No products in the cart.

News

SF Sheriff Highlights ‘Only Ones’ Hypocrisy

mirk3
O come let us adore him: SF “progressives” show the sheriff their collective approval. — Ross Mirkarimi Facebook photos

A peace officer chastising a security guard for harassing citizens on Independence Day stands in stark contrast to those in law enforcement who instead put their personal interests over their Constitutional obligations, and abuse their positions of power. The latter, a group I’ve labeled “Only Ones,” are exemplified by San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, an anti-gun enforcer who recently had his own criminal record expunged.

Mirkarimi is also attempting to expunge his complicity in releasing illegal alien Francisco Lopez-Sanchez from custody despite his criminal record and serial reentry history. Sanchez allegedly ignored citizen disarmament edicts the sheriff supports and killed a woman with a gun stolen from an as-yet unidentified Bureau of Land Management ranger’s car. For his part, Mirkarimi has taken to social and other media to point his finger at Immigration and Customs Enforcement for not complying with San Francisco’s “sanctuary city” policies, conveniently ignoring that months earlier he bragged about having “the honor to say that I’m the first Sheriff in the United States to say not to ICE.”

As I’ve explained since I started using the term, the purpose of the “Only Ones” label has never been to bash cops. It had its genesis in a video of a DEA agent telling a roomful of school children he was “the only one … professional enough” to carry a gun, and who then shot himself in the foot trying to holster his weapon. I use it to counter anti-gunner claims that only government enforcers are professional and trained enough to be safely and responsibly armed. I also use it to illustrate when those of official status, rank or privilege, both in law enforcement and in some other government position, get special breaks not available to we commoners, particularly (but not exclusively) when they’re involved in gun-related incidents.

Mirkarimi appears to fit that description. Initial charges of domestic violence were plea-bargained down to false imprisonment, allowing him to keep his gun. Not that he wants non-LEOs to keep and bear theirs. Hey, as long as he’s taken care of, why would the pesky Second Amendment and a ceremonial oath to the Constitution get in the way of an agenda?

“Although San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was a strong advocate of gun control while on the Board of Supervisors, he surrendered 3 handguns when police recently booked him on misdemeanor domestic violence charges,” KCBS noted after his arrest. “Mirkarimi apparently owned them while sponsoring legislation last summer to bolster San Francisco gun control laws against a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association.”

“As a longtime member of the progressive bloc on the Board of Supervisors, Mirkarimi was a vocal advocate of gun control,” The San Francisco Examiner chimed in. “But after being arrested on three misdemeanor charges including domestic violence battery, Mirkarimi was forced to turn over all his guns to authorities.

“If Mirkarimi were convicted on the domestic violence charge, he would not be able to carry a gun as sheriff,” the report elaborated.

It would entail more than that. If convicted, “thanks” to the infamous Lautenberg Amendment, he would be a prohibited person under federal law, forbidden not only to carry a gun, but to own or even touch one—forever. And the protective order imposed was enough to disenfranchise him from his fundamental right to keep and bear arms prior to being convicted of anything.

Add to that a former girlfriend coming forward with accusations of domestic violence abuse, and documentation of the sheriff’s “well-known temper,” and attempts by Mirkarimi to suppress from evidence a video taken by a neighbor showing the bruise he left on his wife’s arm, and it’s fair to ask if the same “deal” would be offered to an “ordinary citizen,” one without such highly-placed connections and resources.

Check out the video of Mirkarimi’s bruised wife, before she reconsidered and decided to stand by her man and put on a completely different public face for reasons only she will ever be able to fully explain.

“This is the second time this is happening,” she cries. “I’m going to use this just in case he wants to take Theo [the couple’s son] away from me. Because he said that he’s very powerful and he can do it.”

Compare that reaction in the raw to the carefully crafted public statement by Mikarimi attorney Betsy Wolkin, who characterized the criminal record expungement as “a cornerstone of restorative justice. It’s something that I believe in, the people in San Francisco believe in, the district attorney believes in and I think Sheriff Mirkarimi believes in. For him, it’s really personal. It’s the relief he’s entitled to.”

Based on all that “progressive” love the sheriff is receiving in the lead photo for this article, she’s probably not wrong about what San Franciscans as a collective believe in.

