Sheriff stands firm on gun permits

[Gladiator]

Sheriff Hutchens stands firm on gun permits | hutchens, county, gun, sheriff, permits - News - OCRegister.com

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Sheriff stands firm on gun permits

Hutchens tell activists, supervisors her policy to reduce permits remains

BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
The Orange County Register


Sheriff Sandra Hutchens stood firm Tuesday against the county board of supervisors and hundreds of gun-owners threatening recall because of her controversial plan to reduce concealed weapons permits.

Hutchens, in the third public hearing on the issue in four months, told the crowd and county supervisors that her position had not changed since she first unveiled the new policy last fall -- despite some minor adjustments on how she plans to revoke more than 400 permits.

"I don't make the law. But I am required to enforce the law," said Hutchens, reiterating her view that California state law only allows certain exceptions to the ban on concealed guns in public.

"I realize this is a very passionate issue," Hutchens said. "I suppose the safe course of action would be to ignore the law and find a way around it."

While refusing to budge on the gun permits, Hutchens seemed to attempt a conciliatory tone, wearing a pants suit instead of her official uniform, and bringing a smaller entourage that did not include a top aide disciplined for exchanging disparaging text messages during a previous hearing.

Hutchens noted state statutes that give sheriffs wide discretion in granting gun permits. Former Sheriff Mike Carona was an avid supporter of gun rights and expanding the concealed weapons permits in Orange County.

But after federal prosecutors accused Carona of trading gun permits for campaign contributions, Hutchens decided to adopt a more restrictive policy and apply it retroactively.

Hutchens believes the law provides limited exceptions.

While all five county supervisors told her they did not agree, and warned Hutchens that she is misreading Orange County culture, they said they were powerlessness on the issue Tuesday.

"I do believe this policy remains overly restrictive for our county," said board Chairwoman Pat Bates.

But Bates admitted to the crowd, "the board really can't do much more than make our views known."

She announced this was the last hearing on the issue.

Supervisor Bill Campbell lamented publicly that he could have done a better job of sensing Hutchens views before voting to appoint her sheriff in June.

While Hutchens seemed to withstand the critiques of gun activists and county supervisors, it hasn't come without some damage.

Three different investigations are ongoing into her department's actions during the previous two gun hearings.

Hutchens launched an internal probe into a series of embarrassing text messages that her command staff sent to each other during a Nov. 18 hearing. She also launched another internal investigation into an incident where security cameras operated by a sheriff's investigator focused on the notes of two supervisors.

Meanwhile, the Office of Independent Review is monitoring another investigation into the increased security by sheriff's officials at a Jan. 13 hearing on the permits. Gun owners who attended that meeting have accused the department of trying to intimidate them.

And on Tuesday, county supervisors moved closer to removing the sheriff's department from providing security at the Hall of Administration. The Santa Ana Police Department has indicated interest in providing security to replace the sheriff's department, officials said.

Also, a dispute between the board and Hutchens over the ownership of the security tapes from the January board meeting is still simmering despite an offer by Hutchens Tuesday to abide by conditions set by supervisors for viewing the tapes.

[JackOfClubs]

Supervisor Bill Campbell lamented publicly that he could have done a better job of sensing Hutchens views before voting to appoint her sheriff in June.

That is going to be a useful quote when she comes up for re-election.

[Scout]

Originally Posted by JackOfClubs

That is going to be a useful quote when she comes up for re-election.

Yes...this quote must be remember'd and tucked away....

[glbtrottr]

Well, it is now confirmed that the one who stands firm in the Hutchens household is the Sheriff, which leaves Mr. Hutchens to...go back in the kitchen?

[Rattlesnake 6]

Sheriff Hutchens is a typical "PC" LA cop. I have two questions: 1) Why can't we start a recall on her? & 2) Why can't we start a referendum to have more CCWs issued, without the interference of a person who obviously does not understand the Second Amendment?
BTW, don't try contacting any of the OC Supervisors on this. I have tried 4 times with Bates and Corby--both of whom are ostensibly in our camp--and they refuse to get back to me.
Rattlesnake 6

[OCRancher]

Welcome Rattlesnake6.

She was appointed, so no recall is possible.

Also, CCW is not a right protected under the 2A, and that has been clarified in Heller.

As to the Supes, forum members here have had no problem getting response from their respective offices. Your help on contacting them is appreciated, though!

