GOP Resolution Rebukes Sheriff Hutchens

[THE Gimper]

Many of you have followed the news about the actions of Sheriff Hutchens here in Orange County. You know that we here at CalCCW are working with the Political Action Committee Ordinary California Citizens Concerned With Safety (OCCCWS) in their efforts to fight her restrictive CCW policy, and her illegal revocation of CCW permits without cause.

Some members have complained because it sometimes seems like not much is happening. Believe me when I tell you that there are constant efforts being undertaken on many fronts, but we are not free to discuss them all openly (you don’t tell your opponent what you’re going to do before you do it). This is a long struggle, and there are a lot of little steps that have to be taken along the way to our ultimate goal. I’d like to tell you about one of those steps.

This past Saturday, Bill Prentice and I (representing OCCCWS) addressed the Resolutions Committee of the Orange County Republican Party regarding a proposed resolution expressing no confidence in Sheriff Hutchens’ CCW policy.

Sheriff Hutchens was there and spoke, as did Asst. Sheriff Jack Anderson.

Bruce Whittaker spoke first, giving the reasons for the resolution. Then Sheriff Hutchens spoke (which was only fair). She said all the same things we’ve heard her say before (and which I hoped she’d say again). “I’m just following the law.” “My job is to uphold the law whether or not I personally agree with it.” “California is not a Shall Issue state. If it was, I would uphold that law as well.” “The law requires that I take a narrow interpretation of good cause.” “CCW is not a Second Amendment issue. You’re free to carry a concealed weapon in your home or place of business.” “I undertook my review of CCWs because of the concerns raised about possible cronyism in issuing them on the part of my predecessor.” (By the way, I have no problem, and none of us should have any problem with her conducting that review. It had to be done, just as she had to review the situation with the jails. The problem is that she is essentially throwing the baby out with the bathwater as a result of that review.) There was a lot of back and forth with questions and answers. She talked about her view of good cause, and some examples of what she would and would not consider to be acceptable. She specifically brought up “avid shooter” as not acceptable. She said that it’s not that she doesn’t trust the people with CCWs and that no CCW holder had done anything wrong (I got her on that one.) She was asked if the law requires her to take a narrow view of good cause, are the 40 other county sheriffs who accept personal protection breaking the law? Again she wouldn’t really answer that. She was asked about AB357 and if she would support it. She tried to avoid answering by saying that she hadn’t reviewed it to see what the exact language was. She might have some concerns about it. So, she was asked if she would at least support the concept of AB357 (assuming the wording was exactly the way she’d like it to be) in other words, SHALL ISSUE, and she refused to answer. And blah blah-blah blah-blah. She looked and sounded like she's really tired of talking about this. I don't blame her. I'm getting tired of having to say the same things in response over and over and over. She left immediately after she was done.

Then Bill Prentice spoke. He gave some great statistics on CCW and lower crime rates (a la John Lott) and what OC’s CCW rates would be if we were even average in California. He talked about the Shall Issue states, and how everyone feared that there would be blood in the streets, but that hasn’t happened. He talked about how the Illinois Sheriffs’ Association has actually come out in favor of that state going Shall Issue. He had lots of good information and handouts that the committee members all said was very valuable and they appreciated it very much. My apologies to Bill if I left out anything.

Then Anderson spoke. He defended her policy to the best of his ability. He said that she’s following the law (which she is – we’ve never said otherwise, only that the law doesn’t require her to take a narrow view of good cause). He talked more about the problems that developed with the “avid shooter” good cause. He said it started out as something that made sense for firearms instructors who have to transport a large cache of weapons to the range, but that it became a trump card where people were just stating “avid shooter” and they weren’t being required to provide any documentation. And then it became a cottage industry where some trainers were telling their students that all you have to do is take my class, join a range and go a few times a month so you can get a letter from the range, and you’ll get a permit. He said the problem is that there haven’t been any instances of anyone being robbed while transporting their firearms to the range, so it’s hard to justify that as really establishing good cause (I nailed him on that one in my speech with a parallel comment about judges).

Then I spoke. I had my speech all prepared, but I modified it a bit to respond to a couple of points that were brought up, and to remove some stuff that was already well covered by others. To the best of my recollection, this is what I said.

Members of the committee. My name is Richard Gilbert, and I live in Buena Park. I’m affiliated with Ordinary California Citizens Concerned with Safety, and I have come here today to speak in favor of the resolution. This issue is an important one to the party base, and you’ll want to be on the right side of this issue when the election comes.

Chief Anderson, I know your personal views on this matter because you were the Lt. who approved and signed my CCW license renewal once. And when you did, I was one of those “avid shooters” that the Sheriff mentioned. I transport several guns, not just a couple, back and forth to the range, and people see me coming and going. And because I’m handicapped, I am afraid that someone will jump me, take my guns and use them against me, or against anyone of you. Jack, as a Lt. you approved more CCWs than any other Lt. in the history of the department, and I commend you for that. So, I have to say that I’m greatly disappointed to see you here backing the Sheriff’s policy. I’d also like to point out that it is a bit unfair for Jack to speak here today because not only is he a member of the Central Committee, he is the Sergeant at Arms. He has spoken twice on the Sheriff’s behalf once in a general meeting and once in an Executive Committee meeting, and we weren’t allowed to have anyone speak at either of those meetings.

