OC Grand Jury Should Stay Away From Policymaking

[Gladiator]

OC Grand Jury Should Stay Away From Policymaking - OC BLOG (CA), Part of the Red County Network

OC Grand Jury Should Stay Away From Policymaking

Posted by: Jubal | 02/25/2009 5:41 PM


The Orange County Grand Jury released this two-page "report" on Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and the Carry Concealed Weapons controversy, entitled "Let The Sheriff Do her Job."

My questions for the Grand Jury:

"Who asked you?"and "Why not stick stay out of policy questions that are none of the Grand Jury's business?"

The report is a quick read, and that's about all the time and consideration it merits. It's an unreflective, knee-jerk endorsement of Sheriff Hutchens restrictive CCW policy. This excerpt will give you its flavor:

An orderly society is the goal. Public safety is the paramount consideration. The fact that public clamor has reached the ears of politicians is irrelevant. The immediate revocation will get the issue back to square one. At that time, deserving individuals will qualify and others will be denied. Unnecessary interference causing delays in implementing corrective actions involving the issuance of CCW permits is a waste of county resources and these efforts could be redirected toward more vital issues facing the citizens of Orange County.

Jawol, mein Herr!

Someone ought to remind the grand Jurors that the laws of this state are made by elected public officials, often in response to "public clamor." When that public clamors their unhappiness with a law's application to their elected representatives, it is never irrelevant. I would reserve that description for the opinion in this matter of a clot of virtually-anonymous, unelected busybodies who don't appreciate the limits of their role.

Frank Mickadeit took up the Grand Jury report in his column today, exclaiming:


Finally, somebody had the guts to come out and say it. It's just amazing and a little befuddling that it was the Orange County grand jury. And in such down-to-earth, way. "Let the Sheriff Do Her Job" is the title of its report Tuesday.

Huh? Is there a segment of county residents cowering in a corner, afraid to utter the forbidden phrase, "Let The Sheriff Do Her Job?" for fear of being set upon by uniformed men with guns? Oops, sorry -- wrong segment of the population.

It takes about zero guts to make that statement, becasue as Frank points out, no one is preventing the Sheriff from doing her job. The political wounds she's recevied are self-inflicted.

Frank also offers this uniquely positioed chronicle of Hutchens' CCW troubles:

1) Hutchens sees a need to clean up after Carona and takes a hard look at gun permits. 2) She plays politics poorly and doesn't tell the supervisors in advance. 3) Supervisors hear from permit-holding constituents and realize that even the whiff of Second Amendment activism can stir up a hornet's nest that will hurt them politically. 4) Supervisors decide to throw Hutchens under the bus. 5) Continuing to play politics poorly, Hutchens shows up to a Board meeting with more than a dozen uniformed deputies, increasing the tension. 6) Grand jurors, who regularly attend supervisors meetings, like Hutchens' straightforward, polite, nonpolitical style, not just in her explanation of the gun situation, but in all manner of issues. 7) Grand jurors, generally older, non-politicians who have lived life and see through all the B.S., realize Hutchens is getting a bad rap and come to her aid.

That's all there is to it.


Well, no need for anyoine to think any more about the issue, becuase we;ve been insutrcted "that's all there is to it."

Yeah.

Among other bits of this chronology, Frank's assertion that the Supes "decided to throw Hutchens under the bus" sticks out. How exactly did they do that? By listening to consitituents concerns about what they saw as a ham-handed, overly-restrictive change in the CCW policy? By asking Sheriff Hutchens questions about her new policy?

What would consitute NOT throwing Sheriff Hutchens under the bus? Smiling annd nodding and ignoring their consituents.

More on this tomorrow.