GOP subcommittee rebukes Sheriff concealed gun policy

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Reports are that the GOP Central Committee voted 42-14 to oppose Sheriff Hutchens' CCW policy and request that she support AB 357.

More to come....

Double check the number it "might" have been 44-14. Either way a landslide. Made me proud to say I am from Orange County. Tonight you could even call it, a Red County!

[THE Gimper]

42-14 is correct. The language about AB357 does not ask her to support it. It just says that the OC Republican Party supports passage of the bill.

[BonoVox]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

42-14 is correct. The language about AB357 does not ask her to support it. It just says that the OC Republican Party supports passage of the bill.

Thanks.

[X-ffdo]

Thank You!. I have been "on station" waiting to hear about this. I am very happy. I am there with you in mind and spirit.

[JackOfClubs]

Originally Posted by PirateQueen

That's good to hear.

Mostly good news. The original language of the resolution was changed

Now, therefore be it resolved that the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Orange County adopts a position of “NO CONFIDENCE” in opposes the CCW policy of the Sheriff and urges the Sheriff to revise her policy.

The Central Committee also urges the California legislature to adopt AB357 to make California a “shall issue” state as it relates to the citizens right to carry a concealed weapon.

(Italics were the original words that were deleted, bold is the new language. Sorry, I don't know how to do strikeouts on this forum.)

The justification was that the Republican Party does not want the Democrats to be able to use the vote of No Confidence in their campaign in 2010.

I had hoped that this resolution would send a message to Sandra Hutchens that the Republica Party will look for another candidate if she does not change her policies. I am afraid the message it actually sends is that we will support her if no one better comes along.

On the positive side, the above amendment was the second motion. The first would have gutted the issue entirely and that motion was soundly defeated. So, it could have been worse and the resolution as amended still contains the core objection, even if it was somewhat weakened.

Thanks and congratulations to eveyone who worked hard on this. Especially to Bruce Ackerman who took a strong, principled stand in support of the resolution.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by JackOfClubs

The justification was that the Republican Party does not want the Democrats to be able to use the vote of No Confidence in their campaign in 2010.

I had hoped that this resolution would send a message to Sandra Hutchens that the Republica Party will look for another candidate if she does not change her policies. I am afraid the message it actually sends is that we will support her if no one better comes along.

You're absolutely right! As you said to me after the meeting, if they are worried that a vote of No Confidence will be used in the campaign in 2010, they should support a candidate who's position on CCW matches the Republican Party's platform. Problem solved.

I would have preferred a vote of no confidence in her, not just her CCW policy.

But we'll take what we got.

[sealbeach]

We heard from some very convincing speakers supporting the resolution, the chair (Baugh?) was the one who watered down the verbage, shame on him.

Jack Anderson and the law professor did everything they could to shut down the resolution. Their lies and inaccuracies were not good enough to overcome the basic belief that the 2nd amendment IS a part of the Republican party platform.

I have been a member of the GOP for 30+ years, and have never gone to one of these meetings. I hope I never go again. That there was such a movement of opposition to this resolution is depressing--this should have sailed through, yet several members attempted everything they could to derail the resolution, shameful.

[JackOfClubs]

Originally Posted by sealbeach

I have been a member of the GOP for 30+ years, and have never gone to one of these meetings. I hope I never go again. That there was such a movement of opposition to this resolution is depressing--this should have sailed through, yet several members attempted everything they could to derail the resolution, shameful.

To be fair the amended resolution did pass by a wide margin and it will not please Hutchens or her supporters one bit. Anderson was visibly irritated and none of the opposition speakers got much applause. So, we tried to build a horse and wound up with a camel. That's what committees do.

As Rico says, we take what we can get. The proper response is to drink 3/4 of a glass of champaign in celebration and pour the remaining 1/4 down the toilet.

[JackOfClubs]

Originally Posted by JackOfClubs

Thanks and congratulations to eveyone who worked hard on this. Especially to Bruce Ackerman who took a strong, principled stand in support of the resolution.

