Can the McCloskeys Get Their Guns Back?

[livingston]

A ruling from the Missouri Court of Appeals said no.

According to Turley, who explained he always was skeptical of Gardner’s agenda and charges, Judges James M. Dowd, John P. Torbitzky and Michael S. Wright said the pardon means they are “excised” of guilt but that’s not the same as innocent.

They ruled that as McCloskey had pleaded guilty to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault, he forfeited ownership of the weapons.

Can the McCloskeys Get Their Guns Back? Judges Pull Trigger on Ruling | The Gateway Pundit | by Guest Contributor

This article originally appeared on WND.com Guest by post by Bob Unruh Couple infamously charged for defending themselves from BLM ‘protesters’ An appeals court in Missouri has ruled that Mark and Patricia McCloskey, who were targeted by an activist prosecutor for holding guns in their hands...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[mgunner]

First they both make responsible gun owners look bad. They should have stayed in the house. If they wanted to have their firearms ready inside in case people broke in then fine. Stepping outside, armed or not exposed them to attack. 2nd, she had no muzzle control and was holding the handgun like it was a dish towel. She had no idea what she was doing. It looked like it was the first time she held a firearm. And he shouldn't have admitted anything. People like these two make all of us look bad.

 

[livingston]

First they both make responsible gun owners look bad. They should have stayed in the house. If they wanted to have their firearms ready inside in case people broke in then fine. Stepping outside, armed or not exposed them to attack. 2nd, she had no muzzle control and was holding the handgun like it was a dish towel. She had no idea what she was doing. It looked like it was the first time she held a firearm. And he shouldn't have admitted anything. People like these two make all of us look bad.

You know the drill... Plead to the lesser charge or face years in prison

 

[SomeSoldier]

First they both make responsible gun owners look bad. They should have stayed in the house. If they wanted to have their firearms ready inside in case people broke in then fine. Stepping outside, armed or not exposed them to attack. 2nd, she had no muzzle control and was holding the handgun like it was a dish towel. She had no idea what she was doing. It looked like it was the first time she held a firearm. And he shouldn't have admitted anything. People like these two make all of us look bad.

So because they "look bad" they should forfeit their right to self defense?

To me you sound like someone that supports requiring firearms training before you can own a firearm.

Also not every state is NY, if they have stand your ground laws and no duty to retreat, then what legal grounds did they break?

If an angry mob of 5 broke through my locked gate, I wouldn't assume they have come for tea. Also why wait till they are kicking in your door.

I would want to preserve my strong hold for as many waves as possible.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/

 

[repete]

.

I would want to preserve my strong hold for as many waves as possible.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/

So, protect your stronghold from the ballistic protection it provides by utilizing the windows as firing ports!

 

[SomeSoldier]

So, protect your stronghold from the ballistic protection it provides by utilizing the windows as firing ports!

Why not repel before your property takes damage? Why let it get that far?

Now if it was me. I would be yelling from the window.

The whole point is not what is tactical but what is legal vs not legal.

 

[Saltwater60]

You know the drill... Plead to the lesser charge or face years in prison

It was on camera so how could you say you didn’t do it.

 

[Hochulsucks1234]

Another reason to have guns hidden away. Ya never know when the government will steal then from you.

 

[spat]

It was on camera so how could you say you didn’t do it.

What was on camera clearly showed that no crime was committed.

But the DA wasn't going to let that get in the way of his political ambitions.

 

[Acer-m14]

she had no muzzle control and was holding the handgun like it was a dish towel.

Trespassers should be shot ....

should be the LAW of the LAND ..

problem solved


Are your Footprints on my Land worth your life ..

 

[mgunner]

So because they "look bad" they should forfeit their right to self defense?

To me you sound like someone that supports requiring firearms training before you can own a firearm.

Also not every state is NY, if they have stand your ground laws and no duty to retreat, then what legal grounds did they break?

If an angry mob of 5 broke through my locked gate, I wouldn't assume they have come for tea. Also why wait till they are kicking in your door.

I would want to preserve my strong hold for as many waves as possible.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/is-it-ever-legal-to-shoot-trespassers/

Did I say they should forfeit their right to self defense? No, I didn't. I said they make all of us look bad. That's it.

Anyone that has a firearm should have some basic understanding of how that firearm works, and how to use it safely. For their own safety and those that are around them. Most firearms owners agree with that. What we hope is that people are mindful enough to understand that it's a dangerous tool, and to seek out someone to show them how to use it and care for it safely. We don't want government stepping in with mandated programs because we know how that would go.

What legal grounds did they break? I have no idea, I didn't prosecute them. Whatever deal he made led to him to losing his firearms through a technicality. What did his lawyer tell him? Did he understand what was going to happen if he accepted the deal? I have no idea.

