PDA

View Full Version : Judge Orders SF Sheriff to Surrender Firearms


safewaysecurity
02-17-2012, 1:48 PM
Just got an email from CD Michel from Calgunlaws.com

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 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 led 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 forfeit one’s fundamental Second Amendment rights?

I can't stand hypocrisy.

dexter9659
02-17-2012, 1:50 PM
A .57 caliber model 19... I want one. My model 10 is only a .38spl.

LoadedM333
02-17-2012, 2:04 PM
Ross Mirkarimi is a hyprocrite!

OleCuss
02-17-2012, 2:04 PM
Didn't we hit this one a month ago?

I think Chuck Michel just sent out his e-mail on this today, but I think even his e-mail specified the 13th of January?

Oh, well. Considering Mirkarimi directly lied to one of our members - it doesn't hurt to take this as an opportunity to revile him again. . .

SilverTauron
02-17-2012, 2:05 PM
.57 sure is an interesting round. We ought to shoot it sometime, but it seems I cannot find it at my local ammo store.

As to San Fransisco's soon to be former Sherrif,I offer my sincere congratulations.You now get to practice what you preach,an ideological position very few politicians are willing to do nowadays!I could almost clap.

repubconserv
02-17-2012, 2:10 PM
I am surprised he was not charged with owning a destructive device...

How did he manage to drop the "3" off of his model 19 anyways :p

speedrrracer
02-17-2012, 2:13 PM
domestic battery + hypocrisy....this guy is pushing all the douchenozzle buttons

No wonder he got elected

Coded-Dude
02-17-2012, 2:17 PM
does anyone else not believe he only owns 3 firearms...? :shrug:

Ubermcoupe
02-17-2012, 2:30 PM
What is a .57 caliber SW and where do I get one? :p

ok ok, .357...

safewaysecurity
02-17-2012, 2:31 PM
does anyone else not believe he only owns 3 firearms...? :shrug:

Well those are the guns they KNOW he owns. I'm sure he has some unregistered handguns and maybe a shotgun.

repubconserv
02-17-2012, 2:32 PM
I really find it surprising that people think he is a hypocrite. He is not (from what I read in the article). He is all for disarming commoners. But I didn't read where it said he was against the people in power owning guns. In other words he always practiced (or tried to practice) what he preached.

IVC
02-17-2012, 2:37 PM
Feinstein and Perata both used their political corrections to get licenses to carry firearms in public.

So, political correctness now gets you a license :) And that .57 is most likely not politically correct either - destructive device or an SBS :)

lhecker51
02-17-2012, 2:45 PM
Thank God Prop H, or should I say Prep H, was defeated. Even though courts decide in our favor, local LE agencies can choose not to comply. City of LA is a prime example.

dunndeal
02-17-2012, 2:48 PM
It's DON Perata not Dan.

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 2:51 PM
Just got an email from CD Michel from Calgunlaws.com



I can't stand hypocrisy.

Neither can I. However, I think that we'll see a bit more of it in this case. Does anyone else suspect that the "good sheriff" will face a bit less of the uphill battle than any other ordinary citizen would face given the same charges?

My prediction is that he'll end up with charges dismissed/acquitted, etc. With an identical case, anyone else would be pretty much guaranteed conviction. The law is set up with the specific hope that it can give a lifetime ban, even without any real evidence of "domestic violence".

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 2:52 PM
So, political correctness now gets you a license :) And that .57 is most likely not politically correct either - destructive device or an SBS :)

Hey, my Mossberg 590A is a .73 caliber.

Wherryj
02-17-2012, 2:56 PM
Why did he get the 92g instead of the 92f? He likes guns without a manual safety?

I thought that he was all about keeping guns safe?

stix213
02-17-2012, 3:12 PM
Sounds like he only surrendered the guns that were likely to be registered. I'm guessing his long guns are still around in violation of the law.

While I think surrender of guns for a misdemeanor charge is ridiculous, it gives me a smile when a gun grabber gets his own guns grabbed.

My big question is though, doesn't he have access to guns at his job? Wouldn't that be in violation? I would think that all guns at the Sheriff's department would need to be locked up, giving him no access, whenever he enters the building.

nick
02-17-2012, 3:17 PM
.57 sure is an interesting round. We ought to shoot it sometime, but it seems I cannot find it at my local ammo store.

