Orange County sheriff taking away hundreds of CCWs

Status
Not open for further replies.
"May issue" is a violation of the principles of due process and equal protection under the law.

California has no "good cause" standards. They're whatever the Sheriff feels they are. Counties vary from "there's no such thing as a good cause" to "law-abiding citizen wishing to protect herself is sufficient for us." There's no process for appealing the decision, and AFAIK they keep the exorbitant fee either way.
 
Follow the link? Clicking on a link from a work or gvt network can get someone is trouble. Why can't you just copy/paste the text? Seriously, it really isn't too difficult.
 
Here ya go....

The Sheriff's Department has begun the process of revoking hundreds of concealed weapon permits across Orange County.

This week, department officials confirmed that 146 letters have been sent out advising current license holders that their permits to carry firearms in public – called CCWs – are being revoked. There are currently 1,024 permit holders.

"The Department has determined that your identified risk does not meet the good cause threshold as required under the new CCW policy based upon the information you provided. As a result of this determination, the Department's present intention is to revoke your CCW license," reads the form letter sent out this month.

The letter, sent out under the signature of Captain Dave Nighswonger, advises current holders that if they feel that additional information should be considered they have roughly one month to provide additional good cause information for the department to consider before the revocation becomes final.

This week, county supervisors grilled Sheriff Sandra Hutchens during her 120-day update on the reorganization of the agency about the status of the concealed weapons review.

Hutchens acknowledged to supervisors that she had indeed tightened requirements for the permits but highlighted the fact that no current license had yet been revoked.

But it seems unlikely that those who are getting the letters won't be revoked.

"Most of them are not coming back with the information we need," said Nighswonger. "A lot of them are arguing the second amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)," he said.

Nighswonger said many of the current revocations listed their reason for having a concealed gun as "avid shooter."

That no longer qualifies under Hutchen's new standards.

Under state law, a Sheriff has discretion to issue concealed weapons permits. And under the administration of former Sheriff Mike Carona – whose federal corruption trial starts on Oct. 28 – guidelines for issuing concealed weapons permits were loosened.

Records reviewed by the Orange County Register show that concealed weapon permits soared under Carona, from 38 in 1998 to 468 the next year. By 2006, it was up to 1,400, a four-fold increase.

When Carona took over in 1998, Orange County ranked 34th in terms of the numbers of permits granted. By 2006, Orange County was ranked number nine.

However, the Register also found numerous instances where campaign donors received the permits. A Register analysis of Carona campaign contributions from 1996 to the end of 2001 shows that at least 95 contributors – who gave at least $68,000 - got licenses.

Indeed, the federal indictment against Carona details one specific instance where a wealthy contributor was granted a license under questionable circumstances.

Hutchens has said that connection prompted her to review the policies and tighten the standards.

Her revisions, and the revocation letters, have enraged gun activists who are pressing county supervisors to take action.

"There's a lot of business owners and a lot of gun owners that have had CCWs that have never met Mike Carona or contributed," said Greg Block, a Huntington Beach-based firearms instructor and activist.

He and many activists suggest a different standard: "If you are not a convicted felon, you should be able to get able to get a CCW in California," Block said.



Heil Hutchens!:barf::barf:
 
It's obvious there was abuse before the "New Sheriff" took office, She was questioned on it and is now making corrections. It would appear from reading the artical that only the wealthy were given permits. It is hard in California to get ccw permits. I have worked with "Sandy", when she was an LA County Sheriff's Deputy, She is the best person bar none that could have taken that vacant position. She has to do her job and will do it well. It has nothing to do with taking away gun rights from "THE PEOPLE".
 
How about "avid air breather" or "avid lover of life and liberty"?

Has it begun?

My bad, my apologies to all horses.
 
Vintage, I had a CCW until Sheriff Hutchens denied my renewal. I had no connection whatsover with former Sheriff Carona. Never contributed, never met the man, was never in the same room with him--nothing. And I'm certainly not wealthy. Our combined household annual income is under 100K. There are hundreds like me. Yes, there was corruption in the previous administration, but why strip innocent, law-abiding citizens of their CCWs?
 
It happens in many rural parts of CA every so many years. A new Sheriff is elected and permits are no longer renewed, or are renewed under new standards.
Orange County was unique in that it was a very high population density county along the coast. Almost unheard of for such a place to issue CCW readily to the average law abiding Joe. Especialy easily with few hoops to jump through.
So it was pretty much guaranteed that when a new Sheriff replaced the old one that it would revert to the California coastal standard.
 
A horrible, arbitrary standard.

When I was in Monterey County, a classmate of mine, who was a West Point graduate and combat veteran, submitted a thesis to the county sheriff as to why he should be issued a permit to carry. Specifically, that he was living in Salinas, a city with the highest concentration of gang members in the nation. He received the reply that he did not show that the threat was specified towards HIM, and was therefore not eligible for a permit. I suppose they would prefer to want until someone not only shoots at you, but also hits you, before the clear and present danger to your life and limb is confirmed.

CA is looking more and more foolish in the eyes of the rest of the nation.
 
I personally favor Vermont carry, and shall-issue if permits are required.

That said, beyond the RKBA issue is a Rule of Law issue that goes even deeper, in California.

If CCW permits are to be restricted, then there should be specific legal criteria for issue or denial. You should know what these are before you even apply, and if the Sheriff doesn't follow them, you should be able to appeal to a court.

