OC county supervisors question Sheriff on concealed weapons
October 7th, 2008, 1:08 pm · 19 Comments · posted by NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
Orange County supervisors today voiced concerns to Sheriff Sandra Hutchens over her recent revisions to concealed weapons permit policies.
Hutchens changes to the policies for carrying concealed weapons is expected by many to narrow how many people can walk in public with a concealed firearm. The changes represent the starkest change from the administration of former Sheriff Mike Carona, who faces trial later this month on corruption charges.
Several supervisors told Hutchens - who came before supervisors today to unviel an update on how the department has been reorganized since her appointment in June - that she is taking a tougher stand on concealed weapons.
State law allowing people to carry concealed weapons is meant to deal with exceptions to the overall ban on concealed weapons, “not a way around it,” Hutchens said.
Hutchens told supervisors that residents will be held to a higher standard on their reasons for requiring a concealed weapon. Excuses like being an “avid shooter” — which was granted under Carona — won’t make the grade for her, she said.
Yet several supervisors told Hutchens they are getting tons of phone calls and emails protesting the changes with many permit holders saying that the new Sheriff is not complying with the intent of state law, which does allow sheriff’s discretion.
Other public speakers said Hutchens is ignoring the community standard, which is more friendly to gun right in Orange County than other jurisdictions.
Supervisor Pat Bates told Hutchens that there is a perception that her revisions are “arbitrary.”
She wants a full report by November on how the revisions are being handled.
“I’ve had at least 100 emails in the past few months,” said Supervisor Chris Norby. He also wants to see statistics on how such permits are being granted.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
What a laugher! All that is important is gun permits?
October 7th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Now that we’ve seen that crime doesn’t increase in states that gone to a shall-issue model for granting permits, it is probably time to review weather we should allow one individual to use arbitrary discretion in allowing people to exercise their rights. The idea of allowing a law enforcement official to use discriminatory standards and favoritism to turn a right into a privilege flies in the face of the Constitution which they are sworn to uphold. My family is worth more than anything that she would want a jeweler or businessman to defend. Our second amendment rights are quite often the canary in the coal mine when it to the people becoming subject to tyranny.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
What percentage of concealed gun permit holders committed gun crimes under Carona?
October 7th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Time and again, study after study has proven beyond doubt in the United States, crime rates drop when gun laws are taken away, or made less strict.
Conversely the State of California, which has some of the strictest gun laws of all States, has also some of the highest violence and murder rates in the world. LA city being murder capital of the world, many many times.
How bout working on taking the ILLEGAL guns off the street, and not worrying about what people who’ve legally purchased them is.
When the shooting murders from legally purchased weapons exceed those from illegally purchased weapons - then we can start looking at law revisions.
This is a totally backwards approach to fighting crime.
October 7th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
+1
Amen Rob. What ever happen to the “good” people being able to defend ourselves from the scum of the earth. Look at Texas and Florida….nuff said.
-SD
October 7th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Wow. It does not say you can’t carry a gun, it just says that you can’t carry a gun in public. Watch Tombstone!
Quit crying about this. Your rights are not violated by not being able to carry a concealed weapon in public.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Here’s what happens when you issue too many gun permits:
http://www.citypages.com/2008-10-08/news/settled-dust-reveals-concealed-carry-stalemate
In the 5 years since Minnesota adopted a “shall issue” policy, violent crime is up 4.41% and 65 permits have been revoked or suspended because a judge determined that the holders were a danger to themselves or others.
The idea of California’s concealed carry law is to give special protection to those who need it, like people who carry money for their jobs, have been the victims of domestic violence, and so on, not to let everyone and their moms carry guns around at our parks and on our streets. The new sheriff is right, and I’m glad she has ended Mike Carona’s ridiculous permit-for-campaign-donation policy.
October 7th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
tjhooker - did you just reference a movie in an attempt to prove a real life point?
It’s obtuse individuals such as yourself that clearly have no understanding of the issue. Concealed Weapons Permits ONLY pertain to public places!!
If it’s a private place, such a business it’s a totally different set of laws.
If it’s a home, it’s a totally different set of laws.
If you are in transportation of a firearm for lawful purposes it’s a totally different set of laws.
If you want to carry a weapon with you, concealed in public - THAT is the concealed weapons permit laws.
Secondly “tjhooker” while you are referencing a movie to make a point, there are actual, REAL LIFE case studies done on it.
Rights aside - It is proven to create a SAFER environment for the general public to have more open laws about concealed carry.
In places gun laws are made stricter - crime increases. In places gun laws are made less strict - crime decreases.
