Personal Liberty Digest™ will be upgraded this weekend to reflect a dynamic new look and mobile-friendly viewing to enhance your experience! Plus, we'll be providing even more of the compelling content you've come to expect, delivered in a whole new way!

  Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Florida Governor Suspends Sheriff For Standing Up For 2nd Amendment

June 10, 2013 by  

Florida Governor Suspends Sheriff For Standing Up For 2nd Amendment
LIBERTY COUNTY COMMISSION
Liberty County, Fla. Sheriff Nick Finch

Republican Florida Governor Rick Scott has suspended the sheriff of the State’s least-populous county after he allegedly set free a man who’d been arrested for possessing a weapon without a permit.

Nick Finch, sheriff of Liberty County near the State’s Alabama-Georgia border, faces a 3rd-degree felony charge for official misconduct after evidently destroying or altering the paper trail that began when one of his deputies brought in a motorist who had two handguns in his car.

The motorist, Floyd Parrish, didn’t have a concealed-carry permit and was subsequently charged with carrying a concealed deadly weapon. Car carry is legal in Florida for those without a conceal-carry permit, but the law stipulates such firearms must be securely encased or  not readily accessible for immediate use – two stipulations which Parrish allegedly didn’t meet when he was pulled over in Liberty County.

Parrish stayed in jail until Sheriff Finch arrived, accompanied by the suspect’s brother. Finch allegedly spoke to both men about the incident before ordering that the charges be dropped and Parrish be released.

According to the JCFloridian, Finch allegedly told the deputy who’d arrested Parrish that he “believed in 2nd Amendment rights” and instructed jail staff to return his confiscated firearms.

But the Florida Department of Law Enforcement learned of the incident, which occurred in March, and obtained an arrest warrant for Finch. He was arrested and booked into the Liberty County jail last week before being released on his own recognizance. Gov. Scott has since suspended Finch and temporarily installed a regional agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement as acting sheriff.

Finch’s arrest for exercising his judgment in protecting another citizen’s Constitutional freedom has drawn anger from both locals and 2nd Amendment advocates throughout the U.S.

One Liberty County man said Finch may have been a sitting duck among longtime power brokers in a good old boy network,“[s]ince he’s considered what people consider an outsider and not from Liberty County, that they finally railroaded him out. In my personal opinion he was doing his job and people didn’t like it.”

Though Finch has not commented on his arrest, his attorney has said it’s ridiculous to construe the sheriff’s actions as anything but proper defense of his constituents’ Constitutional rights.

“The records at the jail show exactly what happened in this case and the records speak the truth. The sheriff looked at the facts and said ‘I believe in the second amendment and we’re not going to charge him.’ That is not misconduct at all. That is within the Sheriff’s prerogative whether to charge someone or not,” said attorney Jimmy Judkins.

Dean Garrison of DC Clothesline agrees:

With so many Sheriff’s offices making strong pro-2nd Amendment stands in 2013 this is a situation that was bound to happen. The Sheriff had every right not to charge this man. The 2nd Amendment of the constitution should supercede any Florida law. “Shall Not Be Infringed” still means something to men like Nick Finch.

The whole case will surely become about the documents. If Nick Finch destroyed the documents they will make an example of him for all of us to see. They have been waiting for this opportunity. This case will not be prosecuted to the extent that Nick Finch did not understand the 2nd Amendment. They will try to get him on a technicality.

Pro-2nd Amendment law enforcement officials all over the country need to take note. They are looking for any backdoor they can to try to shut you down. This story should be national news soon. My hope is that Finch did not destroy the documents and this case can be heard on its real merits.

Nick Finch was elected sheriff of Liberty, a county of only 8,400 people, in November of last year.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Florida Governor Suspends Sheriff For Standing Up For 2nd Amendment”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Darral

    Governor Rick Scott has identified himself to be a RINO. Gun Control is Treason, read Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. essay, Dare call it Treason, Call it what it is TREASON,. Florida is not the only state going after Law enforcement for standing up for Constitutional rights of the American people, law enforcement in Democratic controlled states are under attack as well, Abolish this Destructive Treasonous Democratic party.

    • PRO UNLICESNSED CONTRACTOR

      The republican party is dog [expletive deleted] too… We need Libertarians in office.

  • Ped Xing

    Poor journalism, Mister Bullard.

    In your second paragraph you state that Sheriff Finch is facing a misconduct charge after “evidently destroying or altering the paper trail” which leads back to the arrest of Mister Floyd Parrish—no small indiscretion, especially when you consider the history of the locale in which the incident occurred.

    Later, you use quotes from attorney Jimmy Jacobs that the records—at least from the time Mr Parrish arrived at the jail “speak the truth”.

    I was a journalist forty years ago and no real journalist would walk away from such a potentially ground-breaking story—complete with Supreme Court implications!—having not spoken with the people or looked at the records involved. And this regards an arrest made on the Eighth of March! Been sleepin’ on this one, Ben?

    Mr Parrish was arrested for not even being in compliance with the dangerously loose Florida concealed carry law. It is alleged that there were two improperly secured and/or easily accessible weapons in his vehicle.

    Gun addicts make their case based on a very liberal interpretation of the awkwardly-worded Second Amendment, that is, that any regulation on firearms is an infringement on constitutional right. If that SAME amendment includes the easily-understood phrase “well-regulated”, how is it that you nuts can see no room for negotiation? (Here, please, do not go all “Rights are non-negotiable” on me—as though you were on moral high ground—I read the PLD nearly every day and most of you very clearly indicate that rights are not only negotiable, but deniable to boot!)

    Earlier, I commented on the particular area of the country involved, the confluence of three rivers with histories of Intolerance and Stupidity—Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. I bring this up because law enforcement personnel in those backwards places have an unfortunate tendency to lose or alter official records when it is suitable to their woefully-unenlightened worldview.

    Since i am unable to locate any photographs of Mr Parrish, I sniff a possible Fright Wing ruse—get the people to clamor about “White cops protecting White people” and then trot out a Black Mr Parrish to somehow illustrate that gun addiction runs throughout our entire society and, much more importantly, that advocates of sensible gun restriction are hysterically Pavlovian in knee-jerk reaction to News From the South.

    So, Ben Bullard, you’ve certainly come a long way from your days at the old “community newspaper”. Too bad you do not have the savvy journalistic instinct to along with the Big Step Up, picking a tidbit from the World Wide Interweb and rehashing what others have said rather than digging in hard and maybe earning a Pullet Surprise…

    • JOHN

      It’s nut jobs like you who will lose the Bill Of Rights.Substitute the word free press for Gun and see how quick you are to flush the second amendment.DO YOU NEED A PERMIT TO GO TO CHURCH OR READ A NEWSPAPAER?i AM A GUN ADDICT AND A FREE PRESS ADDICT AS ALL AMERICANS SHOULD BE.

      • Wizzardly

        But it’s not about the The 1st Amendment, nor even the 2nd. It’s about the rule of law which is absolutely necessary for a constitutional republic to function. And Mr. Parish broke the law. If you don’t like the law, work to change it. The Sheriff acted in an extra-legal manner. This should have been settled in court, not the Sheriff’s office or the Governor’s office. What concerns me most is that the Governor was able to can the Sheriff without due process. If that is possible, then we cannot rely on our local Sheriffs to protect us from state and federal extra-legal activity, such as prohibiting all firearms ownership.

        • garygerke

          The rule of law in this case is illegal…you need to read the 2nd amendment again!!!!!!!

        • Average_Joe56

          The last time I checked, the Constitution is still the “Rule of Law” in America. Any law (public policy) that is not construed in harmony with the Constitution…is in fact…NOT law and need not be obeyed.

          • Wellarmed

            Thank you Average Joe 56! It is not that hard to understand, and the fact that this person may vote truly frightens me.

          • Wizzardly

            Agreed, especially “…not construed in harmony with the constitution”… And once a law is adjudged – in the legal system, not in our personal judgement – to be unconstitutional, it is no longer enforceable. But until that happens, it is still enforceable law. We may individually decide a law is unconstitutional and refuse to obey it, but we do so willing to accept the consequences of not obeying it (that’s what the Founders meant by pledging their “lives, fortunes and sacred honor” when they disobeyed the King’s laws). The alternative – being able to break any law we decide is unconstitutional without consequences – is anarchy. Yes, I’ve read the 2nd Amendment, and hosted discussion forums on the protections of the Constitution at the college level (you would be astounded at the ignorance of young people on the protections afforded them by the Constitution), but a law passed by our representatives, even one as blatantly stupid as NY’s ban on more than 7 rounds in a 10-round magazine, is still binding on us until we change it. Unfortunately, changing stupid laws, like the onslaught of firearm idiocy being legislated in NJ and already passed in Colorado, is a lot harder than the collective “we-gotta-do something” pubic hysteria that gets them passed.

            But, as per my original post, my biggest concern in the Sheriff Finch case is that his Governor overrode him without appropriate judicial authority or review. That means that the Governor can rule by fiat, which puts us all at great risk.

            Addendum: review of local ordinances and Sheriff Department procedures shows that Sheriff Finch did have the authority to release Mr. Parish and remove any record of his incarceration. The Governor, however did not have authority to remove the Sheriff without judicial imprimatur.

          • Average_Joe56

            Jurisdiction is the key….period. Until you understand jurisdiction, you are trapped in the system…I have no such problem.

            “Every system of civilized law must have two characteristics: Remedy and Recourse. Remedy is a way to get out from under that law, and you recover your loss. The Common Law, the Law of Merchants, and even the Uniform Commercial Code all have remedy and recourse, but for a long time we could not find them. If you go to a law library and ask to see the Uniform Commercial Code, they will show you a shelf of books completely filled with the Uniform Commercial Code. When you pick up one volume and start to read it, it will seem to have been intentionally written to be confusing. It took us a long time to discover where the Remedy and Recourse are found in their UCC. They are found right in the first volume, at 1-308 (old 1-207) and 1-103.”

            Read more at:
            http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=128747

          • vicki

            Once again an unconstitutional law is null and void FROM INCEPTION. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.
            http://constitution.org/uslaw/16amjur2nd.htm

            Unfortunately there is no punishment of government agents who were “just following orders” while they force unconstitutional law upon us.

            Now as to determining the constitutionality of a law we also have Jury Nullification (fija.org) thus we do not have to wait for some far away group of 9 justices to determine what is plain as the nose on our face.

        • vicki

          Mr Parish broke no law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and it clearly states that we may NOT delegate to government the power to infringe on the right to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms. Any legislation giving such power to government is null and void from inception.

      • vicki

        or even to keep and carry a newspaper?

    • CongressWorksForUs

      Umm… “well regulated” in the 1700s didn’t mean what it means today.

      Back then it simply meant “well trained”.

      But then your lack of understanding of that easy-to-understand phrase, shows that you’re nothing but a liberal troll.

      • Average_Joe56

        Please read my reply to Alex above….
        “Well regulated” has no bearing on this conversation, nor on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.

      • PRO UNLICESNSED CONTRACTOR

        Liberal means someone who seeks freedom look it up dude. You are using it incorrectly. You are a liberal lol You want your civil liberties don’t ya? You like the freedom of the constitution right? Come on! Stop misusing the word!!! It’s a great word and stems from the word LIBERTY!!!

        • vicki

          Classical liberal means as you say. But a bunch of authoritarians have taken over the name liberal which is why the libertarians came into existence. It does make discussion confusing though. But that is the nature of Babylon.

      • vicki

        well regulated STILL means well trained.

        http://thesaurus.com/browse/well-regulated

    • Average_Joe56

      “Gun addicts make their case based on a very liberal interpretation of the awkwardly-worded Second Amendment, that is, that any regulation on firearms is an infringement on constitutional right. If that SAME amendment includes the easily-understood phrase “well-regulated”, how is it that you nuts can see no room for negotiation? (Here, please, do not go all “Rights are non-negotiable” on me—as though you were on moral high ground—I read the PLD nearly every day and most of you very clearly indicate that rights are not only negotiable, but deniable to boot!)”

      Here, let me spell it out for “YOU”…( a person who claims to have been a journalist, but has no understanding of the proper use of the English language).

      As passed by the Congress:

      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.

      The statement: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state,”
      is often misunderstood to mean that you need to be in a militia in order to own firearms. Well, point in-fact, every male of draft age who is of sound body and mind is considered a member of the “unorganized militia” according to the law, but that’s irrelevant, because the second statement:
      “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
      is the important part. This statement is the crux of the amendment and ensures that the individual right to bear arms is not infringed upon. Now, the way this sentence is constructed (in total), the right of the people allows for the well-regulated militia. The militia is a byproduct of the right to bear arms, not a prerequisite. Here is the grammatical break down from the prof:
      [ Copperud:] The words “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ” militia,” which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject “the right,” verb “shall”). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
      In reply to your numbered questions:
      [Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
      [ Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
      [Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
      [ Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
      [Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
      [ Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
      [Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
      [ Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
      [Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase " well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
      [ Copperud:] (5) The phrase means “subject to regulations of a superior authority”; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
      [Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
      [ Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.”
      [Schulman:] As a “scientific control” on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
      “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
      My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
      (1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
      (2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” – for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
      [ Copperud:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
      (2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

      Got it?

      Roy Herman Copperud, a professor of journalism and an authority on the use of the English language.

      Now, please argue with Mr. Copperud and allow us to gauge the depths of your ignorance concerning ” a very liberal interpretation of the awkwardly-worded Second Amendment’
      Don’t buy a vowel, buy a clue……

      • Bob666

        Joe,
        As we both know-living here in Florida, if you have a gun in your procession and you do not have a carry permit, it must be secured if you are in a vehicle.

        There has been a gun in my glove compartment for over twenty-years and that glove compartment is locked-which meets the Florida standards.

        There are some details missing in this piece, but that law here in Florida has been in effect for as long as I can remember.

        As far as Our Governor-I look forward to helping him into retirement in the next election.

        • Average_Joe56

          Yes, I agree with your post. My survey trucks all had a gun in the glove box (swamps, and the occasional irate neighbor, demanded it). All of my crew chiefs had to take a firearms safety course yearly and all had a concealed carry permits.(personally, I am all for… open carry).

          My reply above was in response to Alex’s’ rant concerning our “liberal interpretation” of the 2nd Amendment.

          While he claims to be a former journalist, he shows no understanding of English grammar. So, I quoted from a reliable Journalist of integrity (bio available online)…to clarify the matter for him.

          So many people quote the “Militia” clause, while ignoring the main portion of the Amendment, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms; Shall not be infringed” altogether. The Militia is not a prerequisite for owning firearms…..Firearm ownership is the prerequisite in order to have a militia.

          • vicki

            One of the most fun things to do to liberals when they bring up the argument that you have to be in the militia to have a gun is to direct them to 10 USC § 311 and then observe their consternation when faced with its quite clear definitions.

        • DavBow

          Bob666, if the law states that the gun must be made from bubblegum, it is still a violation of the 2nd Amendment, as is any law that restrict (infringes) that amendment. State or local laws that restrict the 2nd Amendment are not Constitutional, and the Sheriff, who vowed to uphold the Constitution, is within his rights to do what the Sheriff did in this case.

      • Ped Xing

        According to Average Joe, the term “shall not be infringed” with regard to the Right to Bear Arms is sacrosanct and therefore Charles Manson, Colin Ferguson, and even Dick Cheney—who shot his friend’s face off!—should STILL be allowed to own guns.

        Now, obviously the first two cases involve men serving time in prison and only an insane person would believe those behind bars should retain access to weapons. Which brings me back to Average Joe. She or he wants the Second Amendment to be read and interpreted exactly as it was written and, exactly as it is written it contains NO criteria for the denial of the Right.

        So here Avg Joe and those who “think” like her or him will quickly allow the first restrictive incursion onto the “perfect” amendment. Hey, that only makes sense—it would be absurd to arm those who are incarcerated. Again, this shows that their blessed and unequivocal Right may, indeed, be trampled upon by the powers that be. Here the Average Gun Addict will quickly counter that those in prison have, at least for the time that they are locked up, forfeited their Rights and thus placed themselves, in the Constitutional sense, on a similar level as Negroes (who as the perfect Constitution says are only three-fifths Human).

        Alright, we’ll concede that the Floundering Fathers—slave owners Hell-bent on Genocide, Theft, Ethnic Cleansing, Forced Relocation, and Forced Labor—really meant to exclude those in prison from bearing arms. Just a bit of a patina on your once sterling Second Amendment….

        Where, then, in the Constitution does it say that once convicts are set free they still may not own weapons? Where? You may now point to Federal and State laws enacted to prohibit certain people from possessing weapons, but that only sifts more dust atop the thickening layer of ambiguity and contradiction that so effectively dulls your perfectly-worded and unassailable Right.

        Now let’s take a look at the aforementioned Dick Cheney and his continued Constitutional access to weapons. This man is a currently unindicted War Criminal with very serious health issues who once shot his best friend in the face in a drunken stupor and disappeared for 24 hours to sober up and evade proper investigation. According to Average Joe’s very liberal interpretation of the Constitution, Cheney should still be allowed to possess Weapons of Mass Delusion.

        What about the racist on the bus who loudly says, over and over, “I’d like to go back home and get some guns and kill every White person I see!”. While threatening in manner, to be sure, this person has made no overt threat to anyone, but merely voiced a DESIRE to do great harm. Suppose a fellow passenger alerts authorities who detain the person and determine that she or he broke no law and hand the person over to mental health workers who assess the person to be perfectly sane, if a bit angry. This person, according to gun addicts like Average Joe, should be able to proceed from the doors of either the Jail or the Psych Ward straight to Wal-Mart, select any number of guns and pay for them while informing the clerk, “I would just love to walk through this store and shoot every single White person I see. Give me six boxes of 9mm ammo with that, to go….”

