I thought the new era at the OC Sheriff's Department was supposed to be one of openness and professionalism.

But when it comes to the subject of carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) permits, its been caginess.

Sheriff Hutchens and her command staff made a long presentation about various changes being planned and made since she was sworn in on June 20. But the elephant in the room was the CCW issue, and it was omitted from the presentation. If the Supes hadn't brought it up -- specifically, Supervisor Pat Bates at the 1:52:00 mark on the online Board video --  I doubt the Sheriff would even have addressed.

Hutchens told the Board she is not directly involving herself in the matter of granting, renewing or revoking CCWs. If she does get involved, she told the Supes she will look at the application, but without any name attached.

Fair enough, but if the CCW issue is so important that Sheriff Hutchens felt it necessary to revert to a restrictive CCW philosophy, it would seem revoking CCWs or denying applications would merit closer attention from her.

Cagey On CCW Re-Examination
But back to the caginess.

On Tuesday, the Supes aggressively questioned the Sheriff on whether any CCW permits had been revoked or were being revoked. The Sheriff said only two had been revoked, and that the letters -- 146 of them it turns out, according to the Reg -- going out simply asked the permit holders to provide more information on why they should be allowed to keep their CCWs.

But that's not what the letter says, according to the OC Register:

"The Department has determined that your identified risk does not meet the good cause threshold as required under the new CCW policy based upon the information you provided. As a result of this determination, the Department's present intention is to revoke your CCW license," reads the form letter sent out this month.

That's a revocation letter. It may be tentative, but it's a shall-revoke letter unless you can prove why you should be allowed to hang on to your CCW.

Is the Sheriff so removed from the process that she was unaware the letter were actually revocations, and was therefore unable to accurately answer Supervisors questions on that very topic? The same goes for the Sheriff's command staff, none of whom leaped to correct the misperception being given to the Supes. Either they didn't know, or they remained mum.

And is it really a good idea that Sheriff Hutchens being so removed from the CCW process that she is unaware of a mass revocation occurring at the same time the Board of Supes is asking if such an action is taking place?

Restricting CCW: Second Amendment, Shmecond Amendment!
Another passage from today's OC Register article:

Hutchens acknowledged to supervisors that she had indeed tightened requirements for the permits but highlighted the fact that no current license had yet been revoked.

But it seems unlikely that those who are getting the letters won't be revoked.

"Most of them are not coming back with the information we need," said Nighswonger. "A lot of them are arguing the second amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)," he said.

Nighswonger said many of the current revocations listed their reason for having a concealed gun as "avid shooter."

That no longer qualifies under Hutchen's new standards.

Silly civilians and their obsession with the Second Amendment!

Hutchens has used the rationale that the appearance that some CCW holders may have secured them via political connections to impose a restrictive CCW regime.

So, are 146 recipients all "political cronies" as critics like to say? And even if one is politically active and a donor, should that automatically excommunicate one from receiving a CCW?

Furthermore, Sheriff Hutchens has yet to articulate the necessity adopting a more restrictive CCW policy. Allegations of some political cronyism is hardly a compelling rational for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I'll be very surprised if many of the CCW holders who will ultimately have their permits revoked will turn out to be donors or Carona associates.

No Compelling Reason For Restricting CCWs
It is correct for Sheriff Hutchens to move swiftly to reform OCSD operations that need reforming, such as the jails. But I'm not aware of any pattern of abuse by CCW holders under Carona's permissive CCW regime -- so why is that one of the first areas Hutchens has attacked?

Until the Sheirff can communicate a compelling reason for her restrictive policy, I'm inclined to believe it's simply a manifestation of the general law enforcement mentality that doesn't like civilians packing heat. I've heard the sentiment from law enforcement folks: they don't want some guy with a CCW going Lone Ranger and interfering with sworn officers in a dangerous situation.

But when does that ever happen? About the only time you'll see a CCW holder use their weapon is in order to protect their life or those of their fellow citizens in the absence of or prior to a police response.

The Supes are elected officials. They are politicians who by instinct and experience tend to be attuned to their constituents' concerns. Hence, they quickly bore in on the CCW issue that Sheriff Hutchens was ignoring in her "State of the Department" presentation.

On the other hand, Hutchens, by pledging to disregard "grass roots pressure" strikes me as a manifestation of political tone deafness stemming from having no political experience. I don't expect any Sheriff to place the sometimes shifting demands of voters above public safety -- but in the instance of CCW, Sheriff Hutchens has not demonstrated that the CCW policy she is junking posed any threat to public safety.

Confusing Discretion With Restriction
Sheriff Hutchens repeatedly points to state law giving sheriffs great discretion regarding the issuance of CCWs.

That's true, but I looked up "discretion" on Dictionary.com and didn't find any definition saying it meant to always choose the most restrictive approach to anything.

"Discretion" means the freedom to make choices or use one's own judgment. Sheriff Hutchens could easily choose to continue former Sheriff Carona's, and to date hasn't provided a compelling public safety reason for a more restrictive policy.