As to San Fransisco's soon to be former Sherrif,I offer my sincere congratulations.You now get to practice what you preach,an ideological position very few politicians are willing to do nowadays!I could almost clap.

Local gun stores don't store a lot of exotic calibers. That's why online ammo sales are so important :p

repubconserv
02-17-2012, 3:18 PM
Sounds like he only surrendered the guns that were likely to be registered. I'm guessing his long guns are still around in violation of the law.

While I think surrender of guns for a misdemeanor charge is ridiculous, it gives me a smile when a gun grabber gets his own guns grabbed.

My big question is though, doesn't he have access to guns at his job? Wouldn't that be in violation? I would think that all guns at the Sheriff's department would need to be locked up, giving him no access, whenever he enters the building.

Wouldn't he be suspended?

stix213
02-17-2012, 3:20 PM
Wouldn't he be suspended?

Its my understanding that he has refused to step down or take any time off. No one above him can suspend him as far as I'm aware, since he is in an elected position. Unless something has changed since the last time I was updated on this.

repubconserv
02-17-2012, 3:22 PM
Its my understanding that he has refused to step down or take any time off. No one above him can suspend him as far as I'm aware, since he is in an elected position. Unless something has changed since the last time I was updated on this.

If ^ is true, then it begs the question as to why they confiscated his guns in the first place if he has access to them at his dept. If no one can tell him to step down/ suspend him is there someone there with the authority to restrict his access to guns?

Rumline
02-17-2012, 3:35 PM
I dunno...in light of all this I wouldn't be surprised if he goes off the deep end and shoots his wife then stakes his defense on "Look, the evil guns made me do it!! We need to ban all guns immediately!!!!1!1" No telling what misogynistic power-tripping hypocritical gun grabber nutjobs will do.

Fyathyrio
02-17-2012, 3:38 PM
Now hold on a minute here...we have a fellow gun owner in trouble! Shouldn't we be taking donations and asking CGF to step up and help this poor man? :p: :devil2:

YubaRiver
02-17-2012, 3:38 PM
If ^ is true, then it begs the question as to why they confiscated his guns in the first place if he has access to them at his dept. If no one can tell him to step down/ suspend him is there someone there with the authority to restrict his access to guns?

No one has authority over a Sheriff in his own county, right?
(Sarcasm font)

"Did you know that the Sheriff is the highest constitutional executive authority in the county? Very few people realize that the Sheriff has the legitimate authority to prevent federal agents from entering the county - or the power to throw them out once they are there. "

http://www.cspoa.org/index.php

zum
02-17-2012, 3:41 PM
thus my sig. stands :D

zum
02-17-2012, 3:43 PM
Now hold on a minute here...we have a fellow gun owner in trouble! Shouldn't we be taking donations and asking CGF to step up and help this poor man? :p: :devil2:

all joking aside i think your on to something here... :p

feel free to send all MONEYS to my paypal

repubconserv
02-17-2012, 4:05 PM
No one has authority over a Sheriff in his own county, right?
(Sarcasm font)

"Did you know that the Sheriff is the highest constitutional executive authority in the county? Very few people realize that the Sheriff has the legitimate authority to prevent federal agents from entering the county - or the power to throw them out once they are there. "

http://www.cspoa.org/index.php

Your Sarcasm font would seem to indicate that someone does have authority over him... your quote and link seem to indicate otherwise

If someone does have authority over him, who can prevent his access to guns before he is convicted?

If no one has authority over him, how could they take his guns unless he willingly gave them up?

taperxz
02-17-2012, 4:38 PM
For justice to be served, can't believe I'm sayin this, SFPD should destroy his weapon!!

Paul S
02-17-2012, 5:29 PM
Its my understanding that he has refused to step down or take any time off. No one above him can suspend him as far as I'm aware, since he is in an elected position. Unless something has changed since the last time I was updated on this.

The State Attorney General can go after a sheriff...but any order to step down I believe has to come from the court. That seems pretty unlikely and as another poster pointed out..conviction is highly unlikely.

BigDogatPlay
02-17-2012, 5:36 PM
Ross Mirkarimi is a hyprocrite!

Like it's a news flash. ;)

The only officer who can formally arrest the high sheriff is the county coroner, or so I was trained a long time ago. In a county where the sheriff is also the coroner, the chief deputy coroner can. He turned himself in to SFPD and was booked.

As far as forcing him to step down, no one but the voters can typically, but the Attorney General could in extreme circumstances. There was some talk early on that the city charter in San Francisco gave the mayor a certain amount of authority but I've not researched it.

As far as the sheriff not surrendering his firearms, that would be willful disobedience of an order of the court. As an executive officer charged with serving the court's process a willful disobedience would put him in a precarious position.

1911_sfca
02-17-2012, 8:00 PM
The news indicated that the Mayor had some authority to suspend or relieve the sheriff from duty if he was somehow unable to perform his duties. However, mayor Ed Lee declined to exercise that authority in this case.

trashman
02-17-2012, 8:04 PM
The news indicated that the Mayor had some authority to suspend or relieve the sheriff from duty if he was somehow unable to perform his duties. However, mayor Ed Lee declined to exercise that authority in this case.

If I remember right, the mayor met with Mirkarimi and asked him to consider stepping down, which he declined to do.

It's the right thing to do, politically - even if Ross beats the DV charge he will twist in the wind for a long time. No need to go out on a limb on this one...

--Neill

Dreaded Claymore
02-17-2012, 8:16 PM
Now hold on a minute here...we have a fellow gun owner in trouble! Shouldn't we be taking donations and asking CGF to step up and help this poor man? :p: :devil2:

In all seriousness, I devoutly hope that the Sheriff is not being falsely accused. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

IVC
02-17-2012, 8:43 PM
In all seriousness, I devoutly hope that the Sheriff is not being falsely accused. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

Most likely not. The problem with DV is that it doesn't go away even if his wife doesn't want to press charges or claims nothing happened. Just touching a spouse, say while trying to exit the house to avoid conflict, is sufficient for DV.

That's why life ban through DV conviction is such an issue. This high profile case might actually provide good publicity for changing the DV laws.

Munk
02-17-2012, 8:59 PM
I'll admit, I like his choice of Beretta. The Decocker-Only 92G (Decocker cannot be put in Safe position, it springs back up).

safewaysecurity
02-17-2012, 9:09 PM
In all seriousness, I devoutly hope that the Sheriff is not being falsely accused. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

He's not being falsely accused.

diggersdarling
02-17-2012, 9:18 PM
He's not being falsely accused.

Is it known that he is a violent little bugger?

safewaysecurity
02-17-2012, 9:28 PM
Is it known that he is a violent little bugger?

Yes, and there is video and photographic and textual evidence. The case is as good as closed.

Manic Moran
02-17-2012, 9:33 PM
Is it really hypocritical?

Let's assume he would prefer a world where nobody owns a handgun and everyone sprinkles rose petals on the streets. He supported ordnances to try to advance this position. It is presumed that he would follow such ordnances himself. The ordnances failed. It seems that it can be considered a statement of pragmatism that if the guns can't be banned and will remain legal, he might as well have some too as there is no particular benefit to be had from being the odd one out, even though it is not his preferred state of affairs.

NTM

safewaysecurity
02-17-2012, 9:38 PM
Is it really hypocritical?

Let's assume he would prefer a world where nobody owns a handgun and everyone sprinkles rose petals on the streets. He supported ordnances to try to advance this position. It is presumed that he would follow such ordnances himself. The ordnances failed. It seems that it can be considered a statement of pragmatism that if the guns can't be banned and will remain legal, he might as well have some too as there is no particular benefit to be had from being the odd one out, even though it is not his preferred state of affairs.

NTM

He thinks having a gun in the home is more dangerous than not having one. Also the ordinance to ban guns did pass. He IS a hypocrite. He said he wouldn't issue really any CCWs but would carry a gun himself as sheriff ( looks like that's not happening lol)

SanPedroShooter
02-18-2012, 8:21 AM
'Yea, the light of the wicked shall be put out, and the spark of his fire shall not shine.
The light shall be dark in his tabernacle, and his candle shall be put out with him.
The steps of his strength shall be straitened, and his own counsel shall cast him down.
For he is cast into a net by his own feet, and he walketh upon a snare.'

Job

or

The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.
For the transgression of a land many are the princes thereof: but by a man of understanding and knowledge the state thereof shall be prolonged.
A poor man that oppresseth the poor is like a sweeping rain which leaveth no food.
They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.
Evil men understand not judgment: but they that seek the LORD understand all things. Better is the poor that walketh in his uprightness, than he that is perverse in his ways, though he be rich.
Whoso keepeth the law is a wise son: but he that is a companion of riotous men shameth his father.
He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor.
He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination.
Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit: but the upright shall have good things in possession.

Proverbs

Are the voters of SF getting exactly the Sheriff they deserve?

MindBuilder
02-18-2012, 1:50 PM
There is a federal law that says something like it is a crime to employ armed people if you are a convicted felon. I don't know though if it would apply to someone unconvicted but under a restraining order or just facing a prohibiting misdemeanor. I also don't know if the sheriffs deputies would be considered his employees or employees of the county. If he was violating such a federal law, I think federal marshals would have the authority to take him down.

WWDHD?
02-18-2012, 1:57 PM
Do as I say, not as I do.
If he turns them in to the Sherif of the county he lives in for safe keeping.........Oh, never mind.

wikioutdoor
02-18-2012, 2:05 PM
Some notable points to this thread - A: as an American he is innocent until proven guilty

B: as an official he has been put in place by us citizens to make judgment calls regarding public safety you only have yourself to blame.

Going off on him at this point is both Un-American and detrimental to the rest of us.

The faster and easier it is to burn him multiply by 2 and that's how easy it will be destroy you as well.

I think O.J.s lawyer during his burglary case said it best. Either you believe in the law or you don't there is no middle ground. That law is part of the backbone of this country and was gained through the blood and sweat of the people that came before you. Anyone who doesn't respect that has no right to judge any other American as far as I am concerned.

press1280
02-18-2012, 2:40 PM
He's not a hypocrite because people like him believe in a philosophy that's meant only for the people, and not for the government.

WWDHD?
02-18-2012, 7:24 PM
Some notable points to this thread - A: as an American he is innocent until proven guilty

B: as an official he has been put in place by us citizens to make judgment calls regarding public safety you only have yourself to blame.

Going off on him at this point is both Un-American and detrimental to the rest of us.

The faster and easier it is to burn him multiply by 2 and that's how easy it will be destroy you as well.

I think O.J.s lawyer during his burglary case said it best. Either you believe in the law or you don't there is no middle ground. That law is part of the backbone of this country and was gained through the blood and sweat of the people that came before you. Anyone who doesn't respect that has no right to judge any other American as far as I am concerned.

Your 100% correct. Thanks for the reality check (really, no sarcasm). At the same time, its a lot of fun watching this bozo get dragged through the mud.

ColdDeadHands1
02-18-2012, 10:31 PM
All the cops get the coolest toys! I want a .57 caliber magnum S&W!

SanPedroShooter
02-19-2012, 5:46 AM
Some notable points to this thread - A: as an American he is innocent until proven guilty

B: as an official he has been put in place by us citizens to make judgment calls regarding public safety you only have yourself to blame.

Going off on him at this point is both Un-American and detrimental to the rest of us.

The faster and easier it is to burn him multiply by 2 and that's how easy it will be destroy you as well.

I think O.J.s lawyer during his burglary case said it best. Either you believe in the law or you don't there is no middle ground. That law is part of the backbone of this country and was gained through the blood and sweat of the people that came before you. Anyone who doesn't respect that has no right to judge any other American as far as I am concerned.



I agree, but I also say that this guy has done ****ter things than grab his wife by the arm. Over and over again. I guarantee that the 'honorable sheriff' doesnt believe in the 'law' you so elegantly reference. In fact I know he doesnt. HIs actions have proved that over and over again.

Imagine a few more people like this in power all over our country, and you wouldnt recognize the law anymore.

As far as being duly elected, I agree. But even people in SF dont derserve this guy, even if I kinda felt yesterday like they did. At least I am not sure. As its Sunday, I will just leave this here;

They that forsake the law praise the wicked: but such as keep the law contend with them.