That’s a public safety issue.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Tjhooker,
Rights are being violated. According the Heller v DC, the majority opinion states that the people have the right to bear arms in case of confrontation. The California Penal code makes it a crime to carry a loaded gun in public. The exception is if you have a conceal carry weapon permit. California law places the issuance of the CCW permit at the discretion of the county sheriff or the police chief. These laws in effect allows the sheriff in this case to determine when and where you may exercise your 2nd Amendment right. I would bet that you would not be happy if the sheriff has the same power over your ability to exercise your 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, or 8th Amendment rights.
October 7th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
It is always amusing to read a clueless writer argue that you should only be permitted to arm yourself for protection AFTER you have been a victim of a violent crime. Can an applicant list the county morgue as their address on the CCW application? Oh wait, you can’t fill out an application when you are dead. Never mind. Problem solved!
October 7th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Jim - + or - 5% is far within normal variances.
I can point to 1,000’s of cities that have seen larger increases without any change in gun laws.
Secondly, there are numerous studies and places where opening up gun laws dramatically reduced crime - more then normal variance.
October 7th, 2008 at 9:23 pm
TJ - Rights are being violated. The intent of the 2nd Am. was partially to stave off the criminal element. This was discussed by the framers and published in many publications and documents. If the intent was that we weren’t to carry them, the amendment would have been written as the right to keep arms in their homes, instead of the the right to keep and bear. “Keep” was always referring to keep under ones control at any time that the people see fit.
October 8th, 2008 at 1:05 am
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. “–Thomas Jefferson
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense. “–John Adams
October 8th, 2008 at 6:56 am
Just remember OC residents the sheriff is elected and there’s always another election just around the corner. If she doesn’t think your Rights are important, just get rid od her.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:58 am
Sheriff Hutchens, is in fact revoking and denying CCW permits, to people who had good “just cause” statements and who had nothing to do with Corona in any way….. I personally know 3 people who fell victim to the Sheriffs new policy, just this week… One avg. law abiding citizen, with no criminal record, no ties to Corona, had his CCW revoked after having it for over 6 years. Another was a firearms instructor and the other was a victim of domestic violence, who was is fear for her life….
The issuing of CCW permits is totally at the discretion of the Sheriff, and yes there are laws and criteria that each CCW applicant must meet, but it’s the Sheriff that has the final say.. With very, very few exceptions CCW holders, here and across the nation, are some of the most law abiding responsible citizens you’ll ever find. There is no reason that the responsible voters of Orange County should be subjected to same anti-gun, Democratic rhetoric, like those that are imposed on the citizens of LA county..
Hutchens must feel that the citizens of O.C. are less responsible, and are less deserving to self protection, than those in other states like Utah, Texas, Arizona, Iowa, etc. etc…..
She tends dismiss the “grass roots” movement against her, but it’s that very movement that will ensure that she will have the shortest term of any O.C. Sheriff.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
She has broken her oath to uphold the Constitution, so it’s time for her to either step down, or be recalled. Maybe the supervisors who placed her it this position should also be recalled.
October 8th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Let’s all e-mail the 3 supervisors who seen to see through Hutchens lies…
PatBates@ocgov.com
Bill.Campbell@ocgov.com
Chris.Norby@ocgov.com
I’m sure we’ll all remember the names of the supervisors who keep her in check…..
October 9th, 2008 at 10:00 am
The next BOS meeting is Oct 21st… If you or anyone you know has been turned down or had their CCW revoked, since Hutchens has been sheriff, please get copies of the letters they received from the Sheriffs Dept. to all members of the BOS…. THEY NEED TO KNOW WHAT HUTCHENS HAS BEEN UP TO…….
OCBOS contact info;
http://egov.ocgov.com/portal/site/ocgov/menuitem.4981dc715fc6e27bdadd603d100000f7/?vgnextoid=b7388765ab824110VgnVCM1000000100007fRCRD&vgnextfmt=default
October 16th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
This is the problem when you have a nanny-state sheriff decide that her opinion is more important than her constituency’s opinions. How utterly arrogant. But, then, arrogance is the norm for politics in Orange County, right Big John?
Although the sheriff is responsible for issuing (or not issuing as the case may be) CCWs, it would be within the jurisdiction of the BOS to enact a local ordinance that would dictate good cause to the sheriff requiring her to issue if certain conditions are met. If pre-emption were a problem, they could contact their cronies in the legislature to enact a local bill that would require the sheriff to issue on-demand just in our county.
what about it, supes?