        Younger generations than my own see the light, as polls show a strong trend toward sensible gun restriction and change in this regard is inevitable. Thank God!

        Eight years of President Hillary Rodham Clinton will see some of the less-Enlightened Supremes replaced by sensible jurists with an eye toward a sustainable future and they will correctly emphasize the clause “well-regulated” over the “shall not be infringed” bit, which as I have clearly proven, HAS BEEN infringed upon, many, many times.

        Game. Set. Match.

        • Ped Xing

          Ooops, forgot….

          My first post dealt with guns only on a peripheral basis; the point I wanted to make was to indicate the lack of journalistic fervor, if not professionalism, on the part of Mister Bullard.

          Will no one address that? Probably not, because the vast majority of PLD readers exhibit a comically high tolerance for poor writing.

          • Average_Joe56

            “Probably not, because the vast majority of PLD readers exhibit a comically high tolerance for poor writing.”
            And we are very appreciative of your efforts…..
            We thank you…… for the comedic relief and poor writing. Keep up the good work!.
            Consider it addressed…..

          • vicki

            We also like it that alex displays his mode of thinking for all to see.

        • Average_Joe56

          Wow, All of that diatribe and yet you say nothing….

          Who would have imagined?

          Game. Set. Match.?

          Hardly. You offer nothing but your opinion (and we all know about those. right?)

          I offer you the truth ( written in the Constitution and easily verified)…you reply with opinion and stupidity…and you think you’ve won something? Parting gifts are available at the door. Enjoy your box of crackers “Polly”.

          BTW, what color is the sky in Utopia?

          If you want my guns…come and get them…….Remember…I said YOU….

          In the meantime, please remember: If you don’t like what the 2nd Amendment says, there is a procedure in place to change it….it’s called “Constitutional Amendment”. Until that happens, the 2nd Amendment is still “the Law of the Land”…. and “Shall not be infringed” still means…”Shall not be infringed”…deal with it…….. foolish one.

          • Ped Xing

            Average Schmoe—PUH-leeze!

            I made very valid points about restrictions, revisions, etc, heaped upon the Right you see as sacrosanct in the supposed simplicity of its wording!

            Please address the ‘stupidity’ you perceive in my missive on a point-by-point basis.

          • Average_Joe56

            I don’t need to address anything other than the Law (Constitution)…you need to show a valid reason why the Constitution should be ignored and violated…without a Constitutional Amendment changing it…..once again, if you don’t like it…change it…properly.

          • vicki

            you made no such points.

        • vicki

          Long list of argument to ridicule. No useful counter to the simple fact that there is no restriction on the RIGHT of the people to KEEP (posses) and Bear (carry) arms.

          • Ped Xing

            The point I have been trying to make….ONE of the points that I have been trying to make… is that there is already, even amongst the majority of the gun-addicted, tacit approval for at least some sort of infringement upon to right of the People to keep and bear arms.

            Should Brenda Ann Spencer ever be released from prinson—as she most likely will be—according to you she should have the right to go and buy ten fully-automatic sub-machine-guns and all of the hollow point bullets she desires.

            You would agree I am sure, vicki, that Ms Spencer should never be allowed to reside or come within X number of yards of an elementary school. You could rightfully argue that that this schoolyard restriction was fit considering the crime she committed. Everything you have written that I recall reading indicates that, like the unwavering Evangelist who sees ALL the Bible as unimpeachable truth (howl funny is that!!), you accept the most-liberal interpretation imaginable, that is, that once Ms Spencer or any other mass-shooter ‘serves’ her or his time, that EXMASS-SHOOTER is again entitled to the Weapon{s} of Choice, in whichever number and type the now-free she or he please.

            And that, vicki, is absolute insanity…

          • vicki

            The point I have been trying to make….ONE of the points that I have been trying to make… is that there is already, even amongst the majority of the gun-addicted, tacit approval for at least some sort of infringement upon to right of the People to keep and bear arms.

            The Bill of rights is not subject to majority rule.

            Should Brenda Ann Spencer ever be released from prinson—as she most
            likely will be—according to you she should have the right to go and
            buy ten fully-automatic sub-machine-guns and all of the hollow point
            bullets she desires.

            If she served her time then yes. However I note that Miss Spencer committed cold blooded murder. Why is she still alive?

            You would agree I am sure, vicki, that Ms Spencer should never be allowed to reside or come within X number of yards of an elementary school. You could rightfully argue that that this schoolyard restriction was fit considering the crime she committed

            See my comment above about murder.

            …once Ms Spencer or any other mass-shooter ‘serves’ her or his time, that EXMASS-SHOOTER is again entitled to the Weapon{s} of Choice,
            in whichever number and type the now-free she or he please.

            If the person has served their time then yes. I note that the proper time served for murder is life in prison (no matter how short or long that life might be)

            And that, vicki, is absolute insanity…

            Argument to ridicule.

            Now for amusement let us discuss the 800 lb gorilla in the room. Since we have stopped denying the victims the right to keep and bear arms, people like your Ms Spencer would be neutralized when they try their attack. Since most of them are not stupid they would think multiple times before executing their attack.

            The rest would suffer the fate reserved for stupid.

    • PRO UNLICESNSED CONTRACTOR

      I’m sick and tired of needing a license or permit for everything I do. I just don’t think it’s necessary. If I want to carry a gun that’s my business and I shouldn’t need a permit for it. We live in a dangerous world and people are naturally more polite when they don’t know who’s got guns and who doesn’t. In California, a state with horrible gun laws, all the good people care about obeying the law while the bad guys stick guns in their faces and rob them at gun point because they don’t follow rules. You sound real smart with how you word things but I know your opinion is that of a weak person who would say”Protect me and take my freedoms and the freedoms of others because I am weak and scared”… That’s not my problem or anyone else’s. That’s a personal issue. Deal with it.

    • DavBow

      Alex, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on this issue, and they decide finally what is and is not Constitutional. Please do a little research yourself.

    • Betta

      “Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. I bring this up because law enforcement personnel in those backwards places…”

      Oh honey, you have no idea how backward these folks are. I’m from the frozen tundra of up north, been in Florida 20 years. The ignorance and “backwardality” in existence here is absolutely unbelievable. Never saw anything like it in my life.

      However, you can’t beat the weather.

      • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

        Dear Betta,

        You write: “Oh honey, you have no idea how backward these folks are. I’m from the frozen tundra of up north, been in Florida 20 years. The ignorance and “backwardality” in existence here is absolutely unbelievable. Never saw anything like it in my life.” Thanks to you and communist Alex for showing our Southern readers that intolerance and stupidity are not endemic to one part of the country, as has long been claimed. I suspect Southern readers have little difficulty seeing yours and Alex’s quasi-anecdotal, presumptuous and bigoted ad hominems as evidence that ignorance and intolerance are found everywhere and that the “frozen tundra” is exporting a fair helping of it into our region. Thanks to both of you for enlightening us ignorant, southern rubes.

        Best wishes,
        Bob

        P.S. “Backwardality” is not a word. However, if you keep reading our articles perhaps you can learn correct grammar and the proper use of the English language through osmosis. It’s obvious it “didn’t take” when you were in school.

        • Ped Xing

          Dear Mister Livingston,

          Am I the Alex you refer to as “communist”?

          Curiously, Alex

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Alex,

            Who else?

            Best wishes,
            Bob

        • Bob666

          Yo Bob,

          As a southerner, thanks for defending our honor.

          • http://personalliberty.com/ Bob Livingston

            Dear Bob666,

            Certainly.

            Best wishes,
            Bob

        • WTS/JAY

          That was absolutely splendid!!!

      • Average_Joe56

        Betta,
        In the south we have a thing, it’s called “Southern Tradition”. The north, on the other hand…have what we still call …”Northern Aggression”.
        You move to the south, with your NY and NJ attitudes….get involved in the political machinery and try to change the south to suit your wants and needs….changing us into little NY and Little NJ. The odd thing is, when asked why you moved here….it’s always, “to get away from NY and NJ politics…and play golf”.
        Then, you proceed to screw up our way of life in the south…thanks for nothing.
        If you don’t like the way we do things down here…feel free to go back where you came from….your money isn’t needed and your attitudes aren’t wanted…..To hear you folks tell it…everything is better up there….Delta is ready….when you are….I’ll even carry your bags and check them in for you……
        And you wonder why we don’t take too kindly to your “northern aggression”……..

    • Frank Kahn

      I am not a journalist, I have not done any “digging into the facts” of this case. I do have good reading comprehension skills though, and I see some disturbing errors in your post.

      There is no contradiction in the two statements you quoted. One was what he was alleged to have done, the other is what his attorney says is available. Not only, is this not a contradiction by the author, it is a quite normal and predictable occurrence in the adversarial judicial system.

      I also noted, your racism, in attempting to, without proof or evidence, make this about race. There was no mention of the color or ethnicity of the person who was arrested. The sheriff is obviously white, in the picture. But, only a racist would use that fact to imply that there were any racial motivation in this case. If the man, who was arrested, was black, there is still no logical evidence of race being a factor in the sheriff releasing him. In fact, if race has something to do with it, it would be an indication that the sheriff is not prejudiced against blacks. But that brings us back to your implication that he might have been black. So, prove he is black, and that his race had some bearing on the case, or shut up.

      Now, Mr. Liberal, I can’t comprehend anything and I expect everyone to agree with my personal definition of words, we will address your ignorance of both conservatives, and the second amendment to the constitution.

      The second amendment is very clearly written, only an ignorant person with limited reading comprehension skills would think otherwise. It has two clauses, the first explains the reason for the amendment, and the second explains the right being protected. It is almost comical, if it was not so tragically sad, that liberals have an inability to understand these two clauses, or they want to twist the language to fit their personal agendas. The amendment can be separated into two separate sentences, for clarification.

      1. Because we understand, that it is necessary for a militia, which is well regulate, we will protect the following right of the people, so they may protect the freedoms of the state.

      2. So that the people can protect their freedom, and liberty, the federal government shall have no authority, or power to limit the peoples right to bear arms.

      So, Mr. Liberal, if you read the amendment properly, the phrase well regulated is referring to the militia, not the arms, or the right. Because the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, the regulating of the militia can not be a reference to regulating the arms. That would be a contradiction between the two phrases, and cause liberals a massive heart attack.

      Then we get to your proof by bald assertion, that conservatives believe that some rights can be regulated or even eliminated. WHAT? What RIGHT are you talking about? Are you claiming that killing unborn babies is a RIGHT that women have? Are you claiming that homosexuals have a RIGHT to be treated as normal? Maybe, it is that stupid attempt by flashy, to claim that freedom from fear is a RIGHT. RIGHTS come from God (natures laws), if something is against natures laws, it cannot be a RIGHT.

      So, Alex, pick your poison, what are you calling a RIGHT that conservatives are opposed to?

    • vicki

      Gun addicts make their case based on a very liberal interpretation of the awkwardly-worded Second Amendment,

      Let me help you with the clearly written 2nd Amendment.
      http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

      As you can see the grammer is simple and quite to the point.

  • Robert Gean

    The governor has no right to arrest the sheriff. He is duly elected by the county and should have a right to make judgements on the case. If this is the way Gov is going to treat duly elected people then he needs to ask forgiveness from the people that elected him to office and I am one of them, but if this is the way that he is going to act, it will the the last time I vote for him

    • Robbie

      A police officer correctly arrested a man for not having permits to carry 2 concealed weapons. Then a sheriff comes along, let’s the suspect out of jail and destroys the legal documentation. It is not the job of a sheriff to make legal judgements. That is the role of the court system. The sheriff should be upholding the law as the original police officer was doing. The governor took corrective action in this situation.

      • Deerinwater

        To feel the need to Micro Manage a Sheriff is bad administration.

        • Bob666

          Yo Deer,

          But He is our Governor and unindicted co-conspirator.

        • Robbie

          Maybe the sheriff should not have micro managed the police offer who made the arrest. That officer did use discretion – he arrested someone who had two illegal concealed weapons for god’s sake. Good for that policeman and good for the Governor.

          • Deerinwater

            Micromanagement for a Sheriff is not uncommon, ~ but for a Governor it is.

          • vicki

            Since it can not be illegal for a person to have weapons, concealed or otherwise, the officer erred in arresting the person. The sheriff tried to correct the error and was illegally punished by the governor.

      • moral antagonist

        In other words if you are stopped for any reason the officer has to either arrest you or give you a ticket.He has no legal right to just use discretion and give you a warning.
        WELCOME to our new communistic world and the Gestapo.

        • Robbie

          Of course police use discretion all the time as well they should. In this case the officer’s discretion informed him that someone with two concealed weapons and no permits should be arrested according to law.

          • vicki

            And his boss used discretion that informed him that there had been no violation of the supreme law of the land. So now what?

      • Eugene Sevene

        I’ll say it again. The second amendment is our concealed carry permit. Any laws put on the books the the contrary to the constitution are null and void like it or not. The second amendment can not be infringed upon, read it dummy. I am American and believe in and will defend that constitution to the death. You are either with or against me, if against you are the enemy. All is fair in love and war.
        This message to the uninformed in this country. Love it, or leave it.

        • Robbie

          Love it and improve it.

        • Robbie

          Yes I have read it. Was the fellow with two concealed weapons part of a well regulated militia? HEE, hee. I don’t think so.

          • vicki

            Why yes he was. Did you fail to investigate?

        • AMERICAN PATRIOT

          Too bad our ELECTED fools NEVER read the Constitution, or they simply ignore those words.

          The courts also ignore them when they pass judgement, they include the restrictions that DENY a person’s RIGHT to possess firearms, and will arrest anybody they ‘suspect’ has one in their possession after the court DICTATED they are ‘prohibited’..what a JOKE!

          NO judge, police, court or even the president can take away or deny ANYBODY’S RIGHTS, this is ONE area that is NOT under ANY government control or permit system!

          You can tell me all you want, but I do NOT have to LEGALLY obey, as ANY order that VIOLATES a person’s RIGHTS, is NULL and VOID, in other words…HANDS OFF!

          they are RIGS for a REASON, and they pertain ONLY to the PEOPLE of this nation, they do NOT cover ANY person WORKING FOR us, or elected BY us, they are ONLY for the PEOPLE, and NOBODY ELSE…………….P E R I O D ! !

          If you can STEAL powers NEVER granted to you, then the entire nation lives under a PERMIT REQUIRED state, and this is NOT what we have!

          You THINK you hold the power, but keep stepping on us, and YOU will see what happens next!

      • Wayne Gilmore

        Actually Robbie, the Sheriff does have that power in most states. He is the highest ELECTED enforcement officer in the US, and is given the power of the Constitution by the Constitution for its enforcement. The federal government is trying to relegate the Sheriff Departments to courts and jails, but that will only work in cities. Most of the US has more Sheriffs than police, Sheriffs cover more square miles than police. Sheriff have the power to decide how best to serve the law, and I wish more would exercise that power and stand up t the federal government instead of taking party favors.

      • Robert A. Davis

        Wrong!!! The Sheriff is the final approval for charging or Not charging prior to sending to the District Attorney, he called it right in that responsibility.

      • vicki

        In case it had missed your attention the sheriff WAS upholding the law (And his oath to defend the Constitution) as the original police officer should have done. The governor obviously violated his oath and the law that places the sheriff as the supreme law enforcement officer of a county.

        • Robbie

          The original police officer arrested a man who was carrying two concealed weapons without permits. As the gunmen was breaking the law he was arrested. It is unknown why the Sheriff let the lawbreaker go other than the fact that he seems to think that anyone should be able to carry concealed weapons and ignore the obligation to have a permit. And it would seem that a governor does, indeed, have power over a sheriff. I think, Vicki, that you are basing your conclusion on the fact that you agree with the sheriff on the gun issue regardless of what the law is. And, by the way, I don’t think a lone gunman who has two concealed weapons in his car has anything to do with a “well regulated militia” which is what the Founders were protecting.

          • vicki

            ….and ignore the obligation to have a permit.

            There is no obligation to obey an unconstitutional law.

            And it would seem that a governor does, indeed, have power over a sheriff.

            What seems in your head (you failed to provide evidence) has little bearing on the law.

            Vicki, that you are basing your conclusion on the fact that you agree with the sheriff on the gun issue regardless of what the law is.

            I am obviously not disregarding the law. It says and I quote “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.”

            Thus my conclusion is based on simple reading comprehension of the SUPREME law of this land and not the fact that the sheriff happens to agree with me.

          • Robbie

            The Founding Fathers established a legislative body to create laws for the people. That body is called the Congress and you can see references to it – quite a few of them – in a document that the Founders wrote called the Constitution. The law requiring persons to have a permit for concealed weapons is perfectly legal along with the multitude of other laws that Congress – and the states – pass all the time.

            You did quote the Second Amendment perfectly. But my question remains: was the arrested man who had two illegal concealed handguns in his car part of that well regulated militia? I think not. The police officer acted correctly in upholding the law and I’m encouraged to see that the elected governor was in agreement.

          • Robbie

            And, by the way, it is up to the courts to decide if a law is constitutional or unconstitutional – not you. That’s another thing the Founders put in that little document of theirs.

          • vicki

            Do be so kind as to show us where in that little document of theirs you think the founders put the power to decide the constitutionality of a law.

          • Robbie

            Have you heard of the Supreme Court?

          • vicki

            Have you heard of Jury Nullification? (www.fija.org)

          • Robbie

            And what is your point pray tell? Jury Nullification – when it happens – is when there is a jury and during a court case. A police officer or a sheriff is NOT A JURY. Guilt or innocence is determined in a court room not at curb side nor in a police station. But at least it seems you have heard of the Supreme Court! Are you sure you are an American?

          • Guest

            Robbie, If you want to try and argue a point at least educate yourself
            on the merits. You pick and choose what language is convenient for your
            reason of argument and refuse to acknowledge the WHOLE truth. Congress cannot pass a law that violates the Constitution nor can the Governor remove a duly elected Sheriff from office. A person is NOT required to be in a “militia” before they can exercise their Constitutional rights. A person carrying a gun(s) in their vehicle does NOT make them a “thug”.

            Robbie
            is the perfect example of how corrupt politicians continue to get away
            with unconstitutional acts. They prey on Robbie’s ignorance or
            complacency to accept anything they say as “law”. This is why we have no
            choice as a nation but to get back to plain and simple Constitutional
            law. Constitutional law leaves no ambiguity for corrupt people to
            intemperate the law as they see fit. That’s why congress continues to
            write 1,500 page “bills” that are full of ambiguous language that can be
            molded to fit however they like.

          • Robbie

            Oh, I’d say my argument has some merit. But here’s a question for you. Would you not agree with me that all legislative powers (the right to pass laws) come from the Congress and that the validity of such laws – if contested – go to the courts and – if need be – the Supreme Court for final validation or rejection? Just wondering if you agree with the process I’m suggesting.

          • Guest

            Well you seem to have lost your way on the subject at hand. The discussion is whether the duly constitutionally elected Sheriff of the people has a right to enforce constitutional law and whether the governor has a right to remove a Sheriff out of dictatorial powers.

            But for this short tangent of American history I’ll oblige you this once. First, Congress is supposed to form their laws based on the U.S Constitution. That is NOT happening today. They try every trick in the book to subvert the constitution by writing “bills” that are thousands of pages long, passed in the middle of the night, without congressional review. “We have to pass it to know what’s in it.”, said the wicked witch of the west. Second, our founding fathers built a completely different government then we have today. There’s was no such thing as a “supreme court” ruled by APPOINTED “judges”. There was no such thing as an electoral college.The illusion of the “checks and balances” of our current government is just that, an illusion.

            So in my long winded version to answer your final question, the answer is HELL NO! I do not trust my God given constitutional rights and freedoms to 9 appointed puppets and their whimsical interpretations of the law. How did trusting them with obamacare work out for us? (rhetorical question….)

          • Robbie

            Well, at least you did grudgingly agree with the process I put forward which is good seeing as I lifted the very wording right out of the Constitution of the United States of America [ Article I, Section I ].

            Also you wrongly state that there was no such thing as a Supreme Court set up by the Founders. Maybe I have a wacky copy of the Constitution but mine clearly sets up a Supreme Court. Try looking up Article III. Seems like you don’t like the process but you can’t pretend that it is not right there in black and white.

            You also wrongly state that there was no such thing as an electoral college and yet my copy of the Constitution clearly shows that there WAS. Have a quick look at Article II of the Constitution.

            The thing I don’t get with your type of argumentation is that you claim to want the Constitution followed and yet you yourself reject some of the most important aspects of it. And parts of it you don’t even realize exist. You clearly reject what the Founders put in to the document while at the same time saying that it should be followed. Very curious I must say.

          • vicki

            Let us discuss the power of judicial review which is NOT a power delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. It is a power left to the states and the people.

            http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

          • vicki

            The procedure of invalidating unconstitutional law does not start with a jury. That is only one of the several steps created by the founders and adjusted (sometimes poorly) over time.

            The very first step is the person filing the complaint (I.E. the police officer), then we have in the case of the Sharif we have the Sharif, an actually elected office. The next step is the grand jury or the DA. Then the Jury. Then we move along the appellate courts till we finally reach the Supreme Court.

            http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html

            Now as the above article says the decision should be made by states for having the federal government watch over itself is foolish.

          • vicki

            The Founding Fathers established a legislative body to create laws for the people. That body is called the Congress and you can see references to it – quite a few of them – in a document that the Founders wrote called the Constitution.

            The founders also being wise in the ways of men placed a specific set of enumerated powers that were to be within the jurisdiction of the body of people called Congress. And because the founders knew of the wiles of men put in a specific set of rights that were not to be infringed upon. Conveniently in the self same document.

            One of those restrictions forbids We, the People from delegating government the power to infringe upon the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. It’s right there in plain English for all to read. It is not even that hard to comprehend.

            The law requiring persons to have a permit for concealed weapons is perfectly legal along with the multitude of other laws that Congress – and the states – pass all the time.

            Since the Constitution explicitly forbids government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms any law that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is primia facie NOT legal. It is of no force and null and void from inception.

            You did quote the Second Amendment perfectly. But my question remains: was the arrested man who had two illegal concealed handguns in
            his car part of that well regulated militia?

            How old was he?

            I think not. The police officer acted correctly in upholding the law and I’m encouraged to see that the elected governor was in agreement.

            As stated the arresting officer violated his oath and violated the civil rights of Mr Parrish. I have offered actual evidence rather than mere opinion. That evidence being the 2nd Amendment and its clear instruction that the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

            Requiring permission from the government to exercise a right is obviously an infringement.

          • Robbie

            Why do you always leave out the bit about the well regulated militia. I’m pretty sure the gentleman (?) with the 2 concealed weapons in his car was/is not part of a well regulated militia. In your high and mighty perch you’d, apparently, allow any thug the ability to carry around any weapon he’d like. Shameful.

          • vicki

            Why do YOU leave out English grammar. Are you not a Natural Born Citizen? http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

            Oh and I notice that Supreme Court you are so fond of noticed that the Right to KEEP and BEAR arms is an individual right not connected with militia service.

            http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

          • Robbie

            Seems you like the Supreme Court when they agree with YOU. Otherwise you are not so fond of judges – YOU should be the one who decides, or no one at all – just a general free for all where, ultimately, the decider is the jerk off with the biggest gun.