Sound familiar?

How about this one, Whoso causeth the righteous to go astray in an evil way, he shall fall himself into his own pit:

I disagree very much with just about anything the majority in California wants, and think LA and SF are basically Sodom and Gomorrah, but hasnt this guy already used his power and influence to do harm to the "righteous'? Or at least people with a righteous cause? And has he not fallen into his own pit? The analogy is perfect.

Sunday school over.

Even though he hasnt been convicted yet for pushing his wife around, this guy has already done enough to earn himself the title of tinpot dictator of the year. I also wonder that the SF DA would charge the sheriff with domestic abuse as he's sworn in.... What an embarassment! I would imagine he's got pretty good grounds. But I am speculating again.

In the end, he's just another evil politician (I will not disgrace the title of Peace Officer by including him as one) pulled down by his own hubris, violent outbursts and arrogance.

narcolepsy
02-19-2012, 9:13 AM
Most likely not. The problem with DV is that it doesn't go away even if his wife doesn't want to press charges or claims nothing happened. Just touching a spouse, say while trying to exit the house to avoid conflict, is sufficient for DV.

And if the spouse, i.e., usually the female, refuses to give incriminating testimony, refuses to testify, or leaves the jurisdiction to avoid service of a subpoena, the government may now use hearsay statements to support a conviction.

This, of course, is an evisceration of the constitutional right to cross-examination, and is emblematic of the larger problem.

rp55
02-19-2012, 10:01 AM
The news indicated that the Mayor had some authority to suspend or relieve the sheriff from duty if he was somehow unable to perform his duties. However, mayor Ed Lee declined to exercise that authority in this case.

Some member of a political forum did some serious in-depth research into this. The Sheriff is an elected official. In order to attempt to insulate the office of Sheriff from local political influence, California designed the system such that local officials have zero control over the Sheriff; none, nada not the Mayor, not the Coroner.

But there's always that rare situation where for, whatever reason, a Sheriff has to be brought to heel. California set that up to. Who is responsible for that?

{wait for it}

The Attorney General, Kamala Harris.

Yeah right, like she's gonna do something to a hometown player.

trashman
02-19-2012, 10:05 AM
The Attorney General, Kamala Harris.

Yeah right, like she's gonna do something to a hometown player.

You sincerely underestimate her ambition.

--Neill

mag360
02-19-2012, 10:38 AM
"as attorney general I kicked out a gun owning, wife beating sheriff from office in San Francisco"- Kamala for Governor 2018 (after Gavin wins in 2014, of course)

IVC
02-19-2012, 11:51 AM
Some notable points to this thread - A: as an
American he is innocent until proven guilty.

Most posts are about the generic domestic violence misdemeanor effect on gun rights and the fact that he owned guns, while actively being involved in preventing others from doing so.

Whether he gets convicted or not determines his guilt, as you correctly point out, but is irrelevant for the most part in this discussion.

sfbadger
02-19-2012, 2:25 PM
As far as being duly elected, I agree. But even people in SF dont derserve this guy, even if I kinda felt yesterday like they did. At least I am not sure. As its Sunday, I will just leave this here

This guy won the election to the Office of Sheriff with 38% of the vote, ... hardly a mandate from the people. I, as a resident of San Francisco who did not vote for this individual, most definitely do not DESERVE to have him as Sheriff. Let him burn!

NoJoke
02-19-2012, 3:39 PM
And if the spouse, i.e., usually the female, refuses to give incriminating testimony, refuses to testify, or leaves the jurisdiction to avoid service of a subpoena, the government may now use hearsay statements to support a conviction.

This, of course, is an evisceration of the constitutional right to cross-examination, and is emblematic of the larger problem.


This is the most chilling post out of all the comments posted so far.

Wow.

The stable system established by the Constitution just continues to be undermined, one piece at a time. How long till it falls?

http://aboutjenga.com/wp-content/uploads/jenga-tower.gif

ccmc
02-20-2012, 10:28 AM
Wonder if his Sig and Beretta have standard cap mags.

rp55
02-20-2012, 6:12 PM
You sincerely underestimate her ambition.

