Californians Fight Back: The O.C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies In Trouble

[Incitatus]

For the readers who don't know the story from the beginning, the following article is a follow-up of this blog posting I published on February 3rd: Vigilant Citizens In Action: O. C. Gun Grabbing Sheriff And Her Deputies Caught Red Handed

Due to the enormous backlash generated by Sheriff Sandra Hutchens illegal actions among law abiding OC citizens CCW permit holders and gun rights activists, hundreds and hundreds of people are expected to attend the upcoming meeting taking place on February 10th.

But what exactly the Sheriff did to generate this kind of backlash? We are talking about Sheriff Hutchens deputies singling out and bullying people for simply wearing a button with the letters CCW on it; intimidating and pat down searching of peaceful citizens attending a public meeting; use of undercover deputies; mocking and ridiculing citizens attending in email and Blackberry messages; using surveillance cameras to spy on the Board of Supervisors members who oppose her anti-Second Amendment policies.

Here is how things are now, just three days before one of the most anticipated meetings of the Orange County Board of Supervisors ever: Complete story here

[EricReynolds]

Good luck buddy, keep fighting the good fight!

[nate45]

Originally Posted by from one of the article

Eight months into office, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens is locked in a bitter power struggle with the same Board of Supervisors that appointed her.

Well, perhaps if they had done a better job vetting her they would not be in this predicament.

Originally Posted by from one of the articles

Bates remembers talking to Hutchens when she first took office, issuing a friendly warning about the challenges of moving from a bureaucrat to an elected official.

Exactly why was this bureaucrat appointed Sheriff in the first place? Were there politicly correct, affirmative action type considerations behind it? What exactly were her qualifications to be Sheriff? Can't the same board who appointed her dismiss her? If they for legal reason cannot dismiss her, this makes my point that they should have done a better job of vetting her in the first place all the more relevant.

[73flyby]

I'm surprised the NRA hasn't jumped into the fray. Seems like a great place to showcase the indignation of law abiding second amendment supporters.

[maestro pistolero]

This Sheriff has lost control of her department. With her deputies not only texting derogatory comments about citizens while they address the supervisors with their concerns, but snidely commenting on the supervisors themselves.

And using department equipment to do it! The coup de grace was the deputies using security cameras to zoom in and view the supervisors private notes and computer screens. The sherriff had to later warn the supervisors that their private notes were now public record, in case there was anything embarrassing or personal in them.

This sherriff and those deputies need to be fired. And perhaps the next appointee will arrive with a healthy respect for the constitution they are sworn to uphold.

[Dan M.]

A few answers.

Hutchens misled the Board during the vetting process. The Board understood that CCW was important to the residents of Orange COunty. They were getting tons of emails and calls from us about the subject during the interviews with the various candidates for the position. Hutchens told them that her policy most likely would not be that different, that people who were worried about change would probably be surprised. Ha.

Even though the Board appointed her, they can't fire her or force her to do anything now that her true colors have come through. Her position, even though appointed, is an elected one and she has to be recalled or voted out. The recall process would be expensive and even if we had unlimited funds, the process is lengthy and we'd end up at the same date of the elections, so we will actively campaign for a candidate who has a more reasonable view on CCW.

The NRA has been involved, as has the CPRA to a small degree, working with the various CCW advocate groups like Ordinary California Citizens Concerned With Safety (OCCCWS.com) and CALCCW.com.

This is a BIG deal, with ramifications that could echo up and down the state. Orange County is the third largest urban county in the state. What happens here has the potential to have a major impact on state policy. On firearms forums like this one and THR and DC, you constantly see posters slamming CA, and bemoaning "how f***ed up things are there", and "why bother with Commie CA, it's a hopeless case", and "I'm so glad I left there."

Understand something - now more than ever, especially with our new President, people in other parts of the country cannot afford to ignore what is happening in CA. They are comfortable because they have their CCWs and good gun laws and that's all they want, but what happens here will spread unless it is stopped. Heller and possible state incorporation have given us a good foundation to launch from, but until folks start acting like Americans who care about the rights other Americans, instead of seeing us as "those Commifornians," the struggle will continue and it will come to your states. To quote a line from the first Terminator movie: "The battle for the future will be fought here."

[Wyo Big Bore]

That's a good point Dan. It would be nice to be able, even during this presidency to put them on their heels in California and keep pushing.

