Missouri couple’s gun rights defended in letter to AG Barr from 12 GOP lawmakers

antitox

Well-Known Member
https://www.foxnews.com/us/missouri...ed-in-letter-to-ag-barr-from-12-gop-lawmakers

A second weapon from Mark and Patricia McCloskey was surrendered to authorities Saturday

Twelve Republican members of Congress have written to U.S. Attorney General William Barr, arguing in defense of the Second Amendment rights of a Missouri couple whose rifle and handgun are now in the possession of local authorities.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who made national headlines in late June when they took up arms to defend their home from protesters who entered their St. Louisneighborhood, had their rifle seized Friday when local police executed a search warrant.

Then on Saturday, a lawyer -- who represented the couple until recently – surrendered to police a handgun that Patricia McCloskey held during the June incident, FOX 2 of St. Louis reported.

Attorney Al Watkins said he had taken possession of the handgun while still representing the couple, in anticipation of using it as evidence in a possible court appearance, FOX 2 reported.

“It was my duty and obligation to make sure that evidence was preserved to maintain the integrity of the defense of Mr. and/or Mrs. McCloskey in the event, in what I believe the highly unlikely event, of any charges being brought,” Watkins said, according to KSDK-TV of St. Louis.

Watkins said the gun was “inoperable” prior to the June incident, and Patricia McCloskey knew it was inoperable. But he said there were some potential legal issues with the way Patricia McCloskey held her weapon versus the way Mark McCloskey held his, making the weapon's condition an issue, KSDK reported.

Since the June incident, the McCloskeys have faced scrutiny from the St. Louis Police Department and from the city’s circuit attorney, Kimberly Gardner, who have been investigating the incident – but there was no indication the couple were facing any charges.

In a statement June 29, Gardner wrote that protesters had First Amendment rights that needed to be protected from “intimidation or threat of deadly force,” and said any such behavior would “not be tolerated.”

Rights threatened 'by mob rule'
In their letter to Barr, dated Friday, the dozen Republican lawmakers claimed that any charges filed against the couple would have “a chilling effect” on an American populace whose rights to bear arms are guaranteed in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“At this crucial time in history, our nation needs the Department of Justice to exert strong leadership to ensure that none of our constitutional protections are eroded by mob rule,” the lawmakers wrote in part to Barr. “Charges against this couple will have a chilling effect on the entire nation, sending the message that American citizens no longer have the right to protect themselves at their own homes.”

Signing the letter were U.S. Reps. Louis Gohmert of Texas; Mo Brooks of Alabama; Greg Steube of Florida; Brian Babin of Texas; Paul Gosar of Arizona; Alex Mooney of West Virginia; Andy Harris of Maryland; Ted Budd of North Carolina; Steve King of Iowa; Steve Watkins of Kansas; Jody Hice of Georgia; and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.

Saturday’s handover of the pistol occurred outside Watkins’ St. Louis office, in full view of reporters and bystanders, who watched and took photos. Some photos appeared on the website of FOX 2 of St. Louis.

Watkins said he was no longer representing the McCloskeys because his decision to hold the couple’s handgun in his office had made him a potential witness in any court case involving the couple, KSDK reported. The couple’s new lawyer is Joel Schwartz.

Authorities wanted the handgun in their possession to be sure it was inoperable as the McCloskeys and Watkins have claimed, FOX 2 reported. The reason for the rifle being confiscated on Friday remained unclear.

The protesters reportedly marched past the McCloskeys’ home on the way to a planned gathering outside the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.

Schwartz, the couple’s new lawyer, told KSDK on Friday that he does not believe the McCloskeys will face any charges in connection with the June incident, and said he is trying to arrange a meeting with the office of Gardner, the circuit attorney.

If they do face charges and are convicted, they would likely get probation or be required to perform community service, a law professor at St. Louis University told KSDK.