--Neill

Wow! Yes I did, until I saw mag360's post. I guess I just don't have it in me to think like a politician.

rips31
02-21-2012, 3:08 PM
goodness. can y'all PLEASE STOP posting this FUD? this has been hashed out in the previous thread, although folks there didn't believe what we said, either.

as 1911_sfca and trashman posted, the mayor can temporarily suspend the sheriff, per the city's ethics code. however, that will trigger an ethics commission investigation and then those results would be sent to the board of stupidvisors (of which mirkarimi was a member, prior to being elected sheriff).

the reason that the mayor has not already suspended him nor the mayor/stupidvisors said anything publicly is that since mirkarimi is so new to his term, any statements prior to a conviction would be considered a political attack on him, not to mention that the stupidvisors would be the ones weighing any termination action against mirkarimi.

if mirkarimi beats the charges (which is highly likely on the mdv and child endangerment charges), then anyone that spoke out against him will suffer the fallout in the next election. yes, political survival in sf is more important than doing the right thing.

Its my understanding that he has refused to step down or take any time off. No one above him can suspend him as far as I'm aware, since he is in an elected position. Unless something has changed since the last time I was updated on this.

No one has authority over a Sheriff in his own county, right?
(Sarcasm font)

"Did you know that the Sheriff is the highest constitutional executive authority in the county? Very few people realize that the Sheriff has the legitimate authority to prevent federal agents from entering the county - or the power to throw them out once they are there. "

http://www.cspoa.org/index.php

The State Attorney General can go after a sheriff...but any order to step down I believe has to come from the court. That seems pretty unlikely and as another poster pointed out..conviction is highly unlikely.

Like it's a news flash. ;)

The only officer who can formally arrest the high sheriff is the county coroner, or so I was trained a long time ago. In a county where the sheriff is also the coroner, the chief deputy coroner can. He turned himself in to SFPD and was booked.

As far as forcing him to step down, no one but the voters can typically, but the Attorney General could in extreme circumstances. There was some talk early on that the city charter in San Francisco gave the mayor a certain amount of authority but I've not researched it.

As far as the sheriff not surrendering his firearms, that would be willful disobedience of an order of the court. As an executive officer charged with serving the court's process a willful disobedience would put him in a precarious position.

Some member of a political forum did some serious in-depth research into this. The Sheriff is an elected official. In order to attempt to insulate the office of Sheriff from local political influence, California designed the system such that local officials have zero control over the Sheriff; none, nada not the Mayor, not the Coroner.

But there's always that rare situation where for, whatever reason, a Sheriff has to be brought to heel. California set that up to. Who is responsible for that?

{wait for it}

The Attorney General, Kamala Harris.

Yeah right, like she's gonna do something to a hometown player.

Glock22Fan
02-21-2012, 4:06 PM
Wouldn't he be suspended?

Baca's never been suspended, despite (to the best of my belief) having to wear an airsoft weapon when his uniform requires a sidearm and for much the same offense.


snip
if mirkarimi beats the charges (which is highly likely on the mdv and child endangerment charges),
snip

Didn't I read that he's already pleaded guilty on the dv charges?

Added. Apparently I misread that last item and he has pleaded not guilty. Apologies.

RazzB7
02-21-2012, 4:11 PM
Baca's never been suspended, despite having to wear an airsoft weapon when his uniform requires a sidearm and for much the same offense.

I've heard this rumor more than once. Anyone have any proof?

Meplat
02-21-2012, 4:29 PM
For justice to be served, can't believe I'm sayin this, SFPD should destroy his weapon!!

No! It should be sold at auction to an FFL, like used to happen.

BigDogatPlay
02-21-2012, 4:31 PM
Baca's never been suspended, despite having to wear an airsoft weapon when his uniform requires a sidearm and for much the same offense.

The County of Los Angeles is not the City and County of San Francisco. San Francisco is unique in the state and the city charter governs all. The Mayor is given authority over all city and county government, with some limitations. Comparing LA to SF in this reference is apples and oranges.

Yes there is supposedly a sealed court record, but no one knows what's in it. There is only speculation. I've never seen the evidence that corroberates that claim, nor has anyone in or around the LASD verified that he carries an airsoft.

While I disagree with his politics and policies, unless you've got the down and dirty on Lee Baca, and will post it, then it's just so much more rumor.