Make that Bruce Whitaker not Ackerman. Sorry, heat getting to my brain...

[octrustatty]

Originally Posted by sealbeach

We heard from some very convincing speakers supporting the resolution, the chair (Baugh?) was the one who watered down the verbage, shame on him.

Jack Anderson and the law professor did everything they could to shut down the resolution. Their lies and inaccuracies were not good enough to overcome the basic belief that the 2nd amendment IS a part of the Republican party platform.

I have been a member of the GOP for 30+ years, and have never gone to one of these meetings. I hope I never go again. That there was such a movement of opposition to this resolution is depressing--this should have sailed through, yet several members attempted everything they could to derail the resolution, shameful.

Ditto your entire remarks.

[glbtrottr]

I found it particularly telling that when Mr. Whitacre referred to Mr. Jack Anderson as Assistant Sheriff, Jack was visibly irritated and confrontational, (only to clarify that he was in the meeting as a member of the Republican Party and not in his capacity as assistant Sheriff) but then went on to provide ample information in his daily work including a 100 percent issuance to FFDO's. He seemed to lose his temper numerous times.

He went on to exalt and praise Dear Sandy as doing a great job in following the law, including theatrics comparing her to "justice being blind" in that every one of us applicants has his case presented before the Sheriff "sans identity", not knowing who each person is but only the circumstance under which the CCW is being requested.

Further, he went on to specifically call out political organizations who would use the resolution against the Sheriff on a political basis, but organizations who had met with other Sheriff candidates as recently as last week who would use this resolution to sink her and bring in another candidate...whose stance on CCW could potentially be worst.

I don't know Jack. I know a bunch of you had breakfast with him and between telling sea stories, backslapping and glad handing over breakfast, some of you believed he's "one of us" and was in our court. After tonight's unfolding of events, I have to question not only Jack's integrity and honesty (alluding to the process being political though the Sheriff is "impartial", all while sitting in an elected position by appointment) but also by abusing his place in the Dais on multiple occasions.

Shame on Jack, in my opinion. The only thing worse than Jack is some other "Law Professor" clarifying how the CCW isn't a contract, how we should continue supporting dear Sandy, all while writing to members of this forum stating how Obama should be "given a chance to do his job" (all while Acorn voters are trying to convince my dogs to register as Democrats to vote so Obama can deliver them Free Steaks)

It's visibly clear that Jack does not approve of certain political organizations supporting candidates other than himself for Sheriff, even at the expense of failing to do what's right. Tonight, Jack's Election Campaign became apparent, and his venue to getting there seemed bringing Butt Kissing to the level of an Olympic sport.

Great meeting some of you!

[right2defend]

I found it particularly telling that when Mr. Whitacre referred to Mr. Jack Anderson as Assistant Sheriff, Jack was visibly irritated and confrontational, (only to clarify that he was in the meeting as a member of the Republican Party and not in his capacity as assistant Sheriff) but then went on to provide ample information in his daily work including a 100 percent issuance to FFDO's. He seemed to lose his temper numerous times.

That was priceless, he literally blurted out his comments. I will say, I'm disappointed in Anderson's stance on this issue, Sure he has to do it, but he seemed to go the "extra mile" to shoot down the resolution. I hope he got the message after the vote "he's on the wrong side". As a voting Republican, this IS the only OCSD issue I care about...at this time anyway.

to everyone there. How come we don't have an OCCCWS icon?

[swdr]

Sitrep.

The vote passed by a margin of 5 votes only: 42-14. It needed a two thirds majority to pass.

The vote to replace the phrase "a position of NO CONFIDENCE in" by the word "opposes" needed only a simple majority vote, and it passed 34 to 18. The argument in favor was very good.

For the amended resolution there were three speakers against. One was the other law professor, Mr. Don Daucher. You may recall his email to one of our members: "Obama, in case you hadn't noticed, is our President. He won the election by quite a bit and deserves a chance to make his plan work." I suspect that Mr. Daucher fully understands what Mr. Obama's plan actually is. Naturally, Mr. Daucher spoke in favor of our faux gun-rights supporting Sheriff and against the amended resolution.

