and the RATS, take another one in the.........HA ha!!!
Posted on 01/28/2012 6:04:27 AM PST by marktwain
“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 reports.
Mirkarimi apparently owned them while sponsoring legislation last summer to bolster San Francisco gun control laws against a lawsuit by the National Rifle Association.
“Mirkarimi was elected sheriff in November after serving seven years as one of the city's more liberal supervisors,” Fox News tells us.
Indeed, “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 informs us.
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,” reporter Joshua Sabatini claims.
True, but 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 a protective order is enough to disenfranchise him from his fundamental right to keep and bear arms prior to being convicted of anything.
While it appears corroborating information of a pattern of previous abusive behavior against female partners is emerging, along with documentation of his “well-known temper” and his own lawyer calling him “a bit of a tyrant,” it’s important to remember Mirkarimi is innocent until proven guilty, and also to keep in mind partners in failed relationships sometimes lash out motivated by revenge.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
The guy sounds like a typical liberal - a fascist barely concealed under the patina of being a ‘rat.
Schadenfrueude....
While I am 100% against this BS, and I think unconstitutional law, I am glad to see it has come around to bite one of its defenders. Hoisted on his own petard.
Since such laws are so oppressive, I wonder if, for example, he could be enjoined to not even be *around* guns that he could use?
That is, typically the way these laws are used, anyone who lives with him also has to get rid of *their* guns, lest he be able to use them. Likewise, if he worked in a store that sold guns, he might be forced to find a new line of work if he could not be prevented from accessing them at work.
As in a job like Sheriff, where he could access any number of guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.