Didn't I read that he's already pleaded guilty on the dv charges?

He plead not guilty on all counts. (http://www.thirdage.com/news/ross-mirkarimi-new-sf-sheriff-pleads-not-guilty-to-domestic-violence_01-20-2012)

Glock22Fan
02-21-2012, 4:41 PM
He plead not guilty on all counts. (http://www.thirdage.com/news/ross-mirkarimi-new-sf-sheriff-pleads-not-guilty-to-domestic-violence_01-20-2012)

Sorry, I read it again and found I misread it.

However, although I cannot put my hand on any evidence of the Baca matter, I have seen enough in the past to be convinced in my own mind. Take it as conjecture if you wish, you are as entitled to your views as I am and I am willing to listen to any evidence that suggests I am wrong (other than saying there is a lack of evidence either way).

Meplat
02-21-2012, 4:52 PM
OK. What am I missing here folks? As I recall when this DV nonsense was first passed it was found that LEO’s (notorious for domestic problems) had such a high rate of DV accusations that the average department would lose about 30% of its force. So an exemption was made for LEO’s. Am I wrong? Not saying a judge’s order would not be a completely separate and enforceable thing.

Glock22Fan
02-21-2012, 5:12 PM
OK. What am I missing here folks? As I recall when this DV nonsense was first passed it was found that LEO’s (notorious for domestic problems) had such a high rate of DV accusations that the average department would lose about 30% of its force. So an exemption was made for LEO’s. Am I wrong? Not saying a judge’s order would not be a completely separate and enforceable thing.

Can you say "Old Boy Network" or "I've got your six?"

I'm sure that there is no de jure exemption, but de facto is a different matter.

A bit like getting a doctor to admit that another doctor's been negligent.

paul0660
02-21-2012, 5:20 PM
Forget it Jake, it's Frisco.

dantodd
02-22-2012, 10:58 PM
It will take this and a few more cases like it for the apparatchiks to u d'état and the foolishness of disarming people for life due to any and every "domestic violence" conviction.

Unfortunately having "regular people" wrongfully disarmed doesn't get any attention but when the tendrils of such laws reach the sacred halls of fellow politicos things have a chance of actually changing.

Patrick Aherne
02-23-2012, 8:11 AM
OK. What am I missing here folks? As I recall when this DV nonsense was first passed it was found that LEO’s (notorious for domestic problems) had such a high rate of DV accusations that the average department would lose about 30% of its force. So an exemption was made for LEO’s. Am I wrong? Not saying a judge’s order would not be a completely separate and enforceable thing.

No, there is no exemption for LEOs under Lautenberg. He is the subject of a court order to not possess firearms. If he violates the court order, he would be arrested.

eltee
02-23-2012, 8:40 AM
Correct, no exemptions for LEO's. Many active LEO's lost jobs as a result of the ex post facto provisions of the DV laws.

SanPedroShooter
02-23-2012, 8:52 AM
Correct, no exemptions for LEO's. Many active LEO's lost jobs as a result of the ex post facto provisions of the DV laws.

Lot of vets too. This travesty of a law needs repealing quick. Either that, or fix DM prosecutions.

The ex post facto provsion is mind numbingly unbeliavble. How many men pled out a buill**** case to a misdomeaner to avoid continued expense and trouble and now have their 2A rights suspended??

Seesm
02-23-2012, 9:27 AM
Ross Mirkarimi is a hyprocrite!

lol that's a understatement...

chuckdc
02-24-2012, 7:58 AM
"as attorney general I kicked out a gun owning, wife beating sheriff from office in San Francisco"- Kamala for Governor 2022 (after Gavin wins in 2014, 2 terms, of course)


Fixed that for you.

Wherryj
02-24-2012, 8:18 AM
No one has authority over a Sheriff in his own county, right?
(Sarcasm font)

"Did you know that the Sheriff is the highest constitutional executive authority in the county? Very few people realize that the Sheriff has the legitimate authority to prevent federal agents from entering the county - or the power to throw them out once they are there. "

http://www.cspoa.org/index.php

Perhaps we could ask Deputy Fife to impose a "Citzen's arrest"?

donw
02-25-2012, 7:02 AM
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm: ...