Leigh Blek).

[SenorJefe]

Originally Posted by 38special

Some googled info on Mary and Charles Blek:
On the side of gun control were Charles Blek of the Orange County Citizens For Prevention Of Gun Violence (and husband to Million Mom March general Mary Leigh Blek).

Oh yes, that's right! It's all coming back to me now. This must be the same Million Mom March organization that ended up using tax-exempt money to support political contributions?

Yeah, real stand-up bunch, they are.

[huna koa]

Quote:

“For example, do you want to be at a Ducks game, surrounded by tons of beer and people carrying concealed weapons,” asked Mary Blek.

...or she doesn't know, or doesn't want the publice to know, weapons are not allowed at that venue, and law abiding CCWs' DON'T DRINK & Carry.

[Quietpi]

AKA "Shouldasaids," but for all I know somebody did:

“The presence of a gun can escalate situations…”

This phrase always seems to show up with the Brady Bunch. But I rarely hear it challenged.

In fact, while there is a sliver of truth in the statement, that's all there is. It is so simplistic that it is absurd. It is no more helpful to any debate than somebody pointing out that every time a house is built, hammers are involved. The problem is that, as long as only bad guys have guns, it's only the good guys that get hurt. In fact, the absence of a gun can also escalate situations. And when it's the law-abiding and trained citizen who doesn't have the gun, that escalation will not be favorable.

And being able to have a gun in the house provides no comfort. While I have met bad guys with guns, I've never met one in my house.

[hotwls13]

Thanks for the update.

I had to stop watching at 4:30 but I watched from around 1-4:30. I think those that showed up did a great job! A couple things I noticed:

1. Why did they cut off the CCW Instructor? Did his time run out? It seemed pretty quick to me.

2. It REALLY irritated me that the Sheriff acted like it was no big deal that those REVOKED would have it in the CLETS system for as she said "ONLY A QUARTER" and in the DOJ database for TWO YEARS. I don't care if it's ONE DAY, that's too much. That's enough, and I would be suing the pants off of the County.

3. I laughed outloud when The Brady guy said he thinks the Sheriff's policy on this is clear and concise.

4. One thing I was thinking though is the whole "defining of what a Good Cause is". Unless they adopt a VERY LENIENT policy such as "Personal Defense" or a "VERY RESTRICTIVE" one such as LA County, do other County's specifically define what a Good Cause is? What I mean is, it's not allowed to post your Good Cause on here in the open. I ASSuME that is so others won't just copy and paste your Good Cause, try to use it as there own thereby causing the Sheriffs to start denying because of copied Good Cause? I think in County's like Kern, our process works well. I don't think the Kern County Sheriff came out and said "if you put Personal Defense on your Good Cause that's enough", but from what I have heard, that IS the way it is. As in, he didn't make a public statement about it (avoiding pissing off the anti's) while in the approval process, that IS good cause.

5. I can't believe they would revoke a LOT of those folks. MANY had OUTSTANDING or an OVERWHELMING Good Cause.

6. Lastly, it seems to me that, other than possibly allowing the current CCW holders to keep there permit until it expires, the Sheriff is not going to budge. If that is the case, those that come up for review (at there 2yr mark) will simply be denied renewal at that time. I hope I'm wrong, but she just doesn't seem to be changed or moved by this.

[SmokinMr2]

I doubt she will change her policies as well.

After listening to some of the speakers that had revocation letters sent to them, I think she is seriously not involved in the issue/revocation process. She really had no idea what her staff was doing and had no idea about the numbers involved.

She had no idea (or didn't care) about the effect a revocation would mean to some participant's careers.

Even if she takes the results of the meeting to heart, I'd imagine the only change is that she will let the current licenses expire instead of being revoked.

While the Board's action has no actual teeth, (since they can't actually make her do anything different than she want's to) it would have been nice to see a little sharper teeth in their result.
Absolutely nothing was done for new applicants IMHO, and the whole "good cause" fiasco is still very troubling.
My own take on the meeting was that the Board's actual membership appeared to be 3 to 2 against CCW, which I found rather odd considering some of the very good questions the Board had asked the Sheriff. A couple of the members had me fooled until the end

Such is life. The most we can hope for is a change in 2010, or a change in the law at state level which apparently will not be happening any time soon.

[Tom98915]

Well the board of supervisors appointed Hutchins as sheriff. Are they not able to replace her? What about a special election of some sort to replace Hutchins with a real ELECTED sheriff?

[SmokinMr2]

Another interesting tid bit.

I kept searching for that 1977 AG opinion letter that the Sheriff keeps quoting as her end all be all "good cause" guide, and for the life of me I couldn't find it googling the author, number etc.

This morning I found the only mention of it I have seen, and quite by accident.
I was searching for something I thought I read in law about a Sheriff not being able to delegate CCW issuance to staff (still can't find that) but what I did find was right in our own back yard...

"The official California Attorney General view is expressed in the statement made by California Attorney General Evelle J. Younger, in August 23, 1977:

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."

Concealed Firearm Carry Permit in California: Information Database

Since the Sheriff was told who knows how many times yesterday by lawyers for our side that the opinion was only a published letter, and not worth much and definatly not an actual "legal opinion", it's a shame to see it on the front of what appears to be a "pro" CCW web site.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's where she got it.

I sure haven't found it anywhere else, and considering her own opinions and statements it's not a far stretch to imagine her being the type (or at least her staff) to use our own information against us.

[DVSmith]

Originally Posted by Tom98915

Well the board of supervisors appointed Hutchins as sheriff. Are they not able to replace her? What about a special election of some sort to replace Hutchins with a real ELECTED sheriff?

A countywide recall would be quite costly and require a pretty committed group to help bankroll the recall petition drive. Not impossible, but we may not have the kind of traction you would need to move that forward.

In addition, we would need a better alternative all ready and willing to go. You can't just dump her and HOPE someone else will fill the void the way you want.

[Tom98915]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

A countywide recall would be quite costly and require a pretty committed group to help bankroll the recall petition drive. Not impossible, but we may not have the kind of traction you would need to move that forward.

In addition, we would need a better alternative all ready and willing to go. You can't just dump her and HOPE someone else will fill the void the way you want.

It was just a thought...

[SmokinMr2]

Originally Posted by Tom98915

Well the board of supervisors appointed Hutchins as sheriff. Are they not able to replace her? What about a special election of some sort to replace Hutchins with a real ELECTED sheriff?

They can't replace her. They are happy with her performance and wouldn't even if they could. They certainly wouldn't replace her for this one issue.

A recall on this one issue would fail.

That's probably the same reason we aren't trying hard to become a "shall issue" state. That would quite probably fail as well so I don't think anyone want's to try it right now.

[Nightingale]

A recall would take just long enough to get together that it would be almost time for the actual election anyway. Plus, what's the point of recalling her with no viable alternative to put in her place?