However, I was most impressed with Assistant Sheriff Jack Anderson. I was reminded of the Mark Anthony funeral speech in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar in listening to him, not the least because he was the last speaker before the final vote.

Mr. Anderson spoke twice. The first time, he circumvented the rules by asking to speak in favor of the the "opposes" amendment, but instead he took that opportunity to speak against the entire resolution. That is to say, he lied in order to do what he wanted.

At one point, shortly after Mr. Anderson spoke, one of the Committee leaders referred to Mr. Anderson as "Assistant Sheriff", to which Mr. Anderson quickly and loudly interrupted that he was there in his capacity as a member of the Republican Party of Orange County Central Committee and not as an Assistant Sheriff, and by implication that he was speaking his own mind and not that of his minder, Sheriff Hutchens.

Later, after two other opposition speakers, Mr. Anderson, who was sitting at the dais up front with the Committee leaders facing the audience by the way, asked to speak against the now-amended resolution. He was the third opposition speaker.

At the beginning of the debate on this amended resolution, the chairman, Scott Baugh, indicated that they would use their usual "three in favor and three against" procedure. Thus, as the opposition gets the last word, he was also the final speaker. My impression was that his speaking in this final slot was prearranged.

In his final speech, like Mark Anthony, Mr. Anderson was very eloquent. And like Mark Anthony in that funeral speech written 400 years ago by Shakespeare, Mr. Anderson twisted the truth in an attempt to get what he wanted. He spoke about how he has been a staunch Second Amendment supporter, about how he owned numerous guns. He mentioned the number of years he had been a GOP supporter in Orange County. He pointed out (for the hundredth time) that Hutchens was "just following the law" and asked rhetorically if the Republican platform was against "obeying the law".

Then, like all good demagogues in the final minutes of the game, he went conspiracy. He stated that the entire Committee was "being gamed" by a nefarious group of outsiders. He painted this mystery group, for he didn't give it a name, as trying to get this resolution to destroy the good little apolitical darling Sheriff for their own evil partisan political purposes. In short, he did a marvelous and well-prepared job in support of Hutchens. He went the extra mile.

In the original, Mark Anthony, using his twisted emotional appeal, incited the audience to riot and kill. This time, fortunately, it was different. Mr. Anderson's appeal failed. He, and Daucher, convinced 12 others to vote with them, but they needed 19. Their exhortations failed. The resolution passed.

But they are still members of the OC Republican Central Committee. They aren't going away.

[protectmine]

Originally Posted by right2defend

I found it particularly telling that when Mr. Whitacre referred to Mr. Jack Anderson as Assistant Sheriff, Jack was visibly irritated and confrontational, (only to clarify that he was in the meeting as a member of the Republican Party and not in his capacity as assistant Sheriff) but then went on to provide ample information in his daily work including a 100 percent issuance to FFDO's. He seemed to lose his temper numerous times.

That was priceless, he literally blurted out his comments. I will say, I'm disappointed in Anderson's stance on this issue, Sure he has to do it, but he seemed to go the "extra mile" to shoot down the resolution. I hope he got the message after the vote "he's on the wrong side". As a voting Republican, this IS the only OCSD issue I care about...at this time anyway.

to everyone there. How come we don't have an OCCCWS icon?

good point let's get the green button as an icon on top

[protectmine]

Originally Posted by THE Gimper

You're absolutely right! As you said to me after the meeting, if they are worried that a vote of No Confidence will be used in the campaign in 2010, they should support a candidate who's position on CCW matches the Republican Party's platform. Problem solved.

I would have preferred a vote of no confidence in her, not just her CCW policy.

But we'll take what we got.

good to see you last night. I agree it would have been better to get the No Confidence vote but unfortunately the GOP does not have the b*lls to do that in public but this was a decent compromise. I agree she is a liberal and should be treated just like they treat Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean.