Sheriff Scott Berry, of Oconee County, Georgia, may or may not be affiliated with the Oath Keepers (active duty and retired military and law enforcement personnel who have taken an oath to disobey unconstitutional orders, with orders to disarm the American people listed first). Whether officially a member of Oath Keepers or not, a recent decision of his makes it clear that he embodies the same noble principles that drive that group.
Sheriff Berry, upon discovering that a local supplier of firearms and law enforcement gear would no longer sell semi-automatic rifles to non-law enforcement personnel, announced that his department would no longer spend taxpayers’ money at the store, and that he, personally, would no longer spend his money there. From the Atlanta Business Chronicle:
A north Georgia sheriff is drawing national attention following his boycott of Dana Safety Supply in Gwinnett County after the law enforcement supply company stopped selling assault weapons and semi-automatic rifles to anyone other than police.
The business said on Friday it would no longer sell the weapons to civilians, reports Atlanta Business Chronicle broadcast partner WXIA-TV.
Oconee County Sheriff Scott Berry told the station, “I’m not going to use our citizens’ taxpayer money or my personal money to buy anything from DSS, it’s really quite simple.”
In a Fox News interview (which cannot be embedded here), Sheriff Berry makes a superb case for his reasoning behind no longer supporting a retailer so willing to support a “government monopoly on force.”
A screen capture, hosted by Gun Save Lives, indicates that Dana Defense Supplies had already supported U.S. Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) wish for a “government monopoly on defense against violence.” Guns Save Lives also helpfully provides a list of companies associated with that ownership group, for anyone who wants to join Sheriff Berry’s boycott.
Sheriff Berry is not alone, with Hindsale County, Colorado Sheriff Ronald Bruce having expressed his support for his decision.
Unfortunately, not all active duty and retired law enforcement and military personnel are nearly as honorable as Sheriffs Berry and Bruce. Retired General Stanley McChrystal, for example, indicates in an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe program that he would back banning so-called “assault weapons”:
I personally don’t think there’s any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America.
And having (unilaterally) decided that there is not “any need for” a given firearm is apparently justification enough to ban it, in McChrystal’s eyes:
“We’ve got to take a serious look—I understand everyone’s desire to have whatever they want—but we’ve got to protect our children, we’ve got to protect our police, we’ve got to protect our population,” McChrystal said. “Serious action is necessary. Sometimes we talk about very limited actions on the edges and I just don’t think that’s enough.”
Interestingly, in describing how “deadly” so-called “assault weapons” are, McChrystal cited the muzzle velocity of the .223 Remington round. In a YouTube video, “TiborasaurusRex” points out that most popular hunting rounds are both higher velocity, and considerably larger. If the .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO round is to be banned as “too deadly,” hunters clearly need to disabuse themselves of the fantasy that their guns are safe regardless of what happens to “assault weapons.”
Police and military personnel may soon be forced to choose between the “government monopoly on force,” and the American people. May most choose wisely.
- Marine to Gun-grabber Di Feinstein: ‘No Ma’am’
- Dear Mr. Security Agent,