[akulahawk]

In any event, a recall drive would take about as long to get going to the ballot as the upcoming 2010 elections... so it would be a wash anyway. CCW isn't a right protected under the 2A as clarified in Heller... and the 2A isn't incorporated against the states.

A referendum might not be binding upon the Sheriff... as a "higher authority" known as the Penal Code gives a Sheriff the authority to issue CCW licenses. Incorporation of the 2A would help, but what needs to be done is to make CCW a VERY attractive thing to do and be seen as a political advantage while seeing CCW restriction being a political disadvantage.

[Spicy McHaggis]

It would take about 161k signatures to get her recalled. It would be worth the effort if we still had a few years of her in office.

[NSP]

One hundred sixty one thousand signatures? Oh yeah, no time at all.

[Nightingale]

Originally Posted by akulahawk

In any event, a recall drive would take about as long to get going to the ballot as the upcoming 2010 elections... so it would be a wash anyway. CCW isn't a right protected under the 2A as clarified in Heller... and the 2A isn't incorporated against the states.

True...

But once incorporation happens (and it will, give it time), the argument will be made that, since the clearest definition of "bear" that the court supplied is "Wear, bear or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." states must go "shall issue" with CCW licenses, or allow loaded open carry. While a CCW permit may not be unconstitutional on its face, a good cause requirement probably is.

[WKC]

The Volokh Conspiracy - <i>Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda</i>:

Good reading from The Volokh Conspiracy.

Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda:
I now have a pretty clean copy of this forthcoming UCLA Law Review article of mine, and I thought I'd post it and invite comments. There's still some time (though not a lot) to make corrections, so please let me know about any errors you find. My one request is that before you respond to some of the items I note below, you look at the relevant parts of the article to see whether that response has already been taken into account.
I expect the article will not entirely please either gun rights maximalists or gun rights minimalists. For instance, I conclude that bans on so-called "assault weapons" -- bans that I think are entirely pointless -- are probably constitutional; not every bad idea is an unconstitutional idea, even where constitutional rights are involved. At the same time, I argue that there should be a right to carry loaded weapons in public (except for a few places). Even if one accepts the correctness of Heller's conclusion that concealed carry can be restricted, your right to keep and bear arms for self-defense must generally include your right to have those arms where self-defense is needed, not just to have them at home when you're out on the street. Whether this idiosyncratic (moderate? extremist in different derections?) position on the constitutional questions (on the policy questions, I'm generally skeptical of gun restrictions) is right or wrong is for you to judge. But I thought I'd note it so that people know what to expect.
Note also that the first part of the article proposes a general analytical framework that can also help think through existing doctrine for some other constitutional provisions -- I hope that will be useful even for people who aren't at all interested in the right to keep and bear arms.
In any case, here is the Introduction:
The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has held, secures an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Whether or not the federal right will be applied to the states, at least 40 state constitutions secure a similar right. How should courts translate this right into workable constitutional doctrine?

[naganthunter]

Originally Posted by WKC

The Volokh Conspiracy - <i>Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda</i>:

Good reading from The Volokh Conspiracy.

It looks like very good reading...about an hour or two's worth of good reading! It looks like I've got my book for this monday's Seattle flight!!

Thanks

[WKC]

Pay particular attention to his discussion of past legal decisions regarding conceal carry and how those decision need to be judge with respect to the social standards of that time. There will be law professors who claim that the courts have held conceal carry to be not protected. That is true but when those decisions were handed down, open carry was the norm and concealed carry was considered to be the preference by the criminals.

[NSP]

Originally Posted by WKC

Pay particular attention to his discussion of past legal decisions regarding conceal carry and how those decision need to be judge with respect to the social standards of that time. There will be law professors who claim that the courts have held conceal carry to be not protected. That is true but when those decisions were handed down, open carry was the norm and concealed carry was considered to be the preference by the criminals.

+1

Awesome insight!

[RomanDad]

Originally Posted by WKC

Pay particular attention to his discussion of past legal decisions regarding conceal carry and how those decision need to be judge with respect to the social standards of that time. There will be law professors who claim that the courts have held conceal carry to be not protected. That is true but when those decisions were handed down, open carry was the norm and concealed carry was considered to be the preference by the criminals.

jeesh... Where have I heard that before???