Sherrif arrested

The blog has several errors. First, it says Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) had Sheriff Finch arrested. He did not. He merely suspended him -- as required by state law -- after his arrest for misconduct.

The efforts of the disgraced deputy are not what resulted in Finch's arrest. That came about as a result of a full-blown investigation by the Flordida Department of Law Enforcement.

While the article makes note of the fact that Finch decided not to have the man charged after being arrested with an unlicensed firearm because he has no criminal record, it fails to note that the state nonetheless requires licensing for all firearms. That isn't a violation of the Second Amendment, that's a legitimate state law. The sheriff if required to enforce state law.

There appears to be a leap to a conclusion in the blog that the "documents or records altered/destroyed" by the sheriff did not exist in the first place, because he told the county clerk not to process an arrest warrant until he had a chance to review the situation. But destroying a police report or a attestment to facts in the case by the arresting officer, if destroyed, would also fall under the category of misconduct.

I don't believe this is a case of an attack ont he Second Amendment. I believe it is a little "good ole boy" politics in backwoods Florida that will be resolved over a drink at the bar and a little under-the-table settlement. We need to be aware of attacks on the Second Amendment, but we need avoid looking like alarmists, too.

 

This sherif may have wanted the guy protected from Florida's 20-year mandatory sentence for gun crimes.

 

That applies to violent crimes committed with firearms. This violation was a third-degree felony that would have netted three to five years, but likely not even that, since he had no criminal record. He would have gotten probation. I have to disagree with the sheriff's position. As a responsible gun owner, my firearms are registered. That's the law.