The good sheriff needs to learn the sensitivity behind words like "may" or "need". Now that she hired Gilliard we can probably assume those issues will be addressed if her intention really isn't to be restrictive.

(Sarcasm 'On') Maybe she could be more vague (Sarcasm 'Off'). She said absolutely nothing!!!

She will soon become acquainted with OC politics. The major republican donors will decide "may or need".

Sigh..."CCWs will not be issued for political, social or other reasons"

That's why a shall issue policy is the fairest one to have. You wouldn't have the above mentioned issues if anyone could get one as long as they meet reasonable requirements like going through a background check, being able to hit the target proficiently, etc. I'm wondering...did she mention anything about the 2nd Amendment? That's what she should use as her guiding principle.

Her stated policy sounds good and seems to follow the letter of the law, unlike ex-Sheriff Carona, who handed them out to donors and pals without any oversight whatsoever.

I don't even know where to begin in pointing out the error of thinking not much will change. From your blog: "Hutchens said her "CCW policy will follow industry standard practices" and that "CCWs will not be issued for political, social or other reasons"

What "industry standard practices"??? Based on her LA County background and the similar backgrounds of some of her new command staff, it means no CCWs unless you've already been threatened, assaulted, raped, murdered...well, murder victims get a break with this policy--they won't NEED a CCW.

Hutchens also said "applicants may -- I repeat, may -- be required to be undergo psychiatric evaluation." And who determines the need for the evaluations? WHat are they based on? How much will this extra requirement cost our cash-strapped county? Can it come out of the Board of Supervisors salaries, since they appointed this new Sheriff??

She also said CCWs may have "situation-specific restrictions" such as can only carry a concealed weapon during certain hours. Ha! PLEASE, Sheriff Hutchens, let us know what the hours and situations that assaults, rapes, armed robberies and murders take place. I mean, you must know, since you're going to restrict CCWs to situations and hours!

Hutchens: "There was a feeling I was going to be restrictive and that's not my intent, but to implement a fair and equitable process." Fair and equitable as compared to what?? From all indications, certainly not to what has been available to law-abiding citizens for the last ten years.

Is it 2010 yet??

Lets get this straight once and for all. Yes. Carona did issue CCW's to friends. However, he also established a policy that is more open to the average citizen in contrast to LASD where only people of status are issued permits. How else do you explain the ~500 permits of LASD vs. ~2000 for OCSD under Carona.

By the law? Such statement by a commenter only shows his lack of knowledge of the issue. The law places the issuance at the discretion of the Sheriff. The law is a breeding ground for favoritism and corruption. By allowing the Sheriff to say who may get the privilege of a CCW permit only serves to enable the corruption. Look at the permits issued by LASD and tell me those who have them are not Baca supporters.

Sheriff Hutchens has the opportunity to make CCW's a non-corruptible issue by taking a shall-issue position. However, her current statement only goes to extend the cloud of doubt over the fairness behind CCW issuance. She states she wants a fair and equitable process. That can only be shall-issue. But I highly doubt that is what she is incline to do.

The Sheriff is sounding more reasonable by the day. It makes great sense that there are very clear policies regarding CCW's and CCW's should be only issued for exceptional circumstances. It is terrific that some L.A. folks are down here to provide a sane approach to this CCW issue.

It is absloute nonsense that people be allowed to carry weapons just because they want to. It is law enforcement's job to protect the community and make the difficult decisions regarding the use of lethal force. Training for use of lethal force is exhaustive and constant training is required.

The administration of psychological testing for law enforcement applicants is mandatory because sane individuals do not want a bunch of loonies carrying concealed weapons. One can only imagine the chaos if a bunch of the right wing nuts around this county were given guns..... they would want horses next.

Anonymous

It is not clear if you read the news but there was a recent Supreme Court decision call DC vs. Heller. In the majority opinion, it states clearly that the 2nd Amendment guarantees a right to keep and bear arms in case of confrontation. That means a right wing nut like me have the right to use a weapon to protect my own life. I do not have to wait until I am beaten to a pulp while waiting for law enforcement to arrive on scene to deal with my attacker.

About the only thing you have correct is that the police is responsible for protecting the community. However, Warren vs. DC states that you are on your own with regards to your own personal safety. In that case, three women were raped in their apartment while the police arrive and on scene and left. The police failed to search the upstairs to find the victims. After the police left, the rape continued. Even though the police failed to perform their duty, they cannot be held liable. In other words, the police are not there to protect you.