[sholling]

They may as well get used to such antics. California has an incumbent sheriff protection law and the odds are that she will be sheriff until she decides to retire. The law was passed by the legislature back in the 1990s to prevent a popular judge from unseating an unpopular sheriff. The law bans peasants, err I mean common citizens and rank and file police officers from running for that office. Only high ranking law enforcement officials may run for sheriff and it is accepted practice for a sheriff to demote his or her political rivals for being political rivals. In other words she will be reelected because much like Cuba's Castro - her name will be the only one legally on the ballot.

BTW it's also been a fairly common practice for decades for a sitting OC sheriff to use deputies to spy on, intimidate and harass political rivals. As elections approach OC is going to become an uncomfortable place to live for her political enemies.

[alan]

Sounds very much like more of that well known California product, B.S.

[Dan M.]

Yes and no, Sholling. I agree, we need to expect such tactics, but we can't afford to get used to them, or we'll never get this incumbent out of office. Mike Carona ran against incumbent Brad Gates and one of the big factors in his victory was his pledge to loosen up the CCW policy. Guilty of corruption or not, Carona's CCW policy was pretty good.

[sholling]

Yes and no, Sholling. I agree, we need to expect such tactics, but we can't afford to get used to them, or we'll never get this incumbent out of office. Mike Carona ran against incumbent Brad Gates and one of the big factors in his victory was his pledge to loosen up the CCW policy. Guilty of corruption or not, Carona's CCW policy was pretty good.

Gates was not defeated he retired, and Corona ran for the open seat. No elected sheriff has been defeated in over 100 years. And that includes many decades when people were allowed a choice on the ballot. Now that it's illegal for mere citizens to run I don't see who you can get to defeat her. The only serious contender that could legally run for that office was Norby, and one demotion was enough for him and he won't be running again. If shes the only name on the ballot she wins.

BTW Gates was the one that the law was written to protect back when Judge Bobby Youngblood was a serious political threat. The Register reported lots of dirty tricks by the department but Youngblood remained a threat until bared from running.

[alan]

Recall is a provision not usually found in the eastern part of the country, though it does exist "out west".

Re getting rid of this particular sheriff, might that route work, notwithstanding the incumbent protection law, earlier mentioned.

[maestro pistolero]

I'm appalled that any public servant should be so difficult to oust. Perhaps it would be worth the effort to change the law as to how sheriffs are elected, and unelected. Otherwise the problem of an LE official, thats so powerful, being unresponsive to constituents will be systemic for the foreseeable future. This is a recipe for creating a tyrant.

[sholling]

Perhaps it would be worth the effort to change the law as to how sheriffs are elected, and unelected. Otherwise the problem of an LE official, thats so powerful, being unresponsive to constituents will be systemic for the foreseeable future. This is a recipe for creating a tyrant.

You are exactly right. Normally I would think that the best route to overturn the incumbent protection law would be legal action. But it's been tried - unsuccessfully as a textbook example of how not to challenge a law in our court system, and as a result a precedent now exists upholding the law. A citizen wishing to loosen up CCW issuance challenged the law in court so that he could run for office. Instead of hiring a competent attorney he represented himself. The judge pretty much laughed him out of court. Any new court challenge is going to have to be very well thought out and well funded and will be an uphill battle because of the existing precedent.

As far as a political challenge to the law it's probably a non-starter. Few state senators or assembly critters are going to be willing to risk the wrath of their local sheriff's department. Many will fear that if they introduced such a bill that they wouldn't be able to leave church on Sunday morning without being issued a DUI for being in the same room with communion wine. That's not conducive to getting reelected.

It's a shame that the OC Register (local newspaper) doesn't have its records from those times online. Sheriff's Department antics during the Youngblood challenge were classic examples of what I think you can expect during a challenge to Hutchens. The Register accused sheriffs department nvestigators of harassing Judge Youngblood's campaign staff, moving to revoke the CCW of a PI on the judge's campaign staff, tailing the staff and other political dirty tricks. It was only when Youngblood couldn't be frightened off that the law was passed. I've always wondered if compromising photos of senators, assembly critters, and their mistresses were involved in garnering their support for the law. Anyway in my opinion, based on her harassment of CCW supporters at the hearing, her circulating plain clothes investigators in the room to gather intelligence, the department spying on the supervisors' notes, and the attitude of her command staff - that her political enemies are going to be facing investigation, harassment and intimidation by the department. I've moved away so there isn't much that I can do but give moral support and I do wish all involved well in their efforts.