Editorial: Gun-permit abusers should be sheriff's target

[Gladiator]

Editorial: Gun-permit abusers should be sheriff's target - Opinion - OCRegister.com

Friday, January 30, 2009

Editorial: Gun-permit abusers should be sheriff's target

Hutchens seems to lack solid legal support for pulling so many concealed-weapon permits.

An Orange County Register editorial


The ongoing dispute between Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and the Orange County Board of Supervisors centers on the release of security tapes from the Jan. 13 board meeting that show deputies using the video cameras to zero in on the notes of two supervisors. The action was part of the department's disturbingly heavy-handed security efforts as gun-rights supporters sought to speak out against the sheriff's gun policies. The board demands the videos' release, and the sheriff refuses to release the full recording publicly, which could provoke a legal battle over jurisdictional issues and public records. The sheriff should turn over the recording, but she should also rethink the convoluted policies at the heart of the dispute.

Ms. Hutchens had been trying to revoke the CCW (carrying a concealed weapon) permits of people issued them by the previous sheriff. Her argument has been that former Sheriff Mike Carona, now a convicted felon, had issued permits to his cronies. Instead of targeting people who may have abused their permits, Ms. Hutchens is targeting an entire class of people – the majority of whom have nothing to do with Mr. Carona and who have handled their permits responsibly.

At a previous board meeting, Supervisor Janet Nguyen pointed out that having a permit revoked would give the gun owner a black mark on Department of Justice databases, which have no way of denoting that the revocation was not for bad behavior. So Ms. Hutchens responded with a different tack – to move up the expiration dates of those permits. But that effort is of questionable legality. The government should not be able to issue licenses for certain periods of time and then wantonly move up the expiration date based on the whims of a new official.

On her departmental blog, Sheriff Hutchens writes: "As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my duty to follow the law as it currently exists." As she sees it, the law is clear: The sheriff may issue a gun permit only to those residents who apply for one, have good moral character, have good cause and have completed a training program. She cites a 1977 state attorney general's opinion on what constitutes "good cause." She points to two sentences from that legal opinion that describe cause as meaning "present danger" that cannot be "significantly alleviated by alternative means of security."

The sheriff is being disingenuous here. The law gives sheriffs wide latitude in issuing concealed weapon permits. Some sheriffs take a freedom-friendly approach and grant the permits to people who meet the basic standards. Others, such as Ms. Hutchens, take the narrowest possible reading of the law. Ms. Hutchens relies on a 32-year-old letter from an attorney general to a state senator for guidance. That letter is not law, and it is not even a published attorney general's opinion.

The opinion she cites concludes only this: "A local sheriff, police chief or police commission has the duty to consider, investigate and make a determination on an individual basis, as to every license application under [Penal Code]Section 12050." She appears to be doing quite the opposite: taking a blanket approach that denies permits to those who legally have them rather than investigating every permit.

Supervisor Norby is correct, as he wrote in a Register column this week: "The controversy would vanish tomorrow if the sheriff would do what the law requires – revoke only the permits of those who have abused them and respect the expiration dates of those who legally hold CCWs."

Makes sense to us.

[Poogsdad]

Commented and recommended.

[YankeeDog]

+1
Yd

[Ken_In_Colo]

Good editorial and good comments [again] Poogsdad.

One of the commentators on the editorial implied that Sandra's reasoning for revoking CCWs keeps changing. The commentor said that first she said she "had to follow the law". IIRC, she said she had to revoke them because they were issued by a then, indited Sheriff. Only after the facts proved that relatively few of the CCWs were issued to Carona Cronies did she start to use the "I'm bound by the law" excuse. That's like saying "Gosh folks, I'd love to have you all with CCWs but I'm bound by the law; sorry."

She uses the word transparency* in every other sentence but the only thing transparent about her are motives; you can see right through her.

*Transparency is becoming so over used, especially by politicians that when I hear someone use it, I get suspicious. Sorta like when someone says "Well, to be honest with you..." sorta makes me wonder whether they have lied to me in the past.

I noticed that Supe Bates uses it quite a bit.

Transparency is the buzz word of the day.