Quote of the Day: Just Say No Edition

“I made a vow and a commitment. As long as I am sheriff of this county, I will not allow the federal government to come in here and strip my citizens of the right to bear arms…. I can tell you this, if they attempt to do that, it will be an all-out civil war. No question about it.” – Wicomico County (Maryland) Sheriff Mike Lewis in Maryland Sheriff to Feds: Try and Take our Guns, And You’ll Get a Civil War (at tpnn.com)


  1. avatar Tom Collins says:

    Bravo! Sheriff Lewis is my hero for the day!

  2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I like this guy.

  3. avatar Shire-man says:

    Nice in theory but there is a lot of room to backpedal. Does it count if the list of prohibited persons just expands? Does it count if the state government does it or just the feds?

    That’s the problem with gun control. It comes in may waves of all shapes and sizes. Each of which has its very own set of supporters which occasionally includes many in the “come and take it” camp. Fudds come in all degrees. The thousand little cuts.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I don’t want to take away from the Sheriff’s statement but at the same time I must say that I agree with your post.

      Our county sheriff made a very similar statement to our militia and patriot groups in the last century.

      1. avatar JoshinNC says:

        Herein lies the problem. Individuals have differing opinions of what the 2A means. Most of the LEO’s I work with say they are 2A supporters, but they have different ideas of what is “appropriate” for “civilian” ownership. Some share a similar mindset to my own, others don’t. This seems to hold true even within our pro 2A group here. I believe there has to be a line drawn somewhere as to what citizens should be allowed to own, but where, and by who? Personally I believe our fore fathers laid this out pretty simply a long time ago with the early definitions of militia service. This will continue to be debated until the end of time.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

          It looks to me like the line is clear enough for most to see that government currently violates it ; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I don’t completely disagree with your post but I’ve never heard a lion express its 2A support.

        2. avatar JoshinNC says:

          I think you and I see eye to eye on what our rights are. I believe the 2A is quite clear. It’s the large amount of “I support the 2A but… ” crowd I was referring to. There are varying degrees of those types of individuals, and varying reasons for there “buts”. There are a lot of deferent interpretations of the 2A, even amongst supporters. My definition of “a line drawn somewhere” would be my neighbor keeping a stockpile of AT4’s in his garage.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Yes sir, we do see eye to eye. Although our “lines” aren’t quite the same, they are much closer than mainstream and non-statists. My post wasn’t so much in disagreement with yours. Rather, it was more of a statement that I believe those that cannot see the line clearly probably don’t want to for some reason or another. The most common, IMHO, is unrecognized fear. They fear the risks inherent in being a free people.

        4. avatar JoshinNC says:

          ^ +1

          …my neighbor just lives too close. ;]

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sounded pretty clear to me. Reiterating the same idea under different circumstances, emphasizing over and over, seems to sound like an extremist fruitcake. The kind of questions you suggest sounds like probing by a gun grabber trying to figure out how to get around a perfectly clear declaration. He said it. Leave it be. Only thing I would have added is that it would be a war of the armed against the unarmed, and if that does not sound like a threat, you might want o reread it.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        I don’t understand your post LarryinTx

      2. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        I don’t know this Sheriff, so I’ll cheer his sentiment. But it’s good to keep in mind that judges, politicians, and even gun control activists all say they support second amendment RTKBA. That phrase seems to have different meaning to different people, even among those who are not merely mouthing the words to get votes. Regardless, unless King Obama tries to do something through royal decree, MD seems to be a far bigger threat to residents’ RTKBA than are the Feds, at least for now.

  4. avatar Michael B. says:


  5. avatar Gene says:

    Did he testify against the latest wave of anti-freedom legislation? You know, the ones where the MD lawmakers played solitaire or slept through. (And yea, one was caught on camera playing solitaire, iirc)

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      My guess is if he was even allowed in the chamber he was prevented from testifying. As was the head of the State Police, who was to testify as to the uselessness of the then-proposed law.

  6. avatar Bob72 says:

    Nearly all the police officers I know are pro-2nd amendment, but there are a few police officers in the US with political aspirations that hate the 2nd amendment. When there are members of the law enforcement community who are willing to standup against tyranny, we need to make sure they know that We The People appreciate it. We need to rally behind them and support them. If he has an election coming up, donate. Send a letter of support. If you live there, ask the Sheriffs office if you can volunteer.

  7. avatar Fuque says:

    Sure, Looks great in print, and sounds great for re-election….But this is Maryland so… he is talking a lot of smack.

    1. avatar SleeStac says:

      In MD, if you get away from Baltimore and DC, the pop is fairly conservative. Too bad there aren’t more of them.