Sheriff Hutchens has made many statements regarding her CCW policy. I’d like to address some of them today. Sheriff Hutchens claims that CCW is not a 2nd Amendment issue. However, the 2nd Amendment is a right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court, as we’ve already heard, in last year’s Heller decision, stated that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Not withstanding home invasion robberies, confrontations do not happen solely in the home. The majority of confrontations happen outside the home. Therefore, the right guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment must extend beyond the confines of the home. And since the State of California requires the individual to obtain a license in order to carry at all, this is a 2nd Amendment issue.

Sheriff Hutchens says that the law requires her to take a narrow view of good cause. You’ve already heard what PC 12050 says about good cause. It simply states that “The sheriff of a county, upon proof that… good cause exists… may issue to that person a license.” There is nothing in the Penal Code that requires her to take a narrow approach to good cause. If it did, then as the chairman pointed out earlier, 40 out of 58 sheriffs in California who accept personal protection as good cause would be breaking the law. When asked about this, Sheriff Hutchens sidesteps the issue by stating that rural counties have a different standard than urban counties, or she talks about fewer law enforcement resources and longer response times in rural counties. But let me tell you, officers don’t magically appear while you’re being raped, to stop it from happening. They show up after it’s happened to take a report, and hopefully catch the guy so he doesn’t do it to someone else. But that’s no help to you when you’re being attacked. This whole notion of different standards in rural counties is complete nonsense! There is nothing in the Penal Code which states that there is a different standard for good cause in rural counties vs. urban counties. If the law requires her to take the approach she is taking, then it requires all sheriffs to take the same approach. Sheriff Hutchens knows this is true. She has stated on numerous occasions the law gives sheriffs wide latitude in the matter of CCW issuance. Sheriff Hutchens stated today that she isn’t aware of any sheriffs who accept personal protection as good cause. Let me name just a few counties where they do: San Bernardino right next door, Kern, Mendocino, Mariposa. Early on, the Sheriff stated that she was bringing Orange County’s CCW policy in line with “industry standard.” If 70% of the sheriffs in California accept personal protection as good cause, that is industry standard.

Although the Penal Code does not in any way define what good cause is, but leaves it completely up to each sheriff, Sheriff Hutchens insists she is bound by the law to take a narrow interpretation. However, when it comes to the matter of revoking CCW licenses, the Penal Code is very specific about the grounds for revocation. Yet she insists instead that she has wide latitude to do whatever she wants. Logically, the exact opposite approach should be taken. Where the Penal Code does not limit your discretion, you are free to apply it as broadly as you wish, but where the Penal Code does place limits on your authority, you should take as narrow an interpretation as possible.

In regards to revocation of CCW licenses, Penal Code 12050 states:
The license shall be revoked by the local licensing authority if at any time either the local licensing authority is notified by the Department of Justice that a licensee is within a prohibited class described in Section 12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, or the local licensing authority determines that the person is within a prohibited class.
And:
If the license is one to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, then it may not be revoked solely because the licensee changes his or her place of residence to another county if the licensee has not breached any conditions or restrictions set forth in the license or has not fallen into a prohibited class.
Sheriff Hutchens has appealed to the court case Nichols vs. Santa Clara which states in part:
Penal Code section 12050… contains no express restrictions on the sheriff's discretion to revoke a license. As appellants point out, the statutory scheme does not even mention revocation.… The fact the Legislature has not restricted the conditions under which a granted license may be revoked shows the Legislature intended the sheriff to have discretion.
However, it must be pointed out that this case was decided before the Legislature added the above quoted sections to Penal Code 12050. Clearly, the Legislature intended to place limits on Sheriffs’ ability to arbitrarily revoke CCW licenses without cause.

Sheriff Hutchens has appealed to a 1977 California Attorney General’s opinion about what constitutes good cause. However, this “opinion” was shown not only today but also at the November 8th, 2008 Orange County Board of Supervisors meeting to be nothing more than a private letter from the Attorney General (actually, it wasn’t even written by the Attorney General, but by a member of his staff) with no legal force of law. It never went through the vetting process required of AG opinions, and was never published. Yet Sheriff Hutchens still appeals to this letter on her department’s website as providing the basis for her view of good cause.

