Sheriff goes off half cocked, OC Cali, if you're in OC please read calgun thread

[gunsmith]

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/sheriff-meeting-gun-2289759-rights-deputies
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=146812&highlight=Sheriff+Sandra+Hutchens

Steven Greenhut: Sheriff goes off half-cocked
Sheriff Hutchens' hostility to the Second Amendment is matched only by her hostility to the first one.

Sr. editorial writer and columnist
The Orange County Register
sgreenhut@ocregister.com
Comments 14 | Recommend 7

I've been appalled at Sheriff Sandra Hutchens' hostility to the Second Amendment, as she has tried to revoke the concealed-carry permits of law-abiding Orange County gun owners. But nothing prepared me for what happened at the Board of Supervisors meeting last Tuesday, when the sheriff displayed not only her hostility to gun rights, but her deep disdain for gun owners themselves and a clear disregard for open government and the First Amendment.

Based on a rumor that gun-rights activists would show up to protest her policies by carrying unloaded guns in holsters, the sheriff sent more than 20 deputies to the public board meeting, where they searched, watched, followed and questioned those residents who showed up to speak out against the sheriff's new-and-not-so-improved plan to move up the expiration date of gun permits. The deputies targeted only those people who showed up wearing pro-gun-rights buttons or who appeared to be part of that group. The department told me that "only" three "subjects" (what an ironic term!) were searched or contacted, but I talked to CCW activists who said the number was higher. Many felt intimidated and monitored.

Regardless of the number of actual searches, the effect on the meeting was chilling. Sheriff Hutchens said she was upset after learning that deputies used the board room's security surveillance cameras – usually operated by security staff – to not only scan audience members but to focus in on and, in fact, spy on two supervisors' notes and one's BlackBerry-like device. She has started an internal affairs investigation into the matter. In a case of damage control, she contacted the two supervisors after someone submitted a public records act request for the surveillance tapes that showed this abuse of the security cameras.

But she still defends what Supervisor Chris Norby calls the "1984-like" approach to security by pointing to instances in other communities where violence took place at government meetings and arguing that it's her job, in her words, to "balance" the security of the board room with First Amendment rights.

Let's pick apart this Orwellian language. First, the First Amendment gives the public the right to speak out. Any effort by government to stifle debate and criticism by using searches and intimidation is an affront to the Constitution. It's not the government's job to "balance" our rights; that's totalitarian language. Its job is to protect our natural rights to life, liberty and property. Government has been granted, by the people, certain specific authorities but that does not give it carte blanche to behave in any manner it chooses.

The sheriff dismisses the idea that this show of force was intimidating. Her evidence: Seven people got up to speak in favor of gun rights despite the deputies who were there to monitor them. This reminds me of poll guards, who were used years ago to suppress voting by minorities. People should not be harassed for exercising their rights. I wonder how this security arrangement would have struck her department had it been used to target, say, Latino rights activists who were there to protest board policy. That clearly would have been wrong, but why is it any less wrong for targeting political activists of any stripe?

"I am at a loss for words to express how vile and odious this is," said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, referring to the security-camera incident. "[T]his should alarm anyone on the political spectrum who believes in and relies on democratic principles to hold government officials accountable for their actions on our behalf." He called the entire security arrangement and its focus on CCW supporters "appalling."

Beyond the intimidation, the policy was stupid and illogical. The Sheriff's Department told me there was no direct threat involving the meeting. Even if the rumor had been true, it was a rumor involving a protest with non-loadedweapons. That justifies putting a sign up and telling people not to bring weapons into the board room, but how does that justify searching, questioning or monitoring gun supporters who are trying to exercise their constitutional rights? Obviously, if the rumor were true, the guns would be fully visible and unloaded. By the way, these Second Amendment folks are the most law-abiding and responsible gun owners one will ever find.

If there were a real threat, the department should have brought in those portable metal detectors used at political conventions and concerts and checked out everyone coming into the room, not just those who believe in gun rights. If there were real threats to the meeting, then why did Hutchens – surrounded by 20 or more deputies – promptly exit the meeting after she was done justifying her indefensible CCW policy? Did the "threat" – such that it was – suddenly evaporate once she was done speaking?

My belief is that Hutchens used this situation to clamp down on a growing political movement that advocates the open carrying of weapons. Her department issued a training bulletin on January 12 that warns deputies about the "Open Carry movement" and efforts by some of its members to provoke an "officer to arrest them or seize their firearm so they can file a civil lawsuit against the officer." Right after this memo was issued, she found a reason to clamp down on the open carry movement. This was about her anti-gun politics, not about public safety.

