Orange County Sheriff's Department Non-Committal On Pending CCW Issues

[GunSlut]

FROM: CRPA

Orange County Sheriff's Department Non-Committal On Pending CCW Issues

After being grilled by Supervisors over her new more restrictive CCW issuance policy at the November 18, 2008 Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting, Sheriff Hutchens was a no-show at the December 16, 2008 Board of Supervisors meeting. This despite her being asked to again address the ongoing issue of how CCW licenses, particularly revocations and expirations, are being handled for failure to meet her new more restrictive "good cause" standard. Senior Deputy County Counsel Nicole Sims and Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson tried to answer questions from Supervisors and the public, but their responses raised more questions than they answered.
The Supervisors don't like Hutchens' CCW policy change that makes it more difficult to get a CCW, and are particularly concerned that Hutchens' plan to revoke hundreds of CCWs that she feels now lack "good cause" (as she has redefined it) will result in a perceived negative mark on a CCW holder's law enforcement record - an "electronic scarlet letter" - since CCWs are typically only revoked as a result of a CCW holders criminal wrong doing.

Hutchens remains intransigent on the policy change, claiming she is only following the law. But the lawyer advising her is a biased gun control advocate who is advocating a legal position contrary to both historical interpretation and practice. NRA and CRPA attorneys call her legal position ludicrous, and are working with police and sheriff associations to discredit it. Hutchen has been somewhat responsive to requests that she suspend CCW revocations in light of the disparaging record created.

At the December 16 Supervisor meeting, Attorney Sims explained the California Department of Justice (DOJ) CCW related records keeping systems. Two separate databases contain CCW information. According to Sims report, the Criminal History System (CHS) does not show whether a CCW was revoked or not, just whether a person applied for one. The Automated Firearms System (AFS) shows all individuals who have CCWs, and also reflects whether a CCW is revoked. The space in the AFS data field that notes a CCW as "revoked" is limited, so there is no room to type a reason for a revocation. According to DOJ, changing this field would be prohibitively expensive. Because CCWs are typically only revoked when the holder breaks a law, the revoked notation implies wrongdoing even if it results from Hutchens' tougher "good cause" standard not being met.

The DOJ says that a "revoked" notation only stays in the AFS for 90 days after the date the CCW would have ordinarily expired on its own terms had it not been revoked and is then purged. Exactly how that works and what record remains was not made clear. Under PC 12053 a licensing authority has to report CCW denials and issuances to the DOJ and the "Attorney General shall collect and record the information submitted." What would be the point of this if all the DOJ did was purge the information after such a short period of time? But the provision says nothing about how long DOJ must retain the information. Also, if a person was disqualified from having a CCW after they received one (such as a domestic violence charge, felony, etc.) how does this not show up in the CHS database as the CCW being revoked?

In light of the DOJ's inability to modify its database fields, County Counsel Benjamin De Mayo stated his understanding that "...the only revocations that have occurred [by Sheriff Hutchens] are due to either the person moving out of county or being arrested, of that nature as opposed to the failure to meet the sheriffs new good cause standard. My understanding is that the only ones that have been transmitted to the DOJ as actual revocations aren't because of this policy change...."

Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson confirmed De Mayo was "100 percent correct. We have revoked eighteen [CCW licenses] since Sheriff Hutchens has come into office, and they were related to crimes and/or changes to the address, not in policy changes."

Anderson confirmed that revocations are still stayed for CCW holders that received a letter of revocation. He did not say if or when revocations would resume. He did try to assure the Board that ". . . we're continuing to work on this and come up with a solution that I believe that all will find acceptable at the end of the day."

We don't find that particularly reassuring. And the Supervisors expressed particular dismay over a rumored plan by the Sheriff to get around the revocation issue by accelerating expiration dates on CCWs to avoid having to revoke them outright. The Supervisors asked County Counsel whether the Sheriff had the legal authority to change the CCW expiration dates unilaterally. Ms. Sims opined off the cuff that the Sheriff could unilaterally change an expiration date, but she hadn't researched the issue. NRA and CRPA attorneys disagree. This approach would mean that even if the Sheriff stays revocations, she could still administratively move up the expiration dates of the CCW licenses and essentially create the same effect as a revocation without actually "revoking" licenses. This despite the fact that people already paid for a license that would last two years. If the accelerated expiration plan is adopted, the Sheriff is apparently planning to issue pro-rated refunds on the license fees.

