GOP subcommittee rebukes Sheriff concealed gun policy

[JP4]

I have never been to a meeting like this before. It wasn't quite what I expected but it was interesting. There was a lot of weasel behaviour going on. I recall reading earlier that this statement had to jump through several hoops to make it to this process, and yet when it came time do discuss it it was immediately up for amendment. Is that how it is supposed to work? If that is the case, what is the point of having a committee recommendation?

As to the language being changed from no confidence to opposes because no confidence could be used in an election - isn't that the point? Opposes allows the sheriff to continue on with the "Aw shucks, I am just following the law" approach.

I was disturbed that Don Dauscher (sp?) came out and said he was a lawyer and law professor and then putting forward a very one sided version of Heller and Nordyke. His version of these cases was not rebutted.

I listened to Anderson talk about good cause and make it seem like the sheriff was being very fair and that she was just following the law. I had never met him before and I found myself thinking that if what he was saying was true, then he himself was violating the law when he signed the renewal of my now intended to be revoked as of April 13 CCW. He didn't comment on his own time as acting sheriff and how he applied the policy.

The pro speakers did a good job in focusing on the larger picture which I appreciated. More so because the first hour of the meeting focused on rebuilding the party and the fact that a lot of people think the party doesn't represent their values anymore.

In the end it looked to me like it was a vote between those who wanted to send a message the party platform on the second amendment means something and those that were more concerned about the election chances of a party candidate regardless of her adherence to a party platform.

I am very thankful that the people involved took the time to bring this issue up and keep it alive.

[swdr]

The view from Allan Bartlett about the vote, with some names named. It also includes the text of the amended resolution as passed.

--> OC GOP Central Committee Votes To "Oppose" Sheriff Hutchens On Her Restrictive CCW Policy

Some notable NO votes came from from Cong. John Campbell's alternate Lou Penrose, State Sen. Mimi Walter's alternate Kat Vermeil, and Cong Ken Calvert's alternate Ann Rommel. [...]

[DVSmith]

and this from an unidentified central committee member:

Some more notable"Noes" came Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauley, Cong. Ex Oficio Member Rosie Avila's Alternate, Virgina Hart, Saddleback College Trustee Nancy Padberg as well as a few other women members of the committee. The common thread here? All are CWLA supporters who place the election of a woman - any woman - to office above the principals of the Republican Party Platform. These women along with Mimi Walters and her Alternate ought to be ashamed of themselves! Shame on the lot of them!

I also had a chance to thank Alan Mansoor for his yes vote, even though he supported the alternate language. He is a deputy and works for Hutchens, so that can't be an easy stance to take. Jack should have Alan's stones!

I have been critical of Mansoor as a city council member in Costa Mesa in that I believe he has been too partisan in that position. That is the very reason I will most likely support him in his run for Assembly where that attitude is far more in line with what I want from my representatives in Sacramento.

[IAmASensFan]

Originally Posted by DVSmith

and this from an unidentified central committee member:



I also had a chance to thank Alan Mansoor for his yes vote, even though he supported the alternate language. He is a deputy and works for Hutchens, so that can't be an easy stance to take. Jack should have Alan's stones!

I have been critical of Mansoor as a city council member in Costa Mesa in that I believe he has been too partisan in that position. That is the very reason I will most likely support him in his run for Assembly where that attitude is far more in line with what I want from my representatives in Sacramento.

Oh, gee...not the same CWLA that lobbied the ladies on the BOS to swing their vote over to Hutchens in the first place, is it? *puke*

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by swdr

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.

He may not have named it, but he did say that "many of them are here tonight" as he looked to the back where we were all sitting. It was obvious to anyone who looked that he was referring to those of us who were wearing OCCCWS buttons.

[sealbeach]

We need a full list of NO vs. YES, and we really need to keep score on this for future elections and/support. Those voting NO, or even voting to gut the language should NEVER get our support.

[sealbeach]

Originally Posted by IAmASensFan

Oh, gee...not the same CWLA that lobbied the ladies on the BOS to swing their vote over to Hutchens in the first place, is it? *puke*

Sure is looking like they are pushing hard to support their female candidates, no matter what their policies and platforms are, but just so they can have a female in office. This is against everything the GOP has stood for--they are abandoning their principles in order to advance their female candidate.

[RickD6023]

Originally Posted by sealbeach

We need a full list of NO vs. YES, and we really need to keep score on this for future elections and/support. Those voting NO, or even voting to gut the language should NEVER get our support.

Absolutely!

[JackOfClubs]

Originally Posted by glbtrottr

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.

Which raises the all-important question: who are we going to get to replace Hutchens? Is anyone going to risk throwing their hat into the ring when the price of failure could be having to work with one of those two as boss?

Ralph Martin ran in 2006 against Corona and I remember being somewhat impressed with him (even though I wound up voting for Corona). He just took an early retirement last month. Anyone know anything about him?

[Glock32]

Originally Posted by JackOfClubs

Which raises the all-important question: who are we going to get to replace Hutchens? Is anyone going to risk throwing their hat into the ring when the price of failure could be having to work with one of those two as boss?

Ralph Martin ran in 2006 against Corona and I remember being somewhat impressed with him (even though I wound up voting for Corona). He just took an early retirement last month. Anyone know anything about him?

Considering where he comes from I have a feeling Ralph Martin's CCW policy would be fair and square. No CCW for you. Or anybody else for that matter.

[Harry Carry]

Originally Posted by JackOfClubs

Which raises the all-important question: who are we going to get to replace Hutchens? Is anyone going to risk throwing their hat into the ring when the price of failure could be having to work with one of those two as boss?

Ralph Martin ran in 2006 against Corona and I remember being somewhat impressed with him (even though I wound up voting for Corona). He just took an early retirement last month. Anyone know anything about him?

Things are being done and discussed. Nothing more can be said at this moment.

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by Harry Carry

Things are being done and discussed. Nothing more can be said at this moment.

Except, please stand by.

[JackOfClubs]

Fair enough.