A post appeared on the Sheriff's Blog, offering a statement from Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' in defense of her new, restrictive policy toward issuing CCWs.

The title: "It's Simple, It's The Law" neatly encapsulates the reasoning of the Sheriff's statement. I find it entirely unpersuasive.

Since Hutchens' imposed a restrictive CCW policy because she claims that's what the law requires her to do, then it follows that her predecessor's CCW policy was illegal. I would like to know if Sheriff Hutchens' believe Carona's CCW policy was against the law?

Does Sheriff Hutchens then believe Fresno County Sheriff Richard Pierce is violating the law with his permissive approach to CCW issuance?
While Sheriff Hutchens seems to claim her hands are tied by the law, but what she actually hangs it on is an Attorney General's opinion from 1977. Last time I checked, the Attorney General was charged with enforcing laws, not making them. An opinion is just that: an opinion.

Sheriff Hutchens claims that opinion is "the only guidance on 'good cause'." I would think judgment and experience would also serve as guidance. Sheriff in other counties seem to find it possible to follow far more liberty-friendly attitudes towards the issuance of CCWs.

"As the Sheriff-Coroner of Orange County, it is my duty to follow the law as it currently exists," the Sheriff writes.  Again, by asserting that her replacement of a permissive CCW policy with a restrictive represents "following the law," then it follows logically that her predecessor -- and indeed, any other California sheriff following a more permissive CCW policy -- is not the following the law.

Frankly, I think this is legalistic window-dressing  - along with the "cronyism" canard -- designed to camouflage a deeper reason for embarking on the revocation of CCWs, which I suspect is distrust of concealed weapons on the person of anyone who isn't wearing a badge, no matter how law-abiding they are.