Sheriff Hutchens Tells Gun Owners to Elect Someone Else
Sandra Hutchens found it difficult to garner applause at the OC Young Republican’s Sheriff’s candidate forum last night, but she did have one shining moment. Unfortunately it came when she implored gun owners to vote for her opponents if they desire to see less restrictions on concealed weapons permits in Orange County.
And here I was thinking I would see someone pull her finger…
I can smell Hutchens’ disdain for the public seeping through my monitor. Got any bleach?
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Bill Brough 949.606.2687
March 30, 2010
HUNT IS LAW ENFORCEMENT’S CHOICE
Deputy Sheriff’s Endorsement is a Vote of No Confidence in the Leadership of the Appointed Sheriff Sandra Hutchens
Laguna Hills – “I am honored to receive the endorsement of the deputy sheriff’s to be their next leader,” said Hunt. “I have always considered this the most important endorsement in this race because they know best the leadership qualities of those seeking to serve as our next sheriff.”
Final vote:
Retired OC Sheriff’s Lt. Bill Hunt 414 50.24%
Appointed Sheriff Sandra Hutchens 220 26.70%
Anaheim Deputy Chief Hunter 99 12.02%
No Endorsement 91 11.04%
http://aocds.org
As the next Sheriff, Hunt will turn the Orange County Sheriff’s Department into the premier Sheriff’s Department in the country. Hunt will issue concealed weapons permits to law abiding citizens. To Hunt, personal protection is good cause. Hunt will cut 10% of the department budget while increasing service. Hunt will make inmates serve their entire sentence. Hunt opposes renting our multi million dollar jail space to house criminal illegal aliens for pennies on the dollar while citing and releasing local criminals back into our community. Hunt’s policy will be pay your bail or stay in jail.
To learn more about Hunt’s positions and endorsements visit BillHuntforSheriff.com.
The “Young” Republicans meeting was packed with Old Bill Hunt drones who seemed slightly more crazy than him
“Young” Republicans usually means high school or community college students (17-22). “Old” Bill Hunt drones could be anyone not in the aforementioned group.
No need to be a hater “YR”.. Just because Hunt has enthusiastic supporters, which is more than I can say about Hunter or Hutchens…
Maybe you need to head up to Voyeur in West Hollywood and catch a show… Might make you less cranky.
Nothing about that sounded particularly controversial. I don’t remember this ever being an issue prior to Hutchens revoking permits that Carona handed out to his cronies. I am a gun owner but the fact I can’t legally pack a glock while eating chicken pie at Polly’s hardly demonstrates anyone’s contempt for the public. She may be terrible, show me an elected of appointed bigwig who isn’t, but it is laughable to hang one’s hat on the concealed carry issue, and I will not breathe a sigh of relief if Hunt wins and opens the door for more people to have CC permits. I don’t know about you, but I’ve met my neighbors.
nipsey,
It is VERY important from a “normal” citizen’s perspective. The very fact that you have met your neighbors and yet do not understand the sheer brilliance of the Constitutional right to protect yourself from your neighbors shows your dismal ability to pick anyone who should hold office.
I could care less that you don’t want to pack your Glock to Polly’s; do not stand in the way of American Citizens who do desire to protect you from those with evil intent.
This is the simplest form of government and the VERY reason why it is part of the Contract with the people. If I expect the government to protect me then I am a slave to that government.
Hopefully this post was educational to you and not taken in the form of an attack.
Cheers
Constitutional scholar and spokesman for all ‘normal’ citizens. I am so pwned!
DO NOT attempt to “protect us from those with evil intent”, cowboy. That is not your job, and how dare you impose your vigilante ideas upon the law abiding public. If you were to ever place my family in danger with your use of a handgun, I’d protect them from you myself.
Whoa there Anon. Vigilantism is taking the law into your own hands. Self defense is, well, self explanatory. Self preservation is the NUMBER ONE human instinct and the right to that preservation is a constitutionally protected right. Also protected are the rights of men and woman to vote and freedom of their speech. These are all individual rights which shall not be infringed upon.
What about the right to be free from unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures of you and your property. Remember that history lesson on the Bill of Rights and the analogy of those rights as a bundle of sticks? With the infringement of each right or the taking away of a stick, the bundle is weakened. Eventually, the bundle is broken.
The National Archives states the following: “During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.” http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html
We can thank George Mason who penned the Virginia Daclaration of Rights, heavily influenced what we have today. The National Archives website states: “As the delegates gathered at the Pennsylvania State House in May 1787 to “revise” the Articles of Confederation, Virginia delegate George Mason wrote, “The Eyes of the United States are turned upon this Assembly and their Expectations raised to a very anxious Degree.” Mason had earlier written the Virginia Declaration of Rights that strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. He left the convention bitterly disappointed, however, and became one of the Constitution’s most vocal opponents. “It has no declaration of rights,” he was to state. Ultimately, George Mason’s views prevailed. When James Madison drafted the amendments to the Constitution that were to become the Bill of Rights, he drew heavily upon the ideas put forth in the Virginia Declaration of Rights.”
Sorry for the long comment but too often we let our emotions dictate which rights we adhere to and which ones we want to deny others.
Please, I don’t want to get blamed for this topic going completely off the rails. It’s fine that you guys think the discretion to issue concealed carry permits (or not) violates Second Amendment rights, but the entirety of the judicial record along with noted lefties like me and Antonin Scalia, disagree. Until that changes, you lose.
