I don't. There is a difference in forgetting that you're carrying on your back belt and forgetting that it's in a handbag which you leave laying around at work, in restaurants, on the counter of the restroom, etc. Hopefully, the fines will help them remember that their handbag has a firearm in it. No sympathy from me and they're lucky they get to keep their permits. If I was the Sheriff, I'd ponder a bit about whether they had demonstrated safe handling of their weapons.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that these particular women were the kind that left the purse laying around at work, in restaurants, and restroom counters. Do you suppose that public humiliation, court appearance, and fines is the best way to teach them not to leave their weapons unattended? That
government is the best or proper agency to drive home that lesson? Not in the realm of an NRA course instructor, or a few news clippings about kids that got shot by unattended guns, etc?
Meaning, do you hold the statist belief that government is the proper or best agency to reinforce safe handling? The sheriff (government) the best agency to determine safe handling compared to overt threatening such as brandishing?
You see, I think we adopt a very dangerous idea when we decide that government is best or proper. It becomes even more significant when we factor in that government has demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted with rights.
I will just mention in passing that it might also not be a good idea to let government decide who can defend themselves, ie revoking a permit, based on something as vague as "safe handling". Dare we let sheriffs decide what is "safe handling" and what isn't? Dare we let them set that standard? By doing such we are necessarily letting them decide who gets to defend themselves and who doesn't.