“The head of a nationwide sheriffs coalition is calling on Vermont’s law enforcement officers to defy three controversial gun control measures passed by Burlington voters three weeks ago,” foxnews.com reports. “‘Sheriffs have a constitutional duty to refuse to comply with such ordinances,’ said Richard Mack, president of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. ‘We’re seeing sheriffs in New York oppose the Safe Act and Gov. Cuomo. If we have sheriffs in New York doing this, how much more should we have sheriffs doing it in Vermont?'” Plenty? TTAG talked to Mr. Mack about the situation in Connecticut. First a little background on the Vermont kerfuffle . . .
On March 4, Burlington voters joined a push by elected officials throughout northeastern states to enact stiffer gun control measures. By a 2-to-1 margin, they banned the carry of firearms in bars and restaurants, authorized police to confiscate guns during domestic disputes and required gun owners to keep firearms locked up at home.
“It’s astonishing that people are so cavalier about violating the Second Amendment,” Mack said. “Burlington City Council sounds like they are just following the trend to do things that are entirely unconstitutional and go around sheriffs, and go around the laws, or subvert the laws, or disobey the laws.”
It’s hard – but not impossible – to imagine that Queen City anti-gun ordinances could provide the spark that ignites armed resistance to state-sponsored gun control. Connecticut – with its tens of thousands of Class D felons who have refused to register their “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” – is more likely to be ground zero for any sort of conflict.
So I asked Mack if he thinks Constitution State cops would obey an order to confiscate unregistered firearms from otherwise law-abiding gun owners. He does.
“I don’t trust the State Police,” Mack opined. “I don’t trust the police state. That’s all they have in Connecticut . . . They got rid of their sheriffs 14 years ago. They destroyed the constitutional ideal of the police as public servants answerable to the people.”
So . . what now?
“It’s a scary and unpredictable situation. Would it lead to the next civil war? An armed revolution?” Mack leaves the question hanging. “We’re trying to prevent it. We’re working hard to make sure it doesn’t happen. But the government keeps pushing us towards it. This is gonna happen if they don’t realize that they are the extremists and radicals, passing laws that violate the Constitution and strip Americans of their liberty.”
I asked Mack what gun rights supporters could do to help the cause of firearms freedom. He suggested joining his organization and recommends that Connecticut gun owners launch a referendum to reinstate sheriffs. Yeah, it’s that important.
“Sheriffs are the last line of defense,” Mack asserts. “If the sheriffs don’t stand for liberty, we’re going to lose. We’re going to continue to watch this country die.”