I talked to a number of CCW supporters who attended the meeting, and they all felt picked on and intimidated. "It was shocking," said Yorba Linda resident Rick Rogers, a Second Amendment enthusiast who volunteers time with the Sheriff's Department. In an e-mail to Norby, Rogers gave a concise sense of what the meeting felt like from an activist's standpoint: "My first indication that this meeting would be different from others I have attended happened when I approached the building and observed two uniform deputies 'frisking' a man at the front doors. … As I walked passed, one of the deputies stepped away from his partner and asked me, 'Are you carrying any type of weapon?' I was surprised by his question and in the couple seconds it took me to respond the deputy pointed to a metal sign by the door and said again, 'Sir! Are you carrying a weapon?' I answered 'No.' He said 'Sir, if you're found inside with a weapon, you will be arrested. Are you carrying a weapon?' Again, I said, 'No.' … It was clear to me the deputies we there to watch the 'CCW Guys' … .The deputies were never more then 20 feet away, and their presence could be 'felt.' I believe they had an impact on the meeting and I'm also certain that was the intention when they were assigned to the [supervisors]meeting by the sheriff or her command staff."

Yet Hutchens argued in an interview Thursday that "we have not impaired the political process. They did not appear to be intimidated."

She really needs to get out of the headquarters and talk to some of the people who came to the meeting and did feel intimidated. "If something bad had happened, we would have a different conversation," she told me. If we accept Hutchens' paranoid premise, then every public meeting, every street corner, every place in society should be filled with armed officers, searches and interrogations. Better safe than sorry, right?

"I've been in public life for 25 years," Norby told me. "I've attended a lot of controversial and packed hearings, many that were far more acrimonious than this one. This is the first time I've ever felt this kind of intimidation not just for members of the public but for supervisors. Plus, this was so pointless, such a waste of public resources."

This is the handiwork of a sheriff who, according to the Jan. 27 board agenda, wants to start a Homeland Security-funded Intelligence Assessment Center "to provide an integrated, multi-disciplined, information and intelligence sharing network to collect, analyze and disseminate information on all criminal risks and safety threats to law enforcement, fire, health, private sector and public stakeholders."

Can we trust her with even more power to monitor and eavesdrop on O.C. residents? It's a valid question that must be asked at that board meeting. But those who oppose the new center should not wear any buttons indicating their views, unless they want to be searched and harassed.

CARONA GETS LUCKY: Some of you have been waiting to read my views on the Mike Carona verdicts, but I chose instead to write about current problems in the department rather than past scoundrels. Here, briefly, are my thoughts, reprinted from the Orange Punch blog: "It's definitely a disappointing verdict given what struck me as a strong case that Sheriff Carona was engaged in corrupt practices as sheriff. Still, he was convicted of a federal crime, and he might spend some time in jail. He is no longer sheriff, and his reputation – not that a degenerate such as Mike cares about that – is gone. The O.C. GOP, which supported and enabled him, is a bit tarnished. Those of us who called him the Ethically Challenged Sheriff were right, even if he got off largely on technicalities. He got free legal help from top-notch attorneys, and it always is tough to convict any sort of lawman, but the feds helped O.C. do what it refused to do – get rid of an unethical and absolutely terrible sheriff. At least I can always refer to him as Former Sheriff and Convicted Felon Mike Carona! OCWeekly's Scott Moxley is right that the judge who sentences Carona should take his unrepentant boasting into account when he hands down a sentence."

Contact the writer: sgreenhut@ocregister.comor 714-796-7823

[Standing Wolf]

Based on a rumor that gun-rights activists would show up to protest her policies by carrying unloaded guns in holsters, the sheriff sent more than 20 deputies to the public board meeting, where they searched, watched, followed and questioned those residents who showed up to speak out against the sheriff's new-and-not-so-improved plan to move up the expiration date of gun permits. The deputies targeted only those people who showed up wearing pro-gun-rights buttons or who appeared to be part of that group.

Stalin would understand.

[Strings]

And probably approve... :(

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

with stalin those folks would never had made it to the meeting.

[Strings]

point. However, the sheriff's actions are still unacceptable...

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

how does the sheriff there get hired?  or more importantly fired?

[Uncle Bubba]

how does the sheriff there get hired?  or more importantly fired?

Dunno if it's an elected position, but if I read the article right the last one got "fired" because he was crooked and not smart enough to get away with it.

[Regolith]

Dunno if it's an elected position, but if I read the article right the last one got "fired" because he was crooked and not smart enough to get away with it.

Pretty sure it's an elected position.  I know it is where I'm living now (Oregon), where I came from (Nevada), and I'm fairly certain I've rea stories about sheriff elections in California, where this happened.

[Nitrogen]

Let 'em have CA.

I gave up and left; and I encourage all correct-thinking folks to do the same.

[Sindawe]

To paraphrase an old friend:

"Blatant need for tar and feathers!" 

[Uncle Bubba]

Pretty sure it's an elected position.  I know it is where I'm living now (Oregon), where I came from (Nevada), and I'm fairly certain I've read stories about sheriff elections in California, where this happened.

Odds are that it is but there are still a few places where the Sheriff is appointed.

[red headed stranger]

As mentioned earlier, this position is an elected position, but the Sherrif that was elected (who was relatively pro-2a) had to step down due to standing trial for various corruption related charges.  The current sheriff was appointed. 

[MicroBalrog]

with stalin those folks would never had made it to the meeting.

I will inform Buharin immediately.

[BlueStarLizzard]

nasty nasty women

[gunsmith]

Let 'em have CA.

