I know this won’t be shocking, but we have some additional proof that the gaggle of anti-gun groups spread throughout the nation don’t generally have a firm grip on the civilian nature of our democratic republic. The pro-gun sheriff of Wicomico County in Maryland (yeah… there’s a pro-gun sheriff in Maryland) is under fire from anti-gunners after a comment he made about protecting the Second Amendment rights of Wicomico citizens. According to Delmarvanow.com, Sheriff Mike Lewis is on record explaining that Federal curbs to the Second Amendment will not be tolerated in his county:
"As long as I'm the sheriff in this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of their right to bear arms. I can tell you this, if they attempt to do that, it would be an all-out civil war, no question about it."
Unsurprisingly, the hoplophobes seem less than thrilled about a government official actually threatening to defend his oath of office. (Strange how they aren’t outraged by Sheriffs, city councils, or municipalities invoking stricter laws than the federal government stipulates.) But rather than merely pushing for the Sheriff to be replaced in the next election, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has expressed their outrage that the Lewis is allowed to instruct other law enforcement personnel:
Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence said he was "astonished" Lewis was still able to train law enforcement officers after making the comments.
Really? He was “astonished” that a Sheriff was permitted to teach other law-enforcement officers? Something tells me it doesn’t take much to “astound” Ladd… Next thing we know, Ladd will be "astounded" that Lewis is prepared to defend the right to freedom of speech. Delmarvanow.com continued:
Someone who threatens violence isn't the type of person Everitt wants teaching officers. "That's the behavior of a thug, not a citizen in a democracy," he said.
Um… A couple of points leap to mind: First of all, we’re not a democracy (we’re a republic.) But second of all, even if we were a democracy, that’s exactly the behavior of a responsible citizen. After all, aren’t “we the people” supposed to be the final arbiters of the laws that are imposed upon us? Because I think I remember Thomas Jefferson mentioning something about that.
Besides, “thug” like behavior would be someone usurping the rule of law with the use of force… And, unless I missed something, it seems that Sheriff Lewis is promising to prohibit that very behavior.
Of course, Ladd’s indignation at Lewis’ comments is actually pretty enlightening. Here we have an elected public official promising to protect an enumerated right from unconstitutional federal infringements, and (according to Ladd) we’re supposed to be upset because this philosophy doesn’t jive with some Bloomberg-inspired vision for a gun-free America.
Contrary to what our friendly anti-gunners might believe, this Sheriff is probably more in sync with the intention of the Constitution than any of the 535 politicians on Capitol Hill… And I’m not just saying that because he happens to agree with me on gun rights. After all, he took an oath to uphold the Constitution – and he just stated that his county will not tolerate a federally-sponsored attempt to usurp those principles. Basically, he’s explaining that he did not take an oath to blindly allow the Federal government to impose its will on his fellow citizens. I guess I should be outraged that he’s promising to do his job?
American government is, after all, supposed to be designed to protect our individual rights. It seems to me that this Wicomico Sheriff is executing his duty with a rare-form of intellectual integrity. Too bad we can’t say the same thing about the statists in DC.