Previous Post
Next Post


“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,” 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.”

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “We’re going to continue to watch this country die.”

    Certain parts of the US are already circling the drain. And they want to spread their BS policies/law to other states, you can keep that sh!t to yourself, stay out of Arizona.

    • Too many laws. Too many restrictions. Sooner or later the cops will stop enforcing and/or citizens will rise up. Fricken politicians better think about this.

      I applaud and encourage every deputy/officer who refuses to enforce these unconstitutional laws.

    • Those states are failing because other states aren’t joining the program. Bribing people with freedom is corrupting the system they want to put in place. Once rights are stripped equally in all states the glorious revolution can continue and all will prosper equally.

  2. I was under the impression that Vermont had state pre-emption. Am I wrong on that? Won’t these city level laws will have to be removed anyway?

    • VT does have State preemption so the laws passed are invalid. That being said I appreciate what Richard Mack is saying but he is take the wrong approach in this specific case. Arguing instead for the invalidity of the laws is the stronger position.

      • According to what I’ve seen, it appears that Vermont state legislature would need to approve the ordinances before they could take effect, but it appears to be somewhat ambiguous whether the state legislature would be prevented by the state constitution from doing so. They may still not approve based on the politics of it, but that’s a different matter than constitutionality.

      • When an ordinance is so blatantly and unjustifiably contrary to both state and constitutional law, why should it even be enforced in the first place? I don’t see the point of relying on a (probably liberal) federal judge to make the right decision.

        • Perhaps the states can hold a referendum removing themselves from the federal government and joining a group that more closely represents their views. I’m sure Russia would welcome New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut into the fold.

    • I don’t know the answer, but the sooner New Hampshire puts up a wall between themselves and Vermont, the better.

    • As the president of the Gun Owners of Vermont I can fill you in. The voters of Burlington have voted on these 3 charter changes. We have a preemption law here so now Burlington is asking the Legislature permission to exempt them from state law. This will probably happen next year but at the moment we don’t know weather they will even take it up.

  3. I thought that Vermont had a preemption law that prohibited municipalities from passing their own gun laws. If that is indeed the case, then Burlington can go whistle!

    • So what do you propose we do? Continue to back a system that is inherently broken? Continue to pick the lesser of two evils? “Compromise”?

      Nope. This far and no further.

  4. Amazing the Burlington City Council still wants to pass unconstitutional laws despite the fact that the whole state of Vermont doesn’t get anywhere near the violence that other Northeastern states get.

  5. Burlington is a non-issue. The laws are just a symbolic nod to it’s progressive population. It’s a city full of progressive liberal college types who spend most of their time dreaming of unicorns and rainbows and how to make them a reality. It’s far removed from the problems of the rest of the country and thus, they make unconstitutional laws to counter a non-problem. Look at it from their perspective. The city council, their college moonbat professor constituants and the multitude of entitled, permanent students living there are scared shitless at being surrounded by a state that is for the most part, pro-gun. I am sure they go to bed at night dreaming of VT and Colombine style massacres perpetrated by the “country” folk ending their pot-smoking, theory generating lifestyle. So this is their counter measure, and it helps them sleep better. I’ve been to Burlington and it’s mostly filled with new-age hippies, women with hairy legs and cold weather.

  6. What does it matter, stand with us or stand against us…either way is a losing proposition…
    When the time is right, and enough is enough, the people will rise up, it is then, and only then, that choices will have to be made…

  7. While I don’t see sheriffs as the last line of defense, I’ll throw my hat in with any sheriff who respects the constitution. It’s heartening to see some members of law enforcement stand up against unconstitutional laws. We also have plenty of cops that will enforce the law to the “letter” (the NYPD a$$holes who arrested the Navy SEAL) and some who rewrite laws just so they can do raids (ATF).

    The armed citizen is the last line of defense, which is exactly why immoral and incompetent politicians (Obama, Feinstein, Pelosi et all) desperately want to disarm the populace. It is incumbent upon rational gun owners who are capable of independent thought to maintain the peace as long as possible. In the meantime, it behoove gun owners to support their industry and the cause of freedom. Vote with your dollars and exercise your rights. Stock up on supplies, but still live your life and love your family.

    Either we can show Obama and the tax ‘n spend statists the door or we as a nation will be in big trouble. Our current economic trajectory is headed for a fall on the scale of Ancient Rome, and we’ll lose Coldwar 2.0 handily.

    Meanwhile, Scott Walker has balanced the budget in WI and cut taxes by $504 million. He’s not a democrat. With that being said, Jerry Brown isn’t a half bad governor, all things considered.

  8. Here’s a thought; Sherriff’s deputies arrive at the homes of each city councilman who violated the constitution. Those councilmen get put in handcuffs in front of the media. Take the population of Burlington and use that number to calculate the number of civil rights charges. The population of Burlington is roughly 42,417 people, so each of those city council members would be charged with 42,417 civil rights violations. Perhaps there currently isn’t a law on the books with criminal penalties for civil rights violations. If that is the case, then one should be crafted with a flat fine of $5,000 (payable to the victim) and a six month prison sentence per violation. Be sure to annotate that all sentences are to be served consecutively and that no one is exempt from the law. I am pretty sure that 21,208.5 years in the county jail would, in this case, prevent any future abuses against the people.

    The same for city police officers who enforce any provision of the laws. Six months in the slammer and a $5,000 fine per violation.

  9. The Truth about People, revealed.
    “Confusion: The most natural state of each and every person.”
    “Rights: The most unnatural state of each and every person.”
    “Common Sense: The second most unnatural state of each and every person.”
    “Citizens: People who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, still believe they have ‘Rights’.”

    Clarification please.

    After all it is ‘their town’.
    The General Rule of ‘Mob Rule via Legislative Edict’ suggests that:
    ‘Voting’ to approve laws which effectively make it legal for agents of government to Immorally use force ( including GUNS ) while committing criminal acts and intentionally violating the ’Rights’ of the ‘other than them’ inhabitants of ‘their town’ is, of course — perfectly illogical and entirely consistent with the activities of people who quite obviously are wholly devoid of any semblance of ‘common sense’.
    Simple as that.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here