Lastly, there are approximately 40 states that have shall-issue conceal carry laws. In these states, you submit an application and if you have a clean background, you will be issued a CCW permit. No psyche testing or polygraph. Just like you, there were all sorts of comments about right wing nuts with guns shooting up the state. But that didn't happened did it. Find a case in those states where CCW holders created a problem. Here is more news. Our neighboring counties, San Bernardino and Kern issues CCW for personal protection. Are there problems with CCW holder there?

Those of us who advocate shall-issue CCW policy are law abiding. We obey the law even though they are wrong. We work to change the law through the political process. The only problems are due to the active imagination of left wing nuts who believe everyone will behave like themselves.

One has to wonder if the LA law enforcement policies are so much better than Orange County, why did the Sheriff and her LA cronies decided to retire in Orange County? Surely, with the restrictive CCW policy in LA making the County and city so safe, why did they not retire in the safety of LA County?

The first thing Sandra Hutchens does is start to change the CCW policy by making it more restrictive to those folks who are not wealthy. Doesn’t she have other things to deal with at the Sheriff Department then to change a system that Board of Supervisor, John Moorlach, stated is working well? This is reminiscent to when Bill Clinton took office and the first thing on his agenda was “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Orange County is becoming LA County, soon enough OC residents will be raising hell. OCSD was working, if its not broken, why fix it? LASD is horrible, now those who retired to get out of the LASD hell have gone to OCSD....to what....yep you read right....to ruin it. We need a new Sheriff...Hutchens and her LASD command staff can get the next train back to LA!

Hutchens and her LASD command staff need to take the next train back to LA. They are not welcome in OC. They are trying to ruin what we have. Sounds like Hutchens is a few french fries short of a happy meal!

I mentioned it in another post, but I’ll do it again here. The sheriff needs to realize that every current CCW holder accounts for maybe up to a dozen votes each. The CCW themselves, their significant other, a neighbor or two and a friend or two from work, etc., until it looks like that shampoo commercial (and so on, and so on…)

Sheriff Hutches needs to keep that in mind before she implements any wholesale change in police, especially with the next election just a couple of years away. Otherwise, those votes will surely go to the candidate promising to increase CCW insurance, rather than reduce it as the new sheriff plans to do.

The CCW program was cleaned up as part of the reserve officer debacle. Those who were “given” permits without any real need had them revoked. In the last few years all applicants needed a strong “good cause” as required by the penal code.

If you recall the sheriff candidate interviews, Jack Anderson and even Sup Moorlach eluded to the fact that the CCW program was being ran well. Hopefully Sheriff Hutches will get the message.

I posted the above comment but forgot to include my nom de plume. I also forgot to second what Allen said. At least 40 states are "shall issue." Things are working fine in those states and things would work well here.

Sheriff Hutchens came from LA. It would behoove her to leave her LA way of thinking at the county line.

Law enforcement legitimacy and moral right flows solely from "the consent of the governed"

Please take note that "We the People" are not subjects of Law Enforcement superiors, or subordinates to an elite class of experts, who somehow alone are uniquely qualified to provide us with our security. We are responsible for our own security and the promotion of “general welfare and domestic tranquility” This does not mean outsourcing our own rights to government agencies

Free people know what a violation of the "social contract" looks like when they see it. We all would be well served by keeping that knowledge in our front sights.

Jubal,
You missed the most important part of her new policy and that is CCWs will only be issued to individuals showing "Credible, significant and substanciated" threats to their safety. That is a very high bar. You would practically have to be in the witness protection program to qualify. Guess 99% of all those County CCWs out there are soon to be revoked. Guess the Supes didn’t know that Hutchins was allied with the Democrat mind set entrenched in LA. Wonder what chicken little is thinking now.

SWKC,

Don't confuse the 2nd ammendment with with ccw permits. The 2nd ammendment was meant to protect people in their homes. You right wing nuts (and I'm one of them, only I have common sense) keep trying to use this as a weak argument to justify walking around in public carrying a concealed firearm to protect yourself. Against what? Without constant perishable skills training, you're far more dangerous to the public safety than the random criminal threat.

Hey Anonymous,

Your theory is all fine and dandy, except it lacks facts. Every study done shows that an armed citizenry leads to lower crime rate. Period. Show me different or quit your un-American whining.

D'ANCONIA

An armed citizenry leads to lower crime rate? Not in Orange County. Don't compare apples to oranges when considering demographics. If you're so consumed with being able to carry a firearm for no apparent reason, go live in one those locales where you can feel safer. Don't use your sense of paranoia to endanger the rest of us. Un-American whining? I was born and raised here in the OC, and I've always been able to legally carry concealed as an adult. That being said, I don't always do, for fear of running into a nut case like you. I'll leave that nightmare for actively trained Law Enforcement.

