Another Gun-Control Hypocrite: Judge Orders Gun-Banning San Francisco Sheriff to Surrender His Guns in Face of Prosecution

On January 13, 2012, San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi was arrested and charged with three misdemeanor violations including domestic violence battery on his wife. Mirkarimi pled not guilty and is currently set to stand trial on February 24, 2012.

As part of the arraignment process, the Judge ordered Mirkarimi to stay away from his family and to surrender to authorities his three handguns (a Sig Sauer P229, a Beretta 92G, and a Smith & Wesson Model 19 .57-caliber magnum revolver). If convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, Mirkarimi would be federally prohibited from possessing firearms for the rest of his life.

The fact that Mirkarimi owned a firearm, let alone three, is ironic considering Mirkarimi is an outspoken gun-control advocate and proponent of civil disarmament.

Mirkarimi’s name should resonate with Bay Area firearms owners. He was on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors before being elected San Francisco’s Sheriff. While on the Board he sponsored San Francisco Ordinance No. 206-11, an ordinance that amended two pre-existing San Francisco Police Code sections by adding self-serving, irrelevant, and often inaccurate “findings.” One of the pre-existing ordinances requires a handgun in one’s home to be kept in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock. The other prohibits the sale of “enhanced-lethality” “non-sporting” ammunition, which of course ignores that self-defense firearms are not about sport, but about stopping a threat to one’s life. The “findings,” pushed by Mirkarimi were an after-the-fact attempt to legally justify the ordinances and to prop up a legislative record to defend the ordinances in court, as they are being challenged in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 09-02143 (N.D. Cal. filed May 15, 2009).

The Jackson case is an NRA/CRPAF Legal Action Project (LAP) lawsuit that challenges both of the pre-existing ordinances that these anti-self defense “findings” purport to justify. LAP attorneys submitted information demonstrating that the “findings” pushed by Mirkarimi did not justify the ordinances.

Mirkarimi now joins Senator Diane Feinstein and former California Legislator Dan Perata as gun-control hypocrites who have armed themselves while disarming others. Imposing a classic double standard, Feinstein and Perata both got used their political corrections to get licenses to carry firearms in public – that are rarely bestowed on the public, while working to disarm “lesser” civilians with equal or greater need to carry a firearm for self-defense.

Mirkarimi also supported another infamous piece of legislation in San Francisco, Proposition H (“Prop H”). Sponsored by the notorious San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, Prop H was passed by San Francisco voters in November 2005 and approved by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 21, 2006. Prop H completely banned civilian handgun possession by San Francisco residents, as well as the sale, transfer, or distribution of any firearm or ammunition within San Francisco.

The civilian right to self-defense was saved when Prop H was struck down by an NRA lawsuit. In 2008, the City and County of San Francisco paid $380,000.00 to the NRA to reimburse it for legal fees incurred in striking down Prop H in the case, Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco,158 Cal. App. 4th 895 (Ct. App. 2008). Combined with the over $200,000 in fees paid to City lawyers defending the ordinance, and an equal value of lawyers’ time donated to the City for the unsuccessful defense of the Fiscal case, the total costs to San Francisco approached $800,000.00.

The case against Mirkarimi highlights some disturbing aspects of the domestic violence law. Should citizens that are merely accused of misdemeanor crimes be unilaterally disarmed without some hearing on whether they are a threat? Should any misdemeanor conviction automatically result forfeit one’s fundamental Second Amendment rights?


Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.