Hutchens Making A Hash Of CCWs
Posted by: Jubal | 10/10/2008 11:48 AM
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On Tuesday, the Supes aggressively questioned the Sheriff on whether any CCW permits had been revoked or were being revoked. The Sheriff said only two had been revoked, and that the letters -- 146 of them it turns out, according to the Reg -- going out simply asked the permit holders to provide more information on why they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:
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 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.
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.Silly civilians and their obsession with the Second Amendment!
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.
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.
Anonymous, you have an excellent point. Sometimes people become annoyed by a person or event, to the extent...
You hit the nail on the head. The Sheriff needs to be held accountable for either, a) outright lies or b) lack of administration. There could be a 'c', which would be "not qualified", but we'll leave that alone for now. Bravo, to the BOS, for holding her accountable and "demanding" an explanation. She can argue "cronyism" all she wants, but there a no FACTS, to justify those allegations.
Hutchens is really just showing her contempt for anything looking like a Carona policy. You are dead on with "throwing the baby out with the bath water."
Hopefully we will be throwing this Sheriff out in the next election. If this issues gets enough traction, we may even see a recall and special election.
They have sent out 146 but that's just up to the "J"s. They still have the rest of the alphabet to go.
You're going to see 500-600 revocation notices go out.
Are all of them cronies?
You can take the Sheriff out of LA but you can't take LA out of the Sheriff.
I guess this is what you get when you hire a Sheriff who follows the law. Maybe the exemption in the law that permits CCW's should be changed to allow for proper screening/background checks and if all is good, then you get automatic approval. It seems to me that you're shooting the messenger (no pun intended).
She keeps quoting the "law" -- what she is quoting is an OPINION from 1977, then Atty General Younger wrote about HIS OPINION about a just cause -- the law on the books states quite plainly that the Sheriff has 100% of the just cause determination. Check out the Sheriff for Kern County
Do you have another attorney general opinion or any other legal opinion to counter the 1977 opinion? In matters of law enforcement the opinion of the attorney general and case law are heavily relied upon to make decisions.
I believe the law should be changed but until a legislator in this State picks up the cause (and I doubt they will) I believe she is acting appropriately.
You state that she has 100% of the just cause determination. If that is so, then she also has the same liability when things go wrong with a CCW permit holder. If/When that day comes, the 1977 opinion will surely be used against her to bolster a civil case.
Jubal, that is one of the best analyses I have read describing Sheriff Hutchens flawed CCW policy. She is out of touch with the residents of Orange County. She is injecting her ideology into the CCW program by making it very restrictive on law-abiding residents. Please continue to follow the Sandra Hutchens blooper show.
Wonderful analysis of the situation, Jubal. WHY the more restrictive policy. That is THE MAIN QUESTION she needs to answer.
"You state that she has 100% of the just cause determination. If that is so, then she also has the same liability when things go wrong with a CCW permit holder."
Case law is absolutely clear - a government official has no liability for exercising their discretion....
I hate to say it Jubal, but you’re spot on. Inasmuch as the sheriff claims she is reviewing permits that don’t meet her good cause threshold, other sheriffs in the state issue for much less. San Bernardino, Kern and other counties issue many more permits than OC does, not just in their rural areas, but in the metro areas as well. This is just one more example of LA County policing coming to the OC.
Very disingenuous that the sheriff did not mention the CCW program until asked about it, then she read from a prepared statement! How can you miss an elephant in the room like that!
I smell a rat!
I read that one CCW applicant had been granted his permit by Hutchens, then received a revocation letter 1 month later. If it was one person granting and revoking, then that would be a sign of multiple personality disorder. But if the truth is that the buck doesn't stop at Hutchens, then who does it stop at? Something's fishy at the OCSD.
I just received my letter and was not an "AVID SHOOTER" I had a legitimate business cause and now my license expires Nov. 8th. I never met Carona or donated to his campaign... The CCW is dead in OC. Time to move to AZ or NV...
There have been NO problems with CCW permit holders. Yet she has her department taking on the task of stripping hundreds of citizens of their right to carry concealed, all to fix a problem that doesn't exist. A solution looking for a problem is very dangerous.
Dare someone say it? She is doing this to appease her former boss Sheriff Baca. All those years of embarrassment that Sheriff Carona caused Baca by issuing to just about to anyone; while Baca only issued to celebrities, campaign contributers, billionaires, etc. Now Sheriff Hutchens is doing the same.
Her attitude seems completely counter-productive. The concept of law enforcement is thought to be "to protect and to serve". To that end, it seems only logical that establishing the best and most cooperative rapport with the community would be a primary concern. The OCSD's most supportive groups are the very ones which Ms Hutchens has targeted for harassment. Specifically the CCW holders and PSR members. Why she would seek to alienate those who offer volunteer support to the department is quite the mystery. There would have to be some hidden agenda that prioritized these non-problems. It would seem that in the face of so many other real issues which remain detrimental to the county while these "pet peeves" consume OCSD resources, the Board of Supervisors must surely regret their ill-advised appointment. Hopefully they will act to correct this so we citizens don't have to wait until 2010.
Wow, again she states that she's upholding "the law." Furthermore, she cites her policy as a "mainstream" policy. This is not "the law." This is HER "law." This "mainstream" policy simply mirrors that of her former employer, LASO.
While I didn't hear or read about the pledge by Hutchens to disregard "grass roots pressure," she'd be silly to do that. As someone who's in an office that serves at the will of the people, that's a very arrogant statement. Well, in any case she's appointed, for NOW. That "grass roots" pressure will grow into a redwood forest of pressure by 2010 - good luck getting re-elected if you don't listen to those folks that VOTE.