The next Board of Supervisors meeting is set for January 13, 2009, and the CCW issue may again be on the agenda. NRA and CRPA members are working cooperatively with local activists to keep the pressure on the Sheriff and the Board of Supervisors. The efforts of Ordinary California Citizens Concerned With Safety (OCCCWS) are particularly commendable. OCCCWs was founded shortly after Sandra Hutchens was appointed and worked with California Concealed Weapon (CCW) Forum to mount an aggressive grassroots campaign to fight the Sheriff's restrictive new CCW policy.

Cooperation and coordination among all stakeholders and the involvement of all grassroots activists will be vitally important in continuing efforts against anti-Second Amendment policies and the officials who support them. Working together, members of OCCCW, California Concealed Weapon (CCW) Forum, Calguns.net, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the National Rifle Association (visit www.canra.com for more information), and other supporters of the right to keep and bear arms will continue to press the issue with Sheriff Hutchens, and with those elected officials who appointed her to her position. This coalition of activists dominated the November 18, 2008 Board of Supervisors meeting with the CCW issue - and sent a strong message to the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff Hutchens that CCW is an issue they can't run away from.

*** CRPA ***

The California Rifle and Pistol Association "CRPA," founded in 1875, is dedicated to defending the rights of law-abiding citizens to responsibly use firearms for self-defense and the defense of their loved ones, for sport, and for all other legal activities. CRPA is the official state association of the National Rifle Association. A California non-profit association, CRPA is independently directed by its own Board of Directors. CRPA's 65,000 members include law enforcement officers, prosecutors, professionals, firearm experts, the general public, and loving parents. CRPA has always worked to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms and firearms accidents, while actively promoting and organizing the competitive shooting sports and Olympic training programs in California. We are proud to say that many CRPA competitors are among the best in the world.

For a list of Assembly&/or Senate members and their contact information, please access them via www.sen.ca.gov and www.assembly.ca.gov/acs

Join The CRPA
Visit our Pending Legislation Page For The Latest InfoSign Up For Our E-Mail Alerts (or sign up your pro-gun friends)

Donate To The Cause & Enter The Grand Guns Sweepstakes
Back to Archived Media Releases

[DVSmith]

Nice!!!!

[PUNK]

YES!

[Glock32]

Good one.

[spc]

Guess she couldn't stand the heat.

spc

[Glock32]

Originally Posted by spc

Guess she couldn't stand the heat.

spc

What heat? This is only the pilot flame.

[Scout]

Very Nice.

This is an excellent example of "people" working together, can accomplish anything. "Jim Casey"

[peanutlover]

That is an excellent summary of events to date, IMHO. I especially like this site and OCCCWS getting their due.

Was this sent as an email to CRPA members? If so, I haven't gotten an email yet.

[KimberDude]

Niiiiiice! You go, OC!

[swdr]

Originally Posted by CRPA

The efforts of Ordinary California Citizens Concerned With Safety (OCCCWS) are particularly commendable. OCCCWS was founded shortly after Sandra Hutchens was appointed and worked with California Concealed Weapon (CCW) Forum to mount an aggressive grassroots campaign to fight the Sheriff's restrictive new CCW policy.

Nice to see this finally being mentioned by CRPA/NRA.

[sealbeach]

[IAmASensFan]

Spectacular!!!

[CCWInstructor]

Originally Posted by peanutlover

Was this sent as an email to CRPA members? If so, I haven't gotten an email yet.

You have to be on their e-mail alert list.

[spc]

Originally Posted by Glock32

What heat? This is only the pilot flame.

If she can't stand the pilot flame she will be really toasted when the burner comes on.

Perfect.

spc

[NSP]

Only those who have something to hide, hide themselves.

But in not showing up she has shown the public that she does not want to stand up for her own decisions.