My opinion with going outside their house stands. The house provides cover; going outside was not smart. Just an observation.

 

[Acer-m14]

Did I say they should forfeit their right to self defense? No, I didn't. I said they make all of us look bad. That's it.

Anyone that has a firearm should have some basic understanding of how that firearm works, and how to use it safely. For their own safety and those that are around them. Most firearms owners agree with that. What we hope is that people are mindful enough to understand that it's a dangerous tool, and to seek out someone to show them how to use it and care for it safely. We don't want government stepping in with mandated programs because we know how that would go.

What legal grounds did they break? I have no idea, I didn't prosecute them. Whatever deal he made led to him to losing his firearms through a technicality. What did his lawyer tell him? Did he understand what was going to happen if he accepted the deal? I have no idea.

My opinion with going outside their house stands. The house provides cover; going outside was not smart. Just an observation.

so you have a house ( Your Castle ) with a mote of water around it .. or ( fence / gate ) and the Trespassing rioters cross the mote ( fence / gate )

but you need to stay in your house ..

 

[kev74]

These people had a violent, angry mob, who I believe already broke through a gate to enter the property, on their way to attack them and ransack their home.

I'm willing to forgive some tactical mistakes made by people using the tools at hand to defend themselves and their home.

 

[Acer-m14]

These people had a violent, angry mob, who I believe already broke through a gate to enter the property

they did bust the gate

 

[Acer-m14]

if i was making LAWS ..

that house should have had some M2 guns "Ma Deuce" in the windows per LAW

just in case

 

[SomeSoldier]

if i was making LAWS ..

that house should have had some M2 guns "Ma Deuce" in the windows per LAW

just in case

Or mini gun.

 

[spat]

These people had a violent, angry mob, who I believe already broke through a gate to enter the property, on their way to attack them and ransack their home.

I'm willing to forgive some tactical mistakes made by people using the tools at hand to defend themselves and their home.

I would have forgiven them for filling a ditch with gasoline and lighting it.

 

[spat]

Or mini gun.

Or a few actual M72 LAWs.

 

[mgunner]

so you have a house ( Your Castle ) with a mote of water around it .. or ( fence / gate ) and the Trespassing rioters cross the mote ( fence / gate )

but you need to stay in your house ..


View attachment 220775

The gate was not on their property. The gate was on the neighhood street. Breaking the gate is a crime and those who did that should be prosecuted. The mob was walking down the street past houses. They were not vandalizing anything. At least that were the reports at the time it occurred.

 

[Truebeliever]

The gate was not on their property. The gate was on the neighhood street. Breaking the gate is a crime and those who did that should be prosecuted. The mob was walking down the street past houses. They were not vandalizing anything. At least that were the reports at the time it occurred.

Come on. If a mob broke down the gate and was coming toward your house, you might do the same . Some in the crowd did vandalize things . Some were reportedly armed . For lack of a better word , the BLM crowd’s crimes were “whitewashed”.

 

[Truebeliever]

The couple can purchase new guns. It’s the guns involved in their “crime “ that won’t be returned.

 

[spat]

The couple can purchase new guns. It’s the guns involved in their “crime “ that won’t be returned.

Which is a shame, because those particular guns are probably worth quite a bit more than MSRP due to their history.

 

[mgunner]

Come on. If a mob broke down the gate and was coming toward your house, you might do the same . Some in the crowd did vandalize things . Some were reportedly armed . For lack of a better word , the BLM crowd’s crimes were “whitewashed”.

I'll have to look the report back up because I remember it differently at that time. A crowd coming at your house and a crowd walking past houses is very different.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

They screwed up, they made mistakes but the government still confiscated their property and refuses to give it back.

The McCluskey's weren't the ones burning the city down. They were at home minding their own business when a literal mob broke down their gate (likely after just committing arsons) and was trespassing with ill intent.

The McCluskey's are just ignorant unlikable victims with poor visual optics (as being the poorly trained rich white snobby people) but they are the victims.

I haven't checked but Missouri likely is a stand your ground castle doctrine state. Not every state is as assbackwards as new York is.

If you guys are second guessing and victim shaming them it's no different from saying "she was asking for it".

They were home minding their own business. They were the ones who had their property destroyed and were threatened by an overwhelming mob.

That could be any of us. Sure we would have likely made different decisions and handled it better but we're also gun (survival/prepping) enthusiasts and have thought these scenarios out in our heads multiple times.

 

[Acer-m14]

If i remember correctly .. the McCluskey's place is in a Gated Community .. that is what the gate was for .. to keep people out .

but busting open a gate is legal i guess to some