A Lefty Mob Trespassed on Their Property

[rugertoter]

The wrong side is winning. It's going to take something big, to turn things around...at that point, we will all pay some sort of price.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

This is such a clear cut case of self defense and none of the intruders were even harmed, yet a number of police officers executed a search warrant to confiscate firearms. Do they get a pass from the gun owning community for the clear violation of the Missouri state constitution which explicitly spells out the right to bear arms in defense of persons and property?

 

[foszoe]

NRA cited a law regarding holding a firearm in a threatening manner in the presence of 2 or more people.

State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, but does prohibit exhibiting “any weapon readily capable of lethal use” in an angry or threatening manner in the presence of one or more persons. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4).

This is such a clear cut case of self defense and none of the intruders were even harmed, yet a number of police officers executed a search warrant to confiscate firearms. Do they get a pass from the gun owning community for the clear violation of the Missouri state constitution which explicitly spells out the right to bear arms in defense of persons and property?

 

[Phase2]

This is such a clear cut case of self defense and none of the intruders were even harmed, yet a number of police officers executed a search warrant to confiscate firearms. Do they get a pass from the gun owning community for the clear violation of the Missouri state constitution which explicitly spells out the right to bear arms in defense of persons and property?

No. Even the Missouri AG is slamming this decision.

Missouri AG On Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple: Democrat Prosecutor Has History Of ‘Politically Motivated Decisions’

Apparently, this prosecutor has a history of decisions based more on "my team" political biases than equality under the law.

 

[foszoe]

A Republican slamming a democrat or vice versa is not really news though.

No. Even the Missouri AG is slamming this decision.

Missouri AG On Warrant Served On St. Louis Couple: Democrat Prosecutor Has History Of ‘Politically Motivated Decisions’

Apparently, this prosecutor has a history of decisions based more on "my team" political biases than equality under the law.

 

[chipbennett]

NRA cited a law regarding holding a firearm in a threatening manner in the presence of 2 or more people.

Please read RSMo 563.031, specifically (2)(3).

 

[jedi]

This is such a clear cut case of self defense and none of the intruders were even harmed, yet a number of police officers executed a search warrant to confiscate firearms. Do they get a pass from the gun owning community for the clear violation of the Missouri state constitution which explicitly spells out the right to bear arms in defense of persons and property?

Personally I would say YES.
As has been stated this couple is not one of ours.
They are BLM supporters, they have donated to local/national democrats, they have sued the police defending people claiming to have been harrased by the police. They are in essence the enