According to delmarvanow, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is attempting to strip the teaching certificate of Wicomico County Sheriff Mike Lewis because of his comments on gun control efforts.
The harassment is generated because Sheriff Lewis stated that he would uphold his oath to the Constitution of the United States and not allow the federal government to strip gun owners in his county.
He is quoted:
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.
Sheriff Lewis stated that the Second Amendment does not come up in training and their concentration is on the Fourth Amendment.
The Sheriff goes into detail about hunting in his area including the hunting he has done. However hunting is not protected by the Second Amendment. Hunting is protected by the Ninth Amendment.
The Coalition has collected 1,400 signatures through an online petitions to present to the Maryland Police Training Commission. Like voter fraud prevalent in elections, online petitions are easy to fake and are generally used to collect emails for spam. They are largely ignored by Congress.
Ladd Everitt, director of communications for the Washington-based gun control group, was quoted as saying:
When you employ violence against your government essentially to effect policy decisions, you are damaging the principle of political equality.
Everitt did not comment on the recent comment by Joe Biden, Vice-President of the United States, that he is praying for another shooting of a high profile victim to further the gun control agenda.
The founders took a different view from Everitt. In Federalist Paper No. 29, Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions.
The National Guard is not the militia, but a branch of the United States Army. The Constitution does not allow the militia to be used outside of the borders of the United States. Though some of the soldiers in the National Guard have shown in the past that they are not willing to disarm American citizens.
The founders believed that (From No. 29):
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
It is quite clear that the founders believed that a milita armed equal to any standing army—which includes DHS, FBI, EPA and all of the other standing armies in the federal government—was necessary for liberty and freedom. According to the Constitution, the militia is also to be used to protect the borders against invasion.
It is also clear that the object of the militia was to protect the rights of their fellow legal Untied States citizens and not to suppress them.