Sheriff Hutchens has stated that her policy will be fair and equitable to all. Her policy is anything but fair and equitable. Not only are the revocations without cause unfair, they are not being applied equally to all. No judges have had their licenses revoked. Neither have any reserve deputies. The only licenses being revoked are those belonging to ordinary citizens. Salute vs. Pritchess requires that all applicants be treated equally. Yet only ordinary citizens are being required to meet this new, tougher standard of good cause. A judge can call up and say, “I’m a judge and I want a CCW license” and instead of first having to submit an application and have his good cause reviewed to see if it meets the new standard, he receives an application in the mail along with a list of the approved CCW trainers, and is told to go ahead and schedule his training. In other words, he is already approved for a CCW license. This despite the fact that there has never been a single instance of a judge in Orange County being attacked, much less murdered. And there are armed officers in the court to protect judges. Furthermore, if a threat is made against a judge, he is automatically entitled to a security detail which will escort him from his home to the court and back. You might ask, “What if he goes out to dinner with his wife, or to the store? Shouldn’t he be able to carry a concealed weapon in order to defend himself then?” Yes. Of course he should. And this points out another unfair aspect of Sheriff Hutchens’ policy. The majority of ordinary citizens who are lucky enough to be issued a CCW license under her restrictive policy have a “Course and Scope of Business” limitation placed on their licenses. This means that they are allowed to carry only during the very specific times and circumstances detailed in their good cause. Are they no less at risk when they go out to dinner or to the store? Is it right that 'special classes' of people are afforded the right to defend themselves and their loved ones, while ordinary law abiding citizens are denied the same?

What then is the true source of Sheriff Hutchens’ position on CCW? The true source, as her own statements show, derives from her ideology.

From a September 9, 2008 OC Register article:

“If someone misuses a weapon, it's an embarrassment to the Sheriff and the County of Orange."

From a November 12, 2008 Los Angeles Times article:
Hutchens said she was concerned that more than 1,100 people held concealed carry permits issued by the former sheriff – nearly three times the amount of permits issued in Los Angeles County… “What if someone who had been issued a [concealed carry weapon] by Carona went out and hurt someone?”
She does not trust the citizens of Orange County, even though there has never been a single instance of a CCW licensee in Orange County hurting an innocent person. Her views are perfectly summed up in a February 17, 2009 LA Times editorial. In commenting on the fact that Sheriff Hutchens’ views do not fit the culture of Orange County, the Times wrote:

If by "culture" they mean concealed-weapons permits handed out to people who have no legitimate need to carry guns on the streets, then yes, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is not one to honor tradition, and we admire her for that.

The Times went on to say, “Times have changed, and so has Orange County. It is no longer an outpost of cattle ranches and lima-bean fields; it's a diverse metropolitan area, and it should operate like one.”

I submit to you that these views are the real source of Sheriff Hutchens’ CCW policy, and the last thing the Republican Party in OC needs is to be seen as supporting these views. It will alienate the voters. I therefore urge you to support the resolution of No Confidence.

Thank you.

Finally, Mike Schroeder spoke. He basically talked about her revocation policy being illegal.

A couple of members of the General Committee were there and spoke to the resolution. One spoke against it saying the sheriff is following the law and she has the right to set her policy.

Another member proposed some stronger language for the actual resolution.

Then the committee went into closed session to consider the resolution.

We’ve heard that the resolution passed 7-0, but we don’t know yet what exactly the final version says. We know that sections dealing with the illegal surveillance at the BOS meeting and the undercover officers was deleted in order to focus the resolution more narrowly on her CCW policy. We don’t know if the stronger resolution language was included. Hopefully so. We’ll find out soon, and will let you guys know.

The next step is to pack the April 20th Republican Party Central Committee meeting. This is absolutely critical. We need a large number of people there to support adoption of the resolution (just like we had at the BOS meetings). Bring your family, friends and neighbors. We especially need Republicans to be there. They need to know that their base overwhelmingly supports this.

[OCRancher]

Thanks for all the work, Rico.

[DVSmith]

Great work and very thorough report. I am sure many will be thrilled to see the progress that OCCWS is making.

[Dan M.]

Excellent! Thanks to both you and Bill.

[swdr]

Originally Posted by Dan M.

Excellent! Thanks to both you and Bill.

+1. Very nice.

[Treb5]

Absolutely a great piece of work. You folks in Orange County are setting a precedent for the entire state. You certainly have the support of all the CCW communities statewide.

[PirateQueen]

Thank you, thank you, you guys are working really hard and I/we appreciate it.

[x-ricer]

please let us know when and where to be on 4/20!

[THE Gimper]

Originally Posted by x-ricer

please let us know when and where to be on 4/20!

Irvine Hyatt Regency at 7pm.

[THE Gimper]

For more information on Mike Schroeder go here:

Sheriff revokes concealed gun permit from GOP heavy hitter | hutchens, permits, county, gun, issue - News - OCRegister.com

For more information on the meeting and what was said, go here:

"No Confidence" In Sheriff Hutchens CCW Policy | Red County

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Allan Bartlett for allow us the opportunity to address the committee on this important issue.

[Scout]

THE Gimper....

Excellent report....

[epguy8]

What a detailed report! That was very informative and helpful to me. Thank you for all your (and others) hard work. It is greatly appreciated by all CCW and 2nd amendment advocates. Please keep up the great work and let us know when you need help/$, I will be one to support anyway needed.