    2. avatar Another Robert says:

      I had a similar thought. In MD, you don’t have to wait for the Feds to strip your 2A rights, the state gov will happily do it.

  8. avatar The Brotherhood of Steel says:

    Hell yeah. Allot in the LE community are like this. Remember how many came out and said similar things during the panic.

    1. avatar S.CROCK says:

      Especially in CO.

  9. avatar Bunny says:

    Most of the police officers I’ve met fall along the lines of, “everybody should have the right to carry a gun to defend themselves, but I firmly believe no citizen needs more than 10rds”.

    Their degree of Anti is almost never as bad as politicians unless they are running for sheriff. None the less their is still a group of special people who get to have special guns that normal citizens don’t need. It’s a step in the right direction, but still infringing on my rights.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      I say have your 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 30, 40, and 100 round mags, and enjoy the hell out if them as long as you do so responsibly.

      1. avatar Jake says:

        Who defines responsibility?

        1. avatar Yellow Devil says:

          Them I suppose when they have to respond and mop up the scene of failure afterwards.

    2. avatar SleeStac says:

      I’ve read plenty of bad stories about people’s interaction with law enforcement and guns, but the small number of times I’ve dealt with the law regarding guns, they were extremely reasonable and supportive of the right to carry. Maybe I’ve just been lucky.

  10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Now if we could just get the other 3,147 County Sheriffs in the United States on board …

    1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

      Or at least in the blue states. Here in NJ sheriffs and police officers are not your friends and for the most part they are not gun guys (they don’t care about the 2A). They joined the police to be enforcers and to be in that privileged “above the law” group of our society, where they can do anything they want with impunity. Sure, I’ve heard about one or two cops from anecdotal accounts who hold the same view as this MD sheriff, but these cops are exceptions in blue states. The sad truth is that the mentality of most blue state residents, cops and officials is very liberal, meaning very anti-gun. If you tell them that your gun rights are protected under the 2A, they’ll just be unsure what you’re speaking of and they’ll look at you funny. But who knows, if MD can have a good sheriff, maybe we’ll get one in NJ, especially in North Jersey, who actually knows what the 2A stands for.

      1. avatar Craig says:

        Problem with this line of thinking is the assumption that “blue state” police are elected. In Southern New England (Mass, CT, RI), police chiefs are hired by the town. Counties have no governments of their own. In RI, Sheriffs are simply the state-hired cops who serve papers and transport people to the courthouses and back to jail. Not sure what a sheriff does in Mass or CT.

  11. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Americans, sheriffs included, toss around that term “civil war” with the insouciance of a people whose living population has never had to endure the real thing. It’s a nice expression of position, though I absolutely would not want to see it come to pass. Still, there’s a lot a time, space, and, most of all, force, between push and shove; the latter stage of which has been known to reveal a certain pliability to people’s espoused principles. So we’ll see. Good going, Sheriff, and keep it up.

  12. avatar stateisevil says:

    Soooooooo……. would his deputies arrest me for carrying in Maryland without an Md permit? What if I had newly banned “assault rifles”? To ask the question is to answer it.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Here is my litmus test: absent any criminal activity, will his deputies arrest me if I have a loaded handgun or long gun sitting on the seat next to me in my car as I drive through his county?

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Probably not, since they don’t have x-ray vision. But the MTA cops (i.e., “tunnel rats”) will in a heartbeat.

  13. avatar JT says:

    He mentions the federal government, what about the state government? They are more of a threat to the people in his county at the moment.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      Yep I don’t think Maryland folks need the feds to worry about gun rights…

      1. avatar Bob Wall says:

        They need to worry about the surge of liberals in the Montgomery, PG, Howard and Frederick Counties. The Maryland Eastern Shore is a very pro-2A part of the state, but doesn’t have the votes.

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Same with the western part of the state. And add MOCO and northern AA County to the list. The loons there are able to shout down the rest of the state on everything.

          But just wait until the Rain Tax takes effect.

  14. avatar Frank Masotti says:

    I agree with him, would go help if this happens. Stand by the citizens of Wicomico County if this does come to pass.

  15. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    Sheriffs in most places are pro 2A (esp if the state has shall issue CCW laws on the books – exception is Chicago but even that nut job will get replaced. Eventually). They are elected and want to retain their jobs. Police chiefs are appointed. They do what their boss (da Mayor) says or they suddenly look for new opportunities. It is that simple.

  16. avatar Rab says:

    Talking proud and all about the feds is all well and good, but the real threat is at the state level. Is he ignoring state laws that are unconstitutional?