          • Zach

            You really are an arrogant prick aren’t you? What you “think” means nil. l regulated militia means just that, a sufficiently large body of people using their right to keep and bear arms. It’s written in there to protect the rights of the People from the clueless such as yourself.

          • Robbie

            No I’m not.

            And, in future, I’d appreciate it if you watched your vocabulary when posting comments. Thank you so much.

  • tim

    In other words one of his own deputies ratted him out!!!!!! The liberal whiners will love this!!!!

    • PRO UNLICESNSED CONTRACTOR

      I don’t think you know the definition of liberal so I’ll state it for you and you can look it up. Read this and then stop misusing the word unless you like sounding uneducated:

      Liberal may refer to:Look up Liberal, liberal, or liberally in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

      Liberalism, a political ideology

      Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

      Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal movement

      Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private individuals and not by collective institutions and there’s too

      • DavBow

        Pro, you have done a good job of explain what a Libertarion is, but it is not the same thing as what is currently and culturally accepted as a Liberal today, which is the opposite of conservative. I am a conservative, and also view myself as a libertarion.

        • floyd

          DavBow you had better wake up Liberal today does mean Communist. The Liberal Dem. Party IS your Communist Party. Ask any school kid in Europe They say they study Our Dem. Communist in our Government.

          • DavBow

            When you learn how to read you may notice that I stated that Liberals are the opposite of conservatives. Also, I know very well the difference between socialist, communist, liberal (which in this country is as far to the left as one can get without becoming a true socialist or communist) and conservative. I can’t give you credit for that, however. Because you call someone a communist doesn’t make them one. By the way, there actually is a true communist party in the U.S. which is not the democratic party. When you learn to read and get old enough to vote you may notice that from time to time they actually have candidates running for office. You may not have realized that their is a BIG difference between liberal and libertarion, they are NOT the same.

      • FreedomFighter

        Today

        Liberal = Progressive and Progressive = Communist/Socialist/Fascist

        Laus Deo
        Semper FI

      • CatGman

        A pile of crap by any other name still stinks, even with a fresh coat of paint.

  • Greg

    You need to do a Change.org petition on his behalf. The Governor needs to know what the Country thinks.

  • I C Black Racists

    Governor Scott’s administration is all over the map. I wrote last year, asking the Governor to suspend Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger. He failed to protect the citizens of Seminole County by letting the New Black Panther have free reign of the county and posting a $10,000 Dead or Alive bounty on George Zimmerman. Had anyone else put up Dead or Alive wanted posters they would be in, or under the jail. The only person who sees, and who gets these letters from citizens to the Governor, is an aide of Scotts, Warren Davis. He said the Governor does not have the authority to remove a sheriff. After several letters, we went back and forth over the phone on this issue. He should have been removed – he still should. With the Zimmerman trial starting today, I expect the white population of this country is in danger. The best advice I can think of is Lock & Load and forget about calling 911. This country is as racist (black on white) as it has ever been and Sheriff Don Eslinger has no intention of protecting the rights of the whites. He is out to cater to the blacks.

    • DavBow

      I C, only the United States Marshall has clear cut legal authority to arrest or remove a duly elected Sheriff. That would be the obvious and clear cut route to appeal, since the problem you refer to is obviously a violation of United States law. In the case reviewed in this article, the governor and state board are acting beyond their authority and this will be shown in court.

  • FreedomFighter

    ““The records at the jail show exactly what happened in this case and the records speak the truth. The sheriff looked at the facts and said ‘I believe in the second amendment and we’re not going to charge him.’ That is not misconduct at all. That is within the Sheriff’s prerogative whether to charge someone or not,” said attorney Jimmy Judkins.”
    The war on FREEDOM continues, and Sheriffs are the supreme law officers of an area dutifully elected, the powers want to remove them or negate any power the office holds, in Delaware this has already been done by the demoncratic majority in violation of the Delaware constitution. IMHO this is political opportunism and furthers the political goals of TAKING GUNS, and the reduction in powers of the office of sheriff. The regime must have absolute power, they do not share power and the office of sheriff must be diminished or eliminated. Laus DeoSemper FI

  • TML

    I’d say it’s obvious that the Sheriff should not be charged for refusing to charge a person with a crime – it was well within his authority as the elected Sheriff – but the destruction or alteration of documentation seems to be overstepping some authority.

    • DavBow

      If a Sheriff decides that someone should not be arrested because in his official opinion there has been no violation of law, then there should be NO arrest record, at least certainly not in the records maintained by the Sheriff’s Office.. I say he was fully within his authority.

      • Wizzardly

        Turns out, a review of local ordinances shows that Sheriff Finch had the authority to release Mr. Parish and to remove any records of his incarceration. He did not act extra-legally. The Governor, OTOH, lacked the authority to remove the Sheriff without judicial imprimatur. If a governor can rule by fiat, we are all in grave danger.

  • firestone

    Gov Scott Obviously has Jumped the fence and is a Obama Operative..Our Constitution Rules..Not Gov Scott

  • jim wood

    A Liberty County, Florida, deputy sheriff arrested Floyd Parrish for carrying two
    firearms “readily accessible for immediate use.” Nick Finch, High Sheriff of Liberty County, reviewed his deputy’s actions and determined that Mr. Parrish should not be charged. Sheriff Finch is the highest law enforcement official in the county and the only elected one and is charged by state law with supervising his deputies. The voters of Liberty County elected him and only they have the right to recall him. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement had no right to arrest Sheriff Finch. Governor Scott had no right to suspend him. High Sheriff Finch is closest to the voters in Liberty County. Scott and the FDLE had no business interfering with Liberty County affairs. It smacks of misuse of political power for them to do so.

  • rbrooks

    does this sheriff support any infringements to the 2nd amendment. would he have arrested a felon/criminal in possession of a firearm.
    he is like most of you. selectively supporting the 2nd amendment.
    there are no exceptions. support even one exception, and you have given up your rights under the 2nd.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.