SF Sheriff Highlights ‘Only Ones’ Hypocrisy
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.