“There’s very little likelihood that the McCloskeys would see any jail time or prison time on these kind of charges,” Professor John Ammann told the station.
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
I didn't see who the 12 were but I'd like to know, and I'd like to know why it was only 12.

What happened to this couple is a microcosm of what is being done to all of us. BLM terrorists are threatening to "move into the suburbs," which is code for they are coming after white people, Christians, and patriots, wherever we might be. A common patriot response to this that I see quite a bit is bring it on fools, we're ready.

But consider what is being done to this couple: where the liberal cult dominates local governments, they might send police out first to disarm people before the mobs move in. Many of the good cops are quitting, leaving only the ones who will be happy to carry out such an order.

Or if not before they come there, then after they make an incursion and are repelled. Defending your home and community will be called a hate crime or they will use some technicality, and the accused will have their guns taken pending an investigation, conducted by those allied to the terrorists, and they won't get them back, except maybe if they have a lot of money to spend on legal fees, and even then they'll be left unarmed while they wait through the long process. Buying a gun now is not easy because there are so few available because of the panic, and a person under investigation might not be allowed to buy one even if he can find one (if the liberal bureaucrats have anything to say about it). So the targeted community is effectively disarmed by corrupt bureaucrats.

This is by design, and has clearly been the plan all along. Some of us have been saying all along that this is the true purpose behind the machinery of both gun control and thoughtcrime laws, and now that the machinery is nearly complete, we see it being used in this way.

Being known as someone who is likely to defend your home and community will likely be cause for an Extreme Risk Protection Order, and they will take your guns for that reason before the mob moves in. This is why they want those laws in the first place: those likely to resist the mob will be disarmed, but the mob will not be disarmed. Just look at how patriots and Christians are portrayed in liberal media; they have masses of fools convinced that we are dangerous, crazy, thought criminals, and the political class elected by those fools will use whatever power it has to leave us unable to defend ourselves and our country.

According to the propaganda being fed to the masses there's no reason to defend yourself anyway, since it's just a peaceful protest by righteous liberals, and all you have to do is lower your eyes and say yes sir I'm sorry for being white, and do what the BLM fellows tell you to do and you'll be fine. Even if the "peaceful protesters" beat you up and rape your wife and loot your house it's just an expression of righteous anger, and it should be a cleansing experience for you, right?

And remember that this couple is registered as Democrats. If the liberal bureaucracy will join the mob in its assault on them, what will that bureaucracy do to those of us it really hates? And what will it do when it has one of its own in the office of the President to back up what the local political war operatives do?

Another thing to remember: these same traitors have the blood of 60 million babies on their hands, killed by the abortionist's knife. And they don't even hate babies; they just see them as being in the way of their feminist agenda. So what do you think they'll do to those their high seer deemed "deplorables" once they have the power to turn their hate into action?

If you think what is happening now left unchecked won't lead to this kind of thing look into what happened when Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, and what is happening in South Africa now.

This shows the extreme danger in many government entities and most media being enemy political war operatives allied to communist foot soldiers. It shows the extreme danger in our country having been filled with masses of fools willing to vote for communists.

And the pitiful response by cowardly Republicans makes the danger all the worse. Twelve making some kind of an attempt to speak out against it is a nice gesture, but it's nothing but that, because so few are standing with them.

This also shows the danger in giving these traitors tools they can use against us, like the red flag scam and hate crime laws.

I fear that the aggression we are seeing today is a harbinger of things to come my friends.
 
Last edited:

crossnote

fully dependent upon His grace
But he said there were some potential legal issues with the way Patricia McCloskey held her weapon versus the way Mark McCloskey held his, making the weapon's condition an issue, KSDK reported.
I didn't realize the 2nd Amendment spelled out a certain way to hold a weapon in order for it to be legal.

In a statement June 29, Gardner wrote that protesters had First Amendment rights that needed to be protected from “intimidation or threat of deadly force,” and said any such behavior would “not be tolerated.”
The 1st Amendment requires 'peaceful assembly'; I hardly consider breaking down a security gate peaceful.
 

Batman

Well-Known Member
My son is saying there has been a lot of "slimey" things come out about this couple regarding law suits and dominating vulnerable people; even relatives. I said it makes zero difference b/c what happened a few weeks ago was breaking/entering of a gated community by a large riotous mob that was hurling hateful threats at them, their property, and their pet. I think the mud slinging sticks and many will be duped that they are in the wrong due to wealth, their ethnicity, etc.
 

ItIsFinished!

Blood bought child of the King of kings.
My son is saying there has been a lot of "slimey" things come out about this couple regarding law suits and dominating vulnerable people; even relatives. I said it makes zero difference b/c what happened a few weeks ago was breaking/entering of a gated community by a large riotous mob that was hurling hateful threats at them, their property, and their pet. I think the mud slinging sticks and many will be duped that they are in the wrong due to wealth, their ethnicity, etc.
Yup.
And I hear ya.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
My son is saying there has been a lot of "slimey" things come out about this couple regarding law suits and dominating vulnerable people; even relatives. I said it makes zero difference b/c what happened a few weeks ago was breaking/entering of a gated community by a large riotous mob that was hurling hateful threats at them, their property, and their pet. I think the mud slinging sticks and many will be duped that they are in the wrong due to wealth, their ethnicity, etc.
Yep. No matter what kind of people they are, this is really all about the 2nd amendment and equal justice.
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
Just for clarification, it is generally only legal to point a gun at a person or persons if they are an immediate threat to your life or safety (as in if someone is trying to kidnap or rape you for example). It is generally not legal to use lethal force, or threaten the use of lethal force, to defend property. I have heard that there is an exception to this in the state of Texas but I don't know anything more about that than hearsay; what I do know is that at least in most places deadly force or the threat of it can not be used to protect property.

There is some confusion (not necessarily on this site) about how this general law is affected by what are called castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. The simple answer is it is not affected one bit by them. In many states there is (or has been) what is called a duty to retreat. This means that if you defend yourself with deadly force, or by threatening deadly force, you have to prove that you could not have walked or run away from the situation instead.

Where there is no castle doctrine and there is a duty to retreat, if someone breaks into your house you are required to escape from your house if you can, and if you use or threaten to use deadly force you have to prove that you could not have escaped, or that there was someone in your house who could not escape. Where there is a duty to retreat and no stand your ground law the same thing applies to everywhere else.

This makes it hard to prove self defense. Usually in a court of law the prosecution has to prove that you are guilty, but in self defense it is already known that you committed a homicide, so the burden of proof falls on you, to prove that it was a justifiable homicide. This is a huge difference. And having to prove that you could not have run away instead makes it even harder. The result of this is that a person defending himself can end up in jail even if it was a legitimate act of self defense, and even if he doesn't, he will be burdened with huge legal fees, that might leave him impoverished for many years.

The only thing stand your ground and castle doctrine laws do is remove the duty to retreat. You still do not have the right to use or threaten deadly force except to defend life or safety.

In my state of Arizona it's legal to use deadly force to stop a person from setting a building on fire (as in throwing a molotov cocktail at it for example), but only if there is reason to think there is someone inside the building who could not escape from the fire. I would assume this to be generally the same in all or most states, but it would be a good thing to look into.

It's a very good idea to walk or run away from a fight if you can by the way, but it is a very bad idea for the government to require that you do it, for the reason given above. And because requiring people to retreat from a confrontation encourages violent bullying by criminals.

Missouri has castle doctrine. So the legality of what the couple did depends on whether they had reason to think their lives might be in danger. By what I've seen I say they did, and I do not think there is any legitimate question over this. The common legal phrase is I was in fear for my life, and this lawyer has used that phrase. There is plenty of video evidence backing him up. So it looks to me like what the local bureaucracy is doing to him and his wife is nothing but harassment, done to scare others out of defending themselves from the mob.