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      He and many other sheriffs in the Formerly Free State are, and have said so. That must make OweMalley livid.

  17. avatar Paco says:


    Saw this today, and all the talk of the 2A protecting the remaining rights, including the 1stA is a moot point. We have allowed the Bill of Rights to be shredded, while our soldiers allegedly fought and died for our freedoms overseas. The United States is a (former)nation of slaves with guns.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      The United States is a (former) nation of subjects with guns.


      1. avatar Paco says:

        Subjects, slaves….semantics. I say slaves.

  18. avatar mk10108 says:

    The stupidest thing I’ve every heard from a man wearing a uniform.

    “there will be civil war” yeah right….a statement for none other than votes. “there will be civil war” but only after I retire and suckle the government tit, provided by the taxpayers for the rest of my life for that fabricated injury I got while on duty, years ago.

    This guy will trade your rights for his pension…in a heartbeat

    1. avatar Lucas D. says:

      It’s good that you know the guy well enough to make such an authoritative call about his motivations.

  19. avatar Jared says:

    What a hack sheriff. The Federal Government isn’t coming for our guns. That’s quite obvious now. NY, NJ, CA, and MARYLAND do want to come for people’s guns.

    So what is he doing about nullifying the crap coming out of Annapolis?

    Is he deputizing people so they can carry under LEOSA since Maryland never issues permits?

  20. avatar Bob Wall says:

    I wish him the best, especially since his governor is O’Mullet, a Nancy Pelosi with a smaller pecker.

  21. avatar John Boch says:

    But Maryland State Troopers?

    The land where people get arrested and prosecutors seek almost four years in prison for carrying with a PA permit…


    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      That’s NJ. Read a paper.

  22. avatar former water walker says:

    Nice in theory. My 40 year old son lives in Maryland. 12miles from Baltimore. Works for DOD. And he thinks the gun laws are great. Ex-military who was in harms way. And there are a lot of folks who agree with him in Maryland. Like Cook County,Illinois(where I live). I’ve quit discussing 2A with him. I also pray my granddaughters are safe. At least in Illinois things are better…

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Let me guess – Anne Arundel or Howard County. Both have large, vocal liberal enclaves. The Martians have been saturating the area with crazy rays for decades.

      1. avatar former water walker says:

        Nope jus bill…lives in an unincorporated town right in Baltimore county. Voted one of the best places to live in America 🙂

  23. avatar Robert Inguaggiato says:

    All sounds good but actions speak louder then words my friend.

  24. avatar Kyle says:

    While I love gun rights-protecting law enforcement, I think it is going overboard and not conducive to the cause to make claims about civil wars and so forth breaking out if the Feds come to take people’s guns.

  25. avatar Ralph says:

    No, mass gun confiscation will not lead to civil war — which would require a high degree of coordination and collaboration — but it might lead to the creation of a new class of armed lawbreakers and a bunch of dead gun confiscators.

    A couple of armed men at an obscure place in Idaho changed the nature of gun rights in America and exposed the government for the criminal enterprise that it is. What could be accomplished by even 1000 Randy Weavers?

    I’m sure that the government doesn’t want to know. Frankly, neither do I.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      In Western Maryland (especially the “Panhandle”) they could tie the gummint in knots with a guerrilla campaign. In Wicomico County (and the Eastern Shore in general) they’d have to hide behind the road signs.

  26. avatar rlc2 says:

    Spent some time in the MD area at Canoe U in the 70s. Lots of good folks outside of the cities.
    Thank you Sheriff.

  27. avatar Publius says:

    The problem being that Sheriff Mikey is an elected official and will say anything to get re-elected. What happens in reality doesn’t necessarily reflect promises from a politician.

  28. avatar John from Marylandistan says:

    Eastern shore, and Western Maryland might as well be part of Delaware and WV respectively. The attitudes of most of those residents are opposite of what comes out of Annapolis. Unfortunately for all of us, the strongholds of liberal ignorance such as Baltimore, Baltimore County, Montgomery County, Howard County and Prince Georges County, rule us all.

    I believe the sheriff is sincere in his belief. His statement however could have been thought out a little better.

  29. avatar Dan says:

    Maybe this sheriff means it and maybe he’s just huffing and puffing. Won’t know for sure till the first time a fed shows up to take someone’s guns. Then we find out what he’s truly made of. One thing for certain though is that this sheriff is a marked man. Next time he is up for reelection he will face MASSIVE opposition funded and coordinated by all sorts of groups at the behest of the feds in an effort to remove him from office for having the temerity to say what he did regardless of whether or not he meant it. ANYONE who opposes the regime WILL BE DEALT WITH.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email