Anon-

"Not in Orange County."

Do you have any proof for that claim?

"Don't use your sense of paranoia to endanger the rest of us."

Excuse me if my belief in the constitution passed off as paranoia to you.

"I was born and raised here in the OC, and I've always been able to legally carry concealed as an adult. That being said, I don't always do, for fear of running into a nut case like you."

First of all, I call bullshit. If you really have a CCW and have carried one for your whole adult life, then you would know how safe it is for a responsible citizen to carry. So that leaves us with: either you're lying and you don't have a CCW, or you're not a responsible citizen and your OWN paranoia drives you to be scared of other irresponsible people like you carrying.

Want to know what I think? I think you don't have a CCW, you weren't raised in the OC, and you're probably a Barack Obama liberal treehugger instead trying to pass off as a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, which you're obviously not.

D'ANCON

I didn't say I have a "CCW", I said I've always been able to legally carry concealed. If you came out from hiding behind the second Amendment, maybe you could figure it out. And yes, when I'm in my capacity as an off-duty responsible citizen, I am scared for public safety when untrained people like you might have a ccw. Not that it matters against your ridiculous argument, but I was raised in OC by registered Democrat parents, however I myself have always been a registered Republican. Nice try though.

Anonymous - I feel I need to respond to several specific comments from you:
For some reason you don’t want to come out and say you are a peace officer, I’m not sure why. You said “…when I'm…off-duty… I am scared for public safety when untrained people like you might have a ccw.” And you said “I don't always [carry], for fear of running into a nut case like you. I'll leave that nightmare for actively trained Law Enforcement.” I understand from your statements that CCW holders scare you.

One reason they seem to scare you is that they do not have the same level of training as a police officer. That could be a valid point, but you don’t provide any information to support you position. Many CCW holders I know train regularly (not just target practice) and in many cases far more often than most law enforcement officers. You suggest CCW holders should have far more training to prepare them for “difficult decisions regarding the use of lethal force” I am sure police get a lot more ‘threat analysis’ type training than CCW holders, but that’s because law enforcement is required to go into often very ambiguous situations, and figure out who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. The ‘difficult decisions’ police train for are almost exclusively focused on recognizing who is a threat and who is not, and then using the appropriate level of force to apprehend a suspect. That is not why CCWs are issued. CCW holders do not sort out other’s domestic disputes, respond to bank robberies, break up drunken brawls or swoop in on drug deals in progress. Those are complex situations requiring a high degree of training. CCW holders don’t think they are cops, and they don’t need cop training. The only reason a CCW holder would use her gun is if her life was in immediate danger, PERIOD. It does not take too much training for her to figure that out! At that point the training most helpful to her, and the general public, is to make sure all her shots go into the attacker trying to rape/kill her until the attacker is stopped.

The second reason they seem to scare you is you believe CCW holders are a “bunch of loonies”, “nut cases” with a “sense of paranoia”. I am not sure how to respond to this, it seems to be a pretty deep-seated opinion. If this is based on some experience of yours, please share that with us, it would be valuable information to the people interested in this topic. If your opinion is based on some statistical analysis you have come across, please share it, and provide a link to the source so we can all understand you better. My experience and research indicate that CCW holders are among the most law abiding in the nation, that crime went down each time ‘shall issue’ policies were instituting in over 40 states, that CCW holders very rarely use their weapons to commit crimes and none of the other doomsday scenarios foretold by people afraid of guns has ever come to pass. If you believe the mere fact someone wants to have a CCW to protect themselves in the event of an attack makes them ‘loony’, please consider if having life insurance means I have a death wish, having fire insurance means I’m an arsonist, having an airbag and wearing seatbelts makes me a bad driver, etc.... Seeking to mitigate a future risk, even a fairly remote one such as your house burning down or getting robbed at gun-point, is not the action of a ‘loony’. It is the action of a proactive and prudent person (and some consider it their civic duty).

So, I understand that you are afraid of guns in the hands of anyone other than police officers. Your fear is, in my opinion, unjustified, based on the facts I have. I think if you were to do some basic threat analysis (as you were trained to do so well as a police officer) you would be able to determine that CCW holders are not a threat to you or the rest of the law abiding citizens of Orange County. They are, however, very much a threat to whoever is stupid enough to mistake them for defenseless victims.