I am confident that the only people for whom the lack of readily available concealed carry permits is the pivotal election issue are (non exclusively) gun nuts, tea baggers, paranoid survival compound folk, and those who will seize up absolutely anything they think is beneficial to their chosen candidate.
So to recap, Hunt is by all accounts the least disagreeable candidate, but this isn’t why.
nipsey,
The U.S. Supreme Court has been fairly consistent on the 2nd Amendment being an individual’s right which shall not be infringed upon. If you believe that a criminal can be reasoned with then please enlighten us as to how that may be done. If you have the answer, we don’t need to arm the police.
There’s a lib in the house!
And I thought I was lazy. 30 seconds on google and a cut n paste from wikipedia on concealed carry and I’m the only one that could do it? The Supreme court has been pretty consistent, all right.
“Court Rulings
Prior to the 1897 supreme court case Robertson v. Baldwin, the federal courts had been silent on the issue of concealed carry. In the dicta from a maritime law case the Supreme Court commented that state laws restricting concealed weapons do not infringe upon the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Second Amendment.[25]
In the majority decision in the 2008 Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues … The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”[26]
Did you read the whole case or just the part you thought you liked?
Like I said, I’m lazy. I only read the part of a wikipedia article that proved you wrong. It was easy, you should try it.
OK. I will take a look. Here the operative portion of the opinion:
The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:
…that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—”the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny…
Flip-Flop, you weren’t supposed to bail out nipsey. Now they may never read the whole case. There are several others that have been decided with similar outcomes and more coming up.
Sorry. I think Hutchens is well on her way to being a tyrant.
C’mon nipsey, if law were that easy we wouldn’t need lawyers… You have to read the case in its entirety. No short cuts.
Sorry, *I’m* the one who hasn’t done enough research about actual law or actual judicial precedent? Too funny.
Nipsey is a bit tipsy when it come to legal analysis. That’s what you do though when the law (landmark I might add) goes against you. Bummer. Maybe he/she and his/her former 10 year (registered) lib pal Hutchens should get together and write a book about liberal judicial activism and the “living” constitution. That would be a hoot.
Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
But look on the bright side – we have something in common.
I’m chuckling over Nipsey threatening to protect his family himself against “cowboy” in a scenario where “cowboy” has a gone and Nipsey does not. 🙂 Chuck Norris fantasy camp last summer Nipsey?
Do you often chuckle about things that didn’t happen?
Maybe not often, but at least occasionally. My apologies Nipsey, you are correct. Comment was made by someone who was too skeered to even come up with a nickname.
Nipsey,
Tell you what. Let’s agree to disagree here. So just that we are clear. You want to deprive me of the right to defend myself. I would like that right, which is outlined in the Contract known as the Constitution.
Ok here goes. You can have your position: And when your wife gets raped by an armed man at Denny’s while you protest. I will apparently be supporting your wishes to not be a “cowboy” and promptly dial 911 in the hopes that the police arrive just in time to take the report.
Not to worry for me though, as I will respect your wishes. I can’t imagine your wife would be happy about that….. but she chose to marry you, and you chose your position.
Sweet. Can we move on now that we are on the same page?
Shame on me, complicit in denying you a right which 200 years of commie sympathizing judicial activists (apparently the second most enduring conspiracy after the Illuminati) says have not been infringed.
Sorry I can’t quite make out the page number, it’s written in crayon.
I’m glad you keep coming back to enjoy the discussion. Contrary to your perspective no one here mentioned the illuminati etc. A cursory study in Constitutional history proves the point: judges do participate in political activism from the bench. (Have you ever read some of their opinions? They are just that….their opinion.)
I also noticed you refused to acknowledge the Denny’s scenerio…..are you still waiting for the police to arrive?
Luckily, I don’t eat at Denny’s.
Nipsey…I mean Mario Manero, is that you?
I don’t know who that is or why it would be clever (I assume it was supposed to be), but if you’re going to say something silly today is a good day to do it.
Hunt is more than just about providing equal access to CCW’s and anyone who followed Carona’s CCW policy would know he took the corruption out of the CCW process. Why would anyone give him a large campaign donation to get a CCW when you only had to have a pulse, fill out the forms and take a class?
Hunt has well articulated positions on many relevant topics that are front and center in today’s economy; CCW is only one small element of his comprehensive plan for the Sheriff’s Dept.
Nipsey, this is for you:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/03/local/la-me-restaurant-shooting4-2010apr04
So do you still want to have dinner unarmed? If only there was an armed citizen to ensure the situation did not get even worse.
Nipsy,
I was actually listening to your position until you started quoting Wikipedia, which is not acceptable in scholarly research, as a source. I am led to question everything else you say.
Oh, and you may want to take a bit to read http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
“I was actually listening to your position…”
No you weren’t, I made no sound.
“…until you started quoting Wikipedia, which is not acceptable in scholarly research, as a source.”
Scholarly research, is that what happens here? I would have quoted Stephen Hawking or a hobo and it wouldn’t have made a difference, since the judicial record on the constitutionality of CCRs vis a vis the second amendment is not opinion, but fact.
“I am led to question everything else you say.”
Uh, I like ice cream (?)
nipsey: we do scholarly stuff here.
Maybe you missed the eye-opening post on Kharakastan and the truly literate double-post on Tanzanysha. And let’s not forget the cosmopolitan unwindings of Papuan Headman Barney Wewak (who I understand has sent an e-mail to our admin).
And for the record I consult Wikipedia all the time. I just don’t believe everything I read there!