Just holding a weapon on your porch like the man did should not have been illegal in any case, and I did not see him point the rifle at anyone, so I don't know what the pretext was for taking his rifle. His wife did point her pistol at the mob, and she did have her finger on the trigger (not that it'd make any difference if she didn't). Even if her gun was unloaded or not even a real gun it wouldn't make any difference.

None of this should matter in this case though because as I said, the mob does appear to be a serious threat to the safety of the couple, and Missouri law does not require them to run away from their home. They do have a right to defend themselves from a violent mob. And they do have a right to stand in a place that says the mob has to get by them to get to their home.

The liberal mob, knowing it is being backed up by its communist allies in the bureaucracy, is terrorizing and destroying its own communities, and now is moving into other communities; its allies in government have pulled the police out, leaving those in these communities to either abandon their homes and let them be looted and burned or stand and defend them. Now that same government is doing its best to hamstring the good people trying to defend their homes.

In my mind this makes the bureaucracy for all intents and purposes a criminal gang, allied to the marauding mobs. This takes away any legitimate authority that bureaucracy might have. It does not protect the good people it is supposed to protect, but it does stop the good people from protecting themselves. This is pure aggression committed by a criminal gang.

Hopefully at some point the state and federal government will step in and put an end to this criminal behavior on the part of the local government. But until it does, this is the reality the residents have to contend with.

No matter what local law says, all good people should be keeping and bearing arms these days. They are not easy to find because of all the panicked buying, and you'll probably have to pay a premium price when you do find one. But they are available over the internet if you look long enough, and all they have to do is mail the gun you buy to a local FFL holder and he'll transfer it to you (they usually charge $25 or less for the service).

Anyone should check their local laws on these matters, so as not to give local bureaucrats a pretext to turn them into political prisoners. This link is to what I was told when I took my NRA instructor class is the best source on local laws about having and carrying a gun. For information on when deadly force is justified in any given area, and on things like local castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, you have to find another source.
https://www.handgunlaw.us/
 
Last edited:

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
Just for clarification, it is generally only legal to point a gun at a person or persons if they are an immediate threat to your life or safety (as in if someone is trying to kidnap or rape you for example). It is generally not legal to use lethal force, or threaten the use of lethal force, to defend property. I have heard that there is an exception to this in the state of Texas but I don't know anything more about that than hearsay; what I do know is that at least in most places deadly force or the threat of it can not be used to protect property.

There is some confusion (not necessarily on this site) about how this general law is affected by what are called castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. The simple answer is it is not affected one bit by them. In many states there is (or has been) what is called a duty to retreat. This means that if you defend yourself with deadly force, or by threatening deadly force, you have to prove that you could not have walked or run away from the situation instead.

Where there is no castle doctrine and there is a duty to retreat, if someone breaks into your house you are required to escape from your house if you can, and if you use or threaten to use deadly force you have to prove that you could not have escaped, or that there was someone in your house who could not escape. Where there is a duty to retreat and no stand your ground law the same thing applies to everywhere else.

This makes it hard to prove self defense. Usually in a court of law the prosecution has to prove that you are guilty, but in self defense it is already known that you committed a homicide, so the burden of proof falls on you, to prove that it was a justifiable homicide. This is a huge difference. And having to prove that you could not have run away instead makes it even harder. The result of this is that a person defending himself can end up in jail even if it was a legitimate act of self defense, and even if he doesn't, he will be burdened with huge legal fees, that might leave him impoverished for many years.

The only thing stand your ground and castle doctrine laws do is remove the duty to retreat. You still do not have the right to use or threaten deadly force except to defend life or safety.

In my state of Arizona it's legal to use deadly force to stop a person from setting a building on fire (as in throwing a molotov cocktail at it for example), but only if there is reason to think there is someone inside the building who could not escape from the fire. I would assume this to be generally the same in all or most states, but it would be a good thing to look into.

It's a very good idea to walk or run away from a fight if you can by the way, but it is a very bad idea for the government to require that you do it, for the reason given above. And because requiring people to retreat from a confrontation encourages violent bullying by criminals.

Missouri has castle doctrine. So the legality of what the couple did depends on whether they had reason to think their lives might be in danger. By what I've seen I say they did, and I do not think there is any legitimate question over this. The common legal phrase is I was in fear for my life, and this lawyer has used that phrase. There is plenty of video evidence backing him up. So it looks to me like what the local bureaucracy is doing to him and his wife is nothing but harassment, done to scare others out of defending themselves from the mob.

Just holding a weapon on your porch like the man did should not have been illegal in any case, and I did not see him point the rifle at anyone, so I don't know what the pretext was for taking his rifle. His wife did point her pistol at the mob, and she did have her finger on the trigger (not that it'd make any difference if she didn't). Even if her gun was unloaded or not even a real gun it wouldn't make any difference.

None of this should matter in this case though because as I said, the mob does appear to be a serious threat to the safety of the couple and Missouri law does not require them to run away from their home. They do have a right to defend themselves from a violent mob. And they do have a right to stand in a place that says the mob has to get by them to get to their home.

The liberal mob, knowing it is being backed up by its communist allies in the bureaucracy, is terrorizing and destroying its own communities, and now is moving into other communities; its allies in government have pulled the police out, leaving those in these communities to either abandon their homes and let them be looted and burned or stand and defend them. Now that same government is doing its best to hamstring the good people trying to defend their homes.

In my mind this makes the bureaucracy for all intents and purposes a criminal gang, allied to the marauding mobs. The takes away any legitimate authority it might have. It does not protect the good people it is supposed to protect, but it does stop the good people from protecting themselves. This is an outrage.

Hopefully at some point the state and federal government will step in and put an end to this criminal behavior on the part of the local government. But until it does, this is the reality the residents have to contend with.

No matter what local law says, all good people should be keeping and bearing arms these days. They are not easy to find because of all the panicked buying, and you'll probably have to pay a premium price when you do find one. But they are available over the internet if you look long enough, and all they have to do is mail the gun you buy to a local FFL holder and he'll transfer it to you (they usually charge $25 or less for the service).

Anyone should check their local laws on these matters, so as not to give local bureaucrats a pretext to turn them into political prisoners. This link is to what I was told when I took my NRA instructor class is the best source on local laws about having and carrying a gun. For information on when deadly force is justified in any given area, and on things like local castle doctrine and stand your ground laws, you have to find another source.
https://www.handgunlaw.us/
When the couple was interviewed on Fox they said they were told by the mob they were going to kill them, burn down their house and kill their dog. They felt their lives were in danger and it prompted them to get their weapons for self defense. It would be ludicrous to wait until their threat was carried out to then arm themselves. If they didn’t shoot anyone they shouldn’t be charged with anything. Though every state has their gun laws I would think the second amendment would still apply in this situation. That’s how I see it. This may go to SCOTUS
 

Rocky Rivera

Well-Known Member
I've got no hope in the Republicans. It seems as if they're all part of the plan; perhaps to make We the People a little bit more trustful of government than God. Why do I say that? They haven't stood up to the Left for nearly 40 years now...I mean really stand up to the Left. George HW Bush talked about a "new world order", and George Dubya threw his support behind Hillary, and any one else running against Trump. Trump has been the only one so far to stand up to the Left, and while he still has my vote, didn't he also have ties to Jeff Epstein? The only one we can trust is God.
 

antitox

Well-Known Member
I've got no hope in the Republicans. It seems as if they're all part of the plan; perhaps to make We the People a little bit more trustful of government than God. Why do I say that? They haven't stood up to the Left for nearly 40 years now...I mean really stand up to the Left. George HW Bush talked about a "new world order", and George Dubya threw his support behind Hillary, and any one else running against Trump. Trump has been the only one so far to stand up to the Left, and while he still has my vote, didn't he also have ties to Jeff Epstein? The only one we can trust is God.
I think you have a point there. All these years because we haven't stood up to them, they've been relatively happy. Now a Republican president steps into office who actually is a fighter and tells them "No!", then look what happens: they've gone stir crazy. They never thought we would stand in their way. Now it's World War 3.
 

