Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Orange County, Ca. residence say to the Sheriff, "pretty please with sugar on top don't take CC

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    This is what happens when good people have to beg government to let them keep a "privilege".

    Very sad. Long live a RIGHT!

    viewthe Orange County Supervisorsmeetinghere:

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...p;postcount=87


    more here

    http://www.calccw.com/Forums/legal/7...reds-ccws.html





  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/h...aw?slideshow=1



    News: County supervisors and Sheriff battle over gun permits | hutchens, gun, supervisors, permits, law - OCRegister.com

    Tuesday, November 18, 2008
    More than 100 protest change in gun policy
    More than 100 protesters show up at county board meeting to show anger over reversal of Carona gun policy
    BY NORBERTO SANTANA JR.
    The Orange County Register
    Comments 24 | Recommend 5

    County supervisors, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens and hundreds of gun activists engaged today in a Wild West-style shootout over the new concealed gun policies that Hutchens has introduced during her first six months in office.

    The long-awaited meeting – which featured hundreds standing in unison to show their displeasure with Hutchens – set several precedents with supervisors aggressively questioning the new Sheriff, a chief of staff -- Supervisor John Moorlach -- openly taking sides with Hutchens during a public briefing and a raucous boardroom where gun activists said the county had gone backward on personal liberty and even questioned Hutchens preparation and transparency in explaining the motivation behind her new policy.

    "I want to take the politics out of that decision," Hutchens told county supervisors.

    Yet it seems that Hutchens – who was appointed by supervisors in June following the federal indictment of Mike Carona – has triggered a deep reserve of pro-gun sentiments by revising the policies. And most observers agree that the new Sheriff hasn't helped her cause by repeatedly misstating statistics, in terms of gun permit revocations, as well as state law regarding her ability to devise her own policies.

    At today's meeting, Hutchens told supervisors that she had reviewed 1,069 gun permits. A total of 18 were revoked for reasons unrelated to good cause. Another 646 met the good cause threshold. Another 423 letters had been sent out requesting more information from permit holders and threatened revocation.

    Yet Hutchens was almost immediately corrected by her staff correct her that the 646 number wasn't accurate. It wasn't clear what the number referred to as the meeting proceeded.

    In addition, when Supervisor Pat Bates asked Hutchens how many of the newly-approved permits now had time restrictions on them, she couldn't answer. Other supervisors told Hutchens that the math on the gun permits didn't add up.

    The supervisors' ire seemed more heightened at this second meeting in two months over concealed weapons permits. And despite Hutchens skating on explaining her policy, some officials told her how it looked to them.

    "You're being extremely restrictive," Bates said. "This is your policy."

    Hutchens replied, "I do not view my policy to be restrictive," which triggered massive laughter from the audience.

    Hutchens announced her review of gun permits after seeing the federal indictment of Carona feature a questionable gun permit issued to a local limousine mogul as well as allegations that Carona had hatched a plan to sell gun permits to wealthy contributors.

    Indeed, the Orange County Register did find 95 instances where Carona campaign donors received gun permits.

    Under California state law, Sheriff's are granted wide discretion on setting policies that define the "good cause" needed to carry a concealed weapon. Carona was known in the gun community for his liberal interpretation of the standard. In fact, many rural counties do grant many more licenses than Sheriffs in urban areas.

    In October, Hutchens announced her new policy noting that specific proof of threats or workplace needs would be required, in addition to possible psychological and medical checks.

    When gun activists began questioning her policies, county supervisors – who generally support concealed weapons holders - asked her publicly to explain. Hutchens noted a 1997 attorney general letter that gave direction on how to define good cause.

    At today's meeting, County Supervisor Chris Norby took issue with Hutchens reliance on the letter, saying it had no force of law and was misleading to argue that somehow her hands were tied.

    Hutchens quickly replied that the Attorney General letter was the only direction given to Sheriffs. And she insists, "we should follow the intent of the law."

    Hutchens told supervisors that the state law generally prohibits the use of concealed weapons. Allowing Sheriffs to grant certain licenses, are an exception, she said, not a way around the law.

    But there is no regulatory body that checks concealed weapons checks, creating an "honor system" up and down the state, she said.

    But once she reviewed the permits, she started sending letters indicating that her new standards would create lots of revocations.

    Norby – responding to the concerns of gun permit holders – has presented a resolution calling on the Sheriff to avoid revoking the permit of any holder who has not broken the law.

    Other supervisors seem supportive of the resolution, which has been waiting for most of the day to receive a direct debate as more than 80 speakers voice their concerns over the new gun policies.


  3. #3
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    LeagueOf1607 wrote:
    This is what happens when good people have to beg government to let them keep a "privilege".

    Very sad. Long live a RIGHT!
    +1

    I can't say I feel bad for those subject to revocation. If you ***** out your rights you don't deserve the privilege.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    I do feel bad for them (well not for any who relished in ConditionThree's revocation - that is poetic justice since some Orange County CCWers had their hands in that sad act.) Carma in spades!

    However, there are many individuals with elevated risk circumstances who aregetting their licenses to carry revoked (or restricted to and from work) by a tyrant because the bad guys haven't sent via return receipt mail a "I'm gona kill you (but only to or from work)" letter signed in blood (for DNA analysis).

