On November 18 the Board held a hearing on the right to carry concealed weapon (CCW) permits. It was an example of democracy at work.
A large and frustrated group of citizens spoke during our 8 hour meeting. They were passionate but polite. Most of the 64 speakers were CCW permit holders explaining their ongoing need for personal safety and fighting to save their permits from revocation.
The new sheriff, who had earlier said her policies were “not the subject of debate,” still sat respectfully listening to the entire debate. Surrounding her was a full compliment of uniformed deputies, more accustomed to giving orders than taking them. Yet they all listened and learned.
The Board of Supervisors listened, too, having set aside most of the day to fully air an issue that had been festering for months. When it came time to act we publicly discussed and crafted every word of our clear guidelines, knowing that the sheriff could reject all of it. Acceptance, if it came, would be by persuasion, not by force. Perhaps that’s the best kind of acceptance.
We didn’t defer to staff nor string out discussion for another meeting. Those who had spent the whole day with us—and the sheriff—needed our response. Even if she didn’t ask for it, even if she wasn’t bound by it, the sheriff needed our advice.
The Board has a perspective to share and an all-day public hearing was the perfect setting. Normally, a sheriff is elected county-wide with a popular mandate and political sensitivities. But our last elected sheriff is now on trial in federal court. Our current one has never stood the rigors of election, while the Board members have won 26 different elections during our political careers.
Under the sheriff’s new standards, CCW permits have already been revoked and many others face imminent revocation. Those affected are concerned and confused. The stigma of a permit being revoked carries legal implications for a lifetime.
Revocation of a driver’s license or a state teaching credential presumes some kind of wrongdoing. Law-abiding citizens who have already passed training and background checks should not bear this stigma. Plus, all articulated legitimate safety reason for carrying a personal weapon.
These are not “gun nuts.” They are pilots, jewelers, bankers, doctors and private investigators. They do not want Orange County awash is unregulated firearms. OC already ranks 43rd of 58 counties in CCW permits by population.
Many felt they were being unfairly tainted by allegations of political favoritism by the previous sheriff. Most asserted they’d never met nor contributed to former Sheriff Carona, and some had gotten their permits from Acting Sheriff Anderson.
Speakers wondered why their government no longer trusted them but showed no personal hostility to Sheriff Hutchens. “We’re the good guys. We’re the ones on your side. We want you to succeed,” several implored.
By law and longstanding practice, sheriffs have broad discretion in issuing CCW permits, and there are wide variances by county. San Francisco, with 812,000 people has issued only 12 such permits. Kern County, with nearly the same population, has 4,100 CCW permit holders.
Orange County currently has only 1,087 CCW permit holders. That translates to 36 permits per 100,000 people, about the size of Mission Viejo. Is there any public safety reason to dramatically reduce these already modest numbers?
Clearly the sheriff has wide discretion and is not bound by any specific number or standard in state law. Neither is she obligated by what we Supervisors think. After our hearing, however, I think we have a broader understanding of both the law and how it is best applied to real life situations. And I believe the sheriff’s discretion will be used more wisely because of it.