Batman

Well-Known Member
When the couple was interviewed on Fox they said they were told by the mob they were going to kill them, burn down their house and kill their dog. They felt their lives were in danger and it prompted them to get their weapons for self defense. It would be ludicrous to wait until their threat was carried out to then arm themselves. If they didn’t shoot anyone they shouldn’t be charged with anything. Though every state has their gun laws I would think the second amendment would still apply in this situation. That’s how I see it. This may go to SCOTUS
Yep and let's not forget the "protesters" broke into a gated community, were very aggressive/loud/domineering, and overall showed a lot of similar behavior to those lawless, arsonist, thieving, property damaging, assault and battery crowds that were on TV/internet since the start of this mess; and St Louis even had at least 1 murder during this mess.
 

Lovin Jesus

Well-Known Member
Yep and let's not forget the "protesters" broke into a gated community, were very aggressive/loud/domineering, and overall showed a lot of similar behavior to those lawless, arsonist, thieving, property damaging, assault and battery crowds that were on TV/internet since the start of this mess; and St Louis even had at least 1 murder during this mess.
Just the fact that they forcibly crossed into a private gated community and threatened the lives of residents of that private community makes it trespassing and unlawful to begin with. The prosecutor said the mob was in their first amendment right, I disagree. The right to protest excludes private property. People can protest anywhere on public property but private property has a boundary. If this case goes against this couple then that means the second amendment has no merit.
 

depserv

Well-Known Member
I don't think there's any legitimate question among decent, honest people that this couple was fully justified in what they did. And I don't think there is any question that the local government has weaponized its power and is using its power to support the mob and attack the good guys. I talked about existing laws so those here can avoid becoming political prisoners.

I do not think there is any question that the local deep state is attacking the defenders in order to send a signal to the rest of us, telling us that we do not have their permission to defend ourselves from the mob. In other words, the attack by the deep state against these defenders is an attack against all of us. It is a threat to use government power against those who defend themselves from these marauding marxist mobs.

I don't think this will makes its way to the Supreme Court, but if it or something like it does, and that court is still in its current form, it will be very bad for the accused and for America, because John Roberts and a coalition of Clinton and Obama appointments currently dominate that body, and they have made very clear that they are willing to weaponize the Court and use it to support the liberal war on America.

I hope President Trump is able to fix this problem in his second term. But as it stands now, do not expect anything good to come out of the Supreme Court.
 

Tall Timbers

Imperfect but forgiven
EXCLUSIVE: President Trump Defends Armed McCloskey Family Against the Mob

Speaking during an exclusive interview with Townhall Tuesday morning from the White House, President Trump defended St. Louis residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey after they fought for their lives and property against a trespassing mob.

"When you look at St. Louis, where two people, they came out. They were going to be beat up badly if they were lucky. If they were lucky. They were going be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked and probably burned down like they tried to burn down churches. And these people were standing there, never used it and they were legal, the weapons, and now I understand somebody local, they want to prosecute these people. It's a disgrace," Trump said.

During an interview with Fox News Monday night, Mark McCloskey, a civil rights attorney, said he is bracing for an indictment after a search warrant was executed at his home over the weekend and his firearms were confiscated.

"I just held my ground, protected my house and I'm sitting here on television tonight instead of dead or putting out the smoldering embers of my home," he said. "The rumor is that we're going to be indicted shortly. Having said that, this is the same circuit attorney that released 35 of the protestors that torched and looted downtown St. Louis and now she wants to indict me."

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/07/14/exclusive-president-trump-n2572468

At least one of them is a civil rights attorney. They should be able to fight for themselves without being ruined financially.
 
Top