Misplaced Outrage Over Hutchens’ CCW Policy

CCWAfter listening to a good portion of the public comment and Supervisor’s discussion regarding Sheriff Sandra Hutchens CCW policy, I’m left wondering if this whole cluster f#&k could have been avoided. If the Board members so outraged over her policy had asked her specifically about her position on the issuance of CCW permits, Hutchens probably wouldn’t have gotten the job.

But for whatever reason, from what I can determine at no point in the public interviews of candidates did that question get asked?

Sheriff Sandra HutchensSo what did they think would happen? They hire a career law enforcement officer from Los Angeles, a county that has a history of limited issuance of CCW’s, and they are surprised that her policy reflects her experience? The bottom line here is that the Sheriff does have broad discretion as to how to implement CCW laws. The fault dear riflemen lies not in the Sheriff but in the law.

If you want CCW permits to be issued to anyone for the purpose of personal protection, provided that they are law abiding and trained, then you really need to change the law of the State of California to make that happen. The folks at the NRA need to get off their tails and bankroll an initiative to move California to a “shall issue” state. If the majority of the people feel that the laws covering the issuance of CCW permits need to be changed, then the initiative will pass. If not, it won’t.

The other option is to somehow get the legislature to clarify in greater detail what the definition of good cause is. Either way, complaining that Sheriff Hutchens is abusing her discretion is just a waste of time.

One other observation though, it looked to me like there are some serious holes in the logic of the new CCW policy. Some of the examples of good cause that did not meet the mark seemed a bit counter intuitive to me. And what is it with the staff that sent her up to the podium with numbers that did not appear to add up. Was her team trying to sabotage her?

But really, if the gun rights advocates really think Californians support their belief in the doctrine of “a hand gun in every pocket” then they need to put the idea to the voters.


  8 comments for “Misplaced Outrage Over Hutchens’ CCW Policy

  1. November 19, 2008 at 4:15 am

    thank you, but how can i download the video

  2. Carl Overmyer
    November 19, 2008 at 6:42 am

    Do you understand the difference between an enumerated Right and rights? I did stand up for yours, where is your quid pro quo? Do you understand the word objective? I find it totally disingenuous that a great many Democrats and liberals in general, are willing to disregard an enumerated Right, but will scream, rant, rave and protest over equal rights that are non enumerated right and think that’s just fine, and then wonder why others who disagree then rail at them. I draw no distinction between the two and rail at those who refuse to extend equal protection to all for all rights and Rights too.

    Put your emotional fears aside and join me in standing up for EVERYONE’S equality. I know that there are others who don’t see it like I do, but you must extend those Rights to others if you expect them to do the same for you. It’s a lot like respect.

    There is also evidence that subjective not objective reasons are being used to discriminate right now between those who can and can not receive CCW’s from the current Sheriff. You’re ok with that? State law is what it is. We want fair and objective issuance of CCW’s. Fair, balanced and objective standards should be the minimum baseline we should all demand from our public servants. You and I both know the party in control of this state is not about to loosen the controls over CCW’s, hell your party wants to outlaw anything that goes bang more than once period. They would actually like to outlaw all handguns too. No matter what SCOTUS said in Heller. Please don’t try to blow smoke up my … I’ve had enough in the last week to last me for a long, long time.

    This is becoming a more dangerous world and when the state starts early release programs, because of budgetary needs and then is talking about reductions in the PO’s as well, the cities are downsizing PD’s because they lack funds, there will be fewer cops and more robbers in our streets. Let’s be totally honest Chris, guys my size may not always be around to protect guys your size, or they may not have the will to do so either, at the risk of being shot by criminals. Remember anyone who has a CCW has gone through a whole passel of tests, education and background checks and passed them, criminals don’t give a s**t about you or the law.

    I really don’t think you want more wolves in society without more sheepdogs there to help protect everyone, do you? Then they must have the tools to do so, you can’t expect them to be able to defend and then pull their teeth. That just isn’t logical at all.

  3. November 19, 2008 at 9:10 am

    The video is a YouTube Video. It can be found here:

  4. Keep da Peace
    November 19, 2008 at 11:22 am

    Chris, you are right that the NRA needs to get off their bankroll and put some of that money they have been taking from their members living in this state all these years and put it back into backing an initiative that would restate California’s CCW statute as a “shall issue” state.

    Your other proposal, to have lawmakers change the law, has been unsuccessful in the past, as it will in the future, until and if republicans and libertarians take control of the legislature once again. It is unfortunate that a couple of hundred people speak for the supposed desires of the entire population of the state. But, that has worked well for the liberal masses.

    That is also why it is fortunate that we have an initiative process that allows the voters to speak for themselves. You may not like it when they speak against the minority, but the purpose of the initiative process is to allow the voting majority to speak for themselves when they find the lawmakers are not reflecting their views. So, let the NRA and the Brady Bunch duke it out and may the best person win.

  5. Northcountystorm
    November 19, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    Chris, I’m glad someone else has pointed a finger at the supervisors(or at least Moorlach, Nguyen & Bates who voted for her—Campbell and Norby voted for Walters).

    While I agree with you that it would take an initiative to shift the state to a ” shall issue” state, Hutchens could go a long way towards lowering this community’s blood pressure by taking heed of the BOS’s advisory resolution and using her discretion to be more flexible in granting the concealed weapon permits. And go a long way at increasing her chances for election to the position to which she was appointed. The South County California Women’s Leadership Associaition won’t be enough to help her out of this jam.

    The NRA was smart to get on top of this at the County level. While a statewide ballot measure is always an option, it would be costly and not necessarily successful, sending perhaps the wrong message to county sheriffs who might feel emboldened by a statewide defeat of a “shall issue” CCW policy to be far more restrictive in exercising their discretion under a “may issue” law. Even if there is a statewide effort, that’s two years away with an uncertain result so best to get BOS’s to join in letting the sheriffs know how the community feels.

    Hutchens has the right to exercise her discretion but if she doesn’t wake up and realize this is not LA County, the voters of Orange County may revoke her permit to hold the Sheriff’s office.

  6. November 19, 2008 at 9:02 pm

    One folly after another, this board of supervisors are clowns, Moorlach the fatest and needs to be the 1st to go!!!!!!!!!!!!

  7. Steve Kim
    November 21, 2008 at 6:42 am

    ooh my, wolves?

  8. sta 18 veteran
    November 30, 2008 at 8:41 am

    All Sheriff Hutchens is trying to do is fix the ness that Carona created whne he gave out CCW to anyone who gave him a campaign contribution.The Borad of supervisors are upset bedcause some of their biggest contributors received a CCW under Carona and now may lose them becasue they are not qualified.GEE does this sound like politics!!!!!

Comments are closed.