    And with certain professions OC even U is not at all a possibility from a business/employer relations stand point.

    That said I do believe that UOC or OC will still be the path to shall issue in CA in the coming years.

    More and more in the shall issue states there are rumblings of going "Vermont/Alaska". "Shall"is justa stepping stone in the never ending multi generational defense of Liberty and the basic Human Right of self-defense.

    For what the CCWersoptions are in Orange County under Ca law, this was avery well done and well attended event with 250 shall issue supporters vs 2 antis from the Brady Bunch. :celebrate The result was about as good as they could hope. And it put this issue on the political front burner down there for the 2010 Sheriff's election. Heck, I'll even go down there and campaign for her opponent!

    The Orange County Supervisors did pass a non binding 5-0 resolution calling on the Sheriff to continue the previous policy of "kinda sorta shall issue if you carry valuable property, guns to the range,or own a business". Joey bag of donuts,father of 2, who doesn't collect rent money or sell diamonds and only owns one pistol and one shotgunfor self-defense of his family,is still gotta only carry a mag light when walking thedogsaying it is "for when it gets dark".

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    more press

    http://www.redcounty.com/orange-coun...-county-sheri/


    OC BLOG (CA): Penetrating insights from behind the Orange Curtain


    Jubal | 11/18/2008 10:21 PM



    Welcome to Orange County, Sheriff Hutchens.

    I say that figuratively, of course, since the Sheriff has lived in OC for many years. I'm referring to the LASD law enforcement mentality that seems to have left her unprepared for the backlash that has whipsawed her over her CCW policy.

    Today was one of those rare Board of Supes meetings that is really worth watching (the CCW portion begins at the 1:14:00 mark on the media player) to watch our local elected officials wrangle over this aspect of an ancient liberty.

    I don't know how to characterize today's hearing as anything other than a black eye for Sheriff Sandra Hutchens:


    - The legal rationale for her restrictive CCW policy was fairly well demolished, leaving her with

    - The Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a resolution that stands as a rebuke to Hutchens' CCW policy.
    Barely five months into her tenure as Sheriff, she has managed to create -- needlessly -- an organized, energized group of activists who will certainly place themselves at the service of any credible, pro-permissive CCW candidate who decides to challenge Hutchens in 2010. Chuck Michel[/b], an attorney for the NRA and a professor at Chapman University School of Law. It was he who blew away Sheriff Hutchen's claim that a 1977 state Attorney General's opinion binds her to a restrictive CCW policy. Michel made this observation:


    With all due respect to the Sheriff, who came into a very difficult situation -- and perhaps with a bit less respect for the opinions of people who are giving her legal advice -- I suspect that this clinging to a 30-year old Atorney General lettter is perhaps a post hoc rationalization for implemewnting a policy decision that's come under a fire storm of criticism that she didn't anticipate.
    Michel continued with this:


    She, the sheriff -- any sheriff -- needs to make a policy decision that their constituents can then evaluate, and decide whether or not they agree with that sheriff's exercise of discretion or not, and if they don't, then maybe that sheriff doesn't get re-elected.
    Keep in mind the speaker preceding was Ed Worley, the NRA political liaison/lobbyist in California. It's probably not a good thing for Hutchens to have already caught the negative attention of the NRA.

    Going forward, the ball is in Hutchens' court, and the Sheriff has to decide if she want to stop, listen and act on the criticism and input she's getting, or else damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead on her new CCW policy.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Susanville, California, USA
    Posts
    529

    Post imported post

    Yeah LeaQue of 1607,

    I watched the whole thing.

    I think it would be good for the Supervisors to ask the Govenor, and also the Legislators, for a Equal CCW, like the rest of America, a shall Issue CCW.

    Robin47 PS. I liked the NRA guys thats called "Common Sence People".

  7. #7
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912

    Post imported post

    She, the sheriff -- any sheriff -- needs to make a policy decision that their constituents can then evaluate, and decide whether or not they agree with that sheriff's exercise of discretion or not, and if they don't, then maybe that sheriff doesn't get re-elected.

    Already, I will not be electing hutchens for Sheriff and Coroner for Orange County.

    Now... I should apply for that CCW, with reason being "Employed in an area of high crime". To which, Santa Ana is only second (by county stats) to San Bernadino down here...
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    City of Angeles - San Fernando Valley, California, USA
    Posts
    158

    Post imported post

    http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=134289
    SHERIFF TO STAY REVOCATIONS OF CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS (CCW) PERMITS ..

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155

    Post imported post

    In a criminal prosecution, the authorities are required to prove guilt, the accused is under no obligation to prove innocence.

    So why for a handgun license is one required to prove a need rather than having the authorities show why such a license should not be granted?

    Can any of your elected representatives answer that question?

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lamma Island, HK
    Posts
    964

    Post imported post

    Again with the rational thinking! Come on! Rational thinking does not work in Kali or politics anywhere for that matter!

    Statkowski wrote:
    In a criminal prosecution, the authorities are required to prove guilt, the accused is under no obligation to prove innocence.

    So why for a handgun license is one required to prove a need rather than having the authorities show why such a license should not be granted?

    Can any of your elected representatives answer that question?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •