69 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0
Whether the good pastor or members of his family or congregation desire to keep a firearm in his home or business is a choice they will make on their own. Likewise, whether they choose to apply for a CCW and carry a firearm because of this incident is up to them.
Unfortunately, the requirements set forth by Sandra Hutchens make the possibility that the good pastor or members of his family or congregation can receive a CCW is rather remote.
As I have stated previously, all of Sandra Hutchens’ previous law enforcement service has been with an agency in a county that is as different from Orange County as a star is different from a moon. The tools, policies, procedures, norms and attitudes that were acceptable and expected there simply do not apply to Orange County.
Obviously, I believe strongly in being able make the protection of myself, my loved ones, and those others who rely on me, my personal responsibility. I respect all LEOs, and trust those that I am privileged to know personally, but it is still my personal responsibility.
Why some one wants to carry a concealed weapon is not now, nor has it ever been the issue here. The ability to do so if you are a law-abiding citizen and desire to do so is the issue.
Why is not important. The ability to do so if you are a law-abiding citizen is.
Is Sandra Hutchens implying that their interpretation is wrong?
Is Sandra Hutchens implying that only she and those CLEOs who mentored her during her career are right and every other CLEO is wrong?
Is Sandra Hutchens implying that they are possibly violating this law?
I also concur that California Penal Code articulates the "good cause" clause and does not say it specifies what constitutes good cause. As part of the California Penal Code, the fact that it is a law is self-evident.
This law, and Sandra Hutchens interpretation of it is the issue here.
Like all laws, this law can be interpreted differently depending on who is doing the interpreting. The majority of CLEOs in California interpret this law quite a bit differently than Sandra Hutchens.
While these CLEOs may have differing requirements and standards that must be met, one area of consistency is that they interpret “Self Protection” as reasonable good cause in accordance with this law.
The CCW debate is far from over. It will continue in venues outside of her control. Interpretations will be made and decisions will be communicated that are out of her control.
The California Department of Justice will eventually make an interpretation that will impact Sandra Hutchens’ longevity in office.
The State of California will eventually make an interpretation that will impact, not just Orange County, but the entire State of California.
As I have often stated, what happens in Orange County, can and does, have an impact outside of Orange County.
How will Orange County be remembered in the eyes of its neighbors, the State of California, and outside of California because of Sandra Hutchens?
Have 911 response times improved?
What litigation is now pending because of Sandra Hutchens’ actions?
How will this litigation impact the citizens of Orange County?
Has the reputation of Orange County improved in the eyes of other counties?
Has the reputation of Orange County improved in the eyes of State Level leaders and opinion leaders?
How has tourism been affected as a result of the changes in Orange County’s reputation?
These are but a small sample of questions Orange County Citizens, as well as others outside of Orange County and even the State of California are asking themselves.
Hopefully there are some positive answers to some of the questions above; unfortunately, it is quite likely that the large majority of answers are negative.
Are the jails better?
Is overtime within the OCSD better?
Is the relationship between OCSD and the general public better?
Is there a greater amount of trust between OCSD and the citizens they are sworn to be responsive to?
Is the morale within OCSD better?
Is the relationship between the OCSD and the BOS better?
Is OCSD positively or negatively contributing to the budget crises affecting Orange County?
Is crime down?
However, when one chooses to stand on principle the questions of who may be affected by this stance and to what degree need to be considered.
There will always be others who are affected by a person’s decision to stand on principle. Some will be very close to the actual event; others may be far removed, but still impacted in some way. The degree to which those who are affected can range from very extreme to barely noticeable.
Sandra Hutchens’ decision to stand on principle regarding her stance on CCW has resulted in a myriad of additional issues that have given reasonable people cause to perceive strong weaknesses in her knowledge, competence, cultural awareness, judgment, compassion, respect for others, administrative abilities, leadership abilities, and integrity.
Regardless of the reality of these perceptions, they are still there and have not only impacted Sandra Hutchens but every person and organization she has come in contact with.
Sandra Hutchens was brought on board to address and fix a number of issues and concerns that were, and still are, very important to the citizens of Orange County. She was brought on board to make things better.
Time and again, she has been given the opportunity to engage in an Adult Discussion with CCW advocates but has chosen to not avail herself of these opportunities.
She does appear to be "Stuck on Stubborn". It is not a sign of weakness to admit you are wrong. By refusing to admit her mistakes she has simply made her own position weaker and weaker. This in turn has lead to more and more mistakes.
Sandra Hutchens brought all this on herself. She repeatedly ignored advice and guidance from people who have demonstrated they are smarter and more attuned to the needs and desires of the citizens of Orange County than those she has chosen to rely on. Advisors who have failed her time and time again.