I gave up and left; and I encourage all correct-thinking folks to do the same.

CA has more gun owners then most states and is a huge market and is very important
on the national policy level, that's why D.C copied its roster for their laws

we as a country can't afford to let CaLi sink further down the drain.

here is a snip from calguns for more updates

    
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Anaheim
Posts: 151
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Send a message via AIM to awheelman357
Default
Here is an article I copied from another website which provides some more information on Sheriff Hutchens. I have not verified its accuracy. The article is pretty long but worth reading if you have an interest in concealed carry in Orange County.

U.S. Concealed Carry
"Armed American Report"

January 23rd, 2009

Hello, Friend, and happy Friday.
Listen, I've got another excellent issue of the Armed American Report (the free-est, most anti-B.S. newsletter on the web) for you, but first, a little update on the situation in Orange County, California.

Let me take a step back for a second. In case you hadn't heard, there's a new sheriff in town there in Orange County, and in her mind, a law abiding American Citizen "doesn't need" a CCW permit unless they have "a good reason".

You've probably guessed by now that "a good reason" has NOTHING... ZERO to do with protecting innocent human life.

That's right- to her (and all the people like her), handling large sums of money is about the only "good reason" for someone to need a CCW permit. What do I mean by that? Basically, unless you have to carry around Diamonds for your job, or transport a bunch of cash on a regular basis... your life means diddly squat to Sheriff Hutchens.

Well, I don't know about you, but I kind of feel like the life of a 7 year old little girl is a LITTLE BIT more important than ANY sum of money.

Maybe I'm the weird one... what do you think?

I must be a little weird, because I also believe "wanting one" is a good enough reason for a law abiding American to want to carry a gun. How about you? Are you weird right along side me? I hope so.

Anyway, a bit of an update for you here from a good friend of mine, Uli Gebhard- a resident of Orange County. Uli is from Germany, and he's one of the people who the new Sheriff doesn't believe "has a good enough reason" to carry concealed.

I suppose being the sole provider of a beautiful, young family (including several children) doesn't make Uli's life any more valuable than a drug-abusing thug who'd shoot you without a second thought?? Anyway...

Here's Uli's update:

*****************
Update on CCW revoking Sheriff in Orange County, CA

Uli Gebhard, Suarez International Staff Instructor

Here is an update on the situation in Orange County, CA.

The latest developments -- if proven true -- would be alarming news in a long string of actions taken without any regard for the public and the local government.

Here is a brief review of the previous events.

Mrs. Hutchens employed a very covert approach to revoke 40% of the legitimately issued CCWs. She concealed the full scale of her actions until she had almost created facts.

She then proceeded to ignore the recommendation of the Supervisors who appointed her, as well as the concerns of her constituents who asked her to be more lenient in her approach.

She tried to circumvent the issue of having the mark of a revoked license on our DOJ records by generously offering that we could agree on having our licenses expire early.

The details regarding these items can be found in the linked previous newsletters and feature article.

During the last meeting on January 13 Mrs. Hutchens also ordered a large presence of uniformed and plainclothes deputies. Several CCW supporters were singled out and searched for weapons. The profiling and the overall demeanor of these deputies left the impression that this was attempt to intimidate her opponents. This is still pending further investigation, hence the careful choice of words.

A new issue has surfaced that is extremely disconcerting.

Allegedly a deputy used the security cameras in the in the administration hall to look at the personal notes of the supervisors during the meeting. He allegedly also used the system to get more information on the CCW-supporting members of the public on January 13.

Supervisor Norby's office confirmed on Thursday what the press had already picked up in an article on Thursday.

The full extend of these actions has yet to be determined. The fact that the Supervisor's office has enough insight to officially confirm these actions indicates how far out of line Mrs. Hutchens' orders were. Sadly, it fits into the overall picture of her past actions.

During the first public discussion on November 18, 2008 we emphasized that we wanted to resolve this issue amicably. Mrs. Hutchens ignored this option. It seems that we may get to a point now, where we can take legal steps to have a person removed from office that is obviously corrupted by power, and rather ruthless in her methods.

To resolve this situation, we still need your support.

Write to the Supervisors, and demand a full investigation of Mrs. Hutchens actions and of the funds that this issue has drained from the county.

John Moorlach: John.Moorlach@ocgov.com (Hutchens strongest supporter)
Janet Nguyen: janet.nguyen@ocgov.com (supported Hutchens appointment)
Pat Bates: pat.bates@ocgov.com (last + deciding vote to appoint Hutchens)
Bill Campbell bill.campbell@ocgov.com (voted against Hutchens)
Chris Norby chris.norby@ocgov.com (Currently the strongest opponent)

Write to the Governor and voice your concerns about a person appointed to Sheriff's position that may be employing methods to push her own agenda that are by no means options in a free and democratic state.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160 ( new number )

Please follow this link for e-mail
Closing this article, I would like to thank all who have responded to previous newsletters and sent their concerns to our local and state government. I may be overly optimistic, but it seems that we are beginning to see results.

*****************

Thanks Uli, and good luck, friend. Friend- make sure you email these people and keep the heat on!