Meanwhile, Mirkarimi’s political allies in citizen disarmament instead work to expand gun prohibitions against people merely accused – but not convicted – of domestic violence.  Note the politicians proposing denial of fundamental rights without due process all took oaths of office, too.

Compare “Only Ones” like Mirkarimi with the officer referenced in the first paragraph. Then note how oath-breakers are exalted by the political establishment and media, while Oath Keepers are smeared. Another long-time observation of mine is that for “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day, and that’s certainly the case here.

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Veteran’s Day Membership Drive

16 comments

  1. Yet another example of how there are two laws: one for us, one for them. It would be nice if we handled politicians like the Aztecs did: harsher punishment for leaders (who are supposed to set the example) than for commoners, unlike what we have in this country today. Let the gun banners, like Feinstein, Pelosi, and Governor Brown, be disarmed (including armed guards), but no, one law for us, another for them.

  2. Thank you for the picture of Mirkarimi’s adoring masses, David. (Although a photo of the back of his head doesn’t do justice to the appearance of this clown in his Banana Republic General- S.F. Sheriff’s uniform.)
    BTW, this guy has zero professional law enforcement experience. (His Wikipedia page is an entertaining and disturbing read. San Francisco deserves this guy.)

  3. She let him plead down so that he will get a huge, public paid for, pension. Otherwise he would be just another Dem hack, working in the dog license dept for 1/3 the money. She is as much a gold-digger as he is a power-tripper.

  4. Nice! I also posted your “Only Ones” statement on farcebook. So it can be used as a new designator in the public lexicon.

  5. The Constitution doesn’t prevent anyone from keeping and bearing arms. Federal laws regarding arms are unconstitutional. Requiring background checks and registration is unconstitutional.

    Sorry that you don’t like it but that is the way it must be. BATFE is enforcing unconstitutional laws and We the People are the only ones who have the power to stop them. Yes,by force when necessary.

    1. Well said @SoPhillyFred , and I could not agree more. Even in the U.S. Rules of Civil Procedure , it states in “§ 2072 (b) Such rules shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right. All laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect.” When I read that for the first time it impressed upon me, that if a federal rule for civil court could nullify any law contrary to itself, how much more so is a law of no effect if it is contrary to the U.S. Constitution ? I see repeatedly in the our constitution where it says we have not only a right , but equally so a duty also to be part of a local militia. It doesn’t say in the one I read that there are ways to weasel out of it if you are able-bodied.

    2. Gun registration and waiting periods are unconstitutional and they are infringement of our Second Amendment Right’s . This Sheriff of San Francisco County is a hypocrite ; He’s promoting gun control and he own’s and he had three of his
      personal guns in his home before he was elected and he was never a law-enforcement officer before he became County Sheriff ; Sounds like a liberal to me ! It’s ok for them , but not for “We The People” .

  6. For Officer Mirkarimi, he was lucky to get his possessions back. Here in Arizona, the Sheriffs keep everything & sell it for themselves, even if you are innocent of any crime or acquitted of any offense. These Cops are “Only One’s” who make up the laws to fit the crime of their choosing. I don’t think they even know that the Constitution of the United States even exists, after President George W Bush slaughtered it. Don’t come to Yavapai County.

  7. He will Never be Re-Elected to serve because of this Last Murder. (Pier -14).
    Excuse to Lame, You are getting paid to house Federal prisoners. (Felons).

  8. I was at a meeting with Jared Huffman (who is left of Obama) while he was campaigning. He gave the usual “I believe in the Constitution but….” He and I were going back and forth on the second amendment and I said “so, in your opinion, who should be able to own guns?” He replied “Lawyers and judges; because they need them for protections”. That one sentence screams volumes about Progressives. To Rep. Huffman the second amendment does not mean “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It means that only certain people can own a gun. Lucky for Rep. Huffman that he is a lawyer, because that is one of the two classes that should have guns (using his progressive logic). Mr. Huffman also seems cognizant of the fact that guns could be used for protection…just not for you.
    Then they have the nerve to call people who follow their Oath and the Constitution ‘anti-government’. Don’t get tangled in their mental illness.

Comments are closed.