Imagine if you could apply for a Driver's License, and the local yokels could just say, "Ah, we don't think you have enough of a reason to drive a car, what with traffic around here. License denied." This would be unthinkable.

How is a CCW any different? How can "may-issue" be reconciled with fundamental principles of "the rule of law, not of men"?
 
I wonder how many of those "may issue" statutes were targetted at precluding minorities and "undesirables" from obtaining weapons.

Actually, I know the answer to that: like most gun control, most all of them started that way.
 
I wonder how many of those "may issue" statutes were targetted at precluding minorities and "undesirables" from obtaining weapons.


CCW without a license was first outlawed in CA in the 1920's to keep firearms and other weapons out of the hands of immigrants (some of whom were responsible for much of the crime.)
Notice the anti gang message as well. Using fear of primarily minority gangs to remove the rights of everyone even back then.

Open Carry (loaded) was heavily restricted and outlawed in most of CA in the 1960s to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks like the Black Panthers during the civil rights movement.

Even at the national level making felons prohibited classes for life was done in response to the civil rights movement. Once someone was arrested, even for demonstrating or resisting officers during a protest they could then never legaly possess a firearm again. It would also allow Hippies and other undesirables of the time to be permanently prohibited from having arms (marijuana was a felony then.)


It is important to note the problems were not made up, they were real problems at the time, used to justify the removal of rights of citizens that would last until the present day. Keep that in mind when you see new laws today that target gangs, terrorists, etc



Here is when unlicensed CCW become illegal in CA, and when carrying blunt weapons and some other non firearms become a felony:

'ACT EXPLAINED
Possible unconstitutionality of the provision against possession of weapons by non-naturalized residents was admitted in McKissick's letter to the Governor urging signing of the bill, but he pointed out that if this clause should be held invalid the rest of the act will not be affected and that if it can be sustained that it will have a "salutary effect in checking tong wars among the Chinese and vendettas among our people who are of Latin descent'


http://californiaccw.org/files/sf-chronicle-article.htm

So unlicensed CCW was originaly outlawed to keep guns out of the hands of Mexican and Chinese immigrants. Discretionary issuing procedures to allow CCW with a license were likewise be put in place to enforce that.

sf-chronicle-article.png
 
What starts in California contaminates the rest of the country.

Thanks for the fight on this Black Majik...you're one of our front-line Dudes!!

Doc2005
 
El Paso County Co. has ten times less people than Orange County and ten times more CHPs (8400+) I'll let you guys figure out has less crime
 
"Most of them are not coming back with the information we need," said Nighswonger. "A lot of them are arguing the second amendment (to the U.S. Constitution)," he said.

This statement is absolutely sickening. It seems like he's laughing at the concept of constitutional rights, as in "Pssh, thats not good enough." :eek:
 
Sent email to Hutchens:

Undoubtedly you are getting a tremendous amount of email on the subject so I will try to be a little different.

Your new requirements would be constitutional under the 14th amendment if it were not for the existence of PC12031 and PC626.9. Ask your attorneys if you need a better explanation of what these laws do, but in essence, they ban the loaded carrying of firearms (which is a separate statute banning concealed carry of pistols).

Within 3 months, there will likely be incorporation of the 2nd amendment against California (the case is called Nordyke v. King). This would subject your department to a significant risk of a lawsuit, as well as the possibility that there will be "open carry defense walks" through neighborhoods in Orange County. Would you not rather give people concealed weapons licenses for personal protection, or would you rather have hundreds of "man with a gun calls" when people start exercising their statutory and constitutional right to open carry, causing a tremendous amount of wasted time and manpower for your department, as well as the local PD's?

Come on, Sheriff Hutchens, I know that you're from Los Angeles and you personally disfavor guns, but tell me that you're not politically suicidal enough to force people to open carry for their personal protection in urban California?

Tell me, Sheriff, do you have confidence that every single one of your deputies will not cross the line with a "MWAG" call on an open carrier, that they will not felony stop an open carrier, or commit other civil rights violations? Are you willing to bet your qualified immunity on that?

The people you're revoking and not renewing licenses from are pretty upset, angry, and I'm willing to bet a lot of them will react by open carrying legally. Any unlawful police stops for open carry after incorporation will result in lawsuits against you personally, and against your department. Do you really want to risk that?

After incorporation is in effect, your department and every other agency that issues CCW's will be under a quite uncomfortable microscope since PC12031 and PC626.9 exists.

Your choice.

-Lonnie
 
O.C. is a pretty conservative/Republican county, especially considering our proximity to Los Angeles. Carona had plenty of support for his relatively liberal CCW policy.

Having said that, Carona is almost certainly guilty of corruption, and it's no surprise that permit holders came up for review.

It's also no surprise that an imported L.A. politician decided that a top priority was disarming as many of her subjects as possible right off the bat. Blaming her for this is sort of akin to blaming a coyote for eating your poodle: yeah, the coyote ate your poodle, but if you invite coyotes into your back yard, you have to expect a dead Fifi. So our board of supervisors (who selected Hutchens to replace Carona until the next election) has a lot to answer for, IMO.
 
...If CCW permits are to be restricted, then there should be specific legal criteria for issue or denial. You should know what these are before you even apply, and if the Sheriff doesn't follow them, you should be able to appeal to a court....How can "may-issue" be reconciled with fundamental principles of "the rule of law, not of men"?
The problem is that how it should be isn't the way it is. Sheriffs and chiefs of police will continue to operate under the law as it is, and as they see their respective communities supporting them, until either the courts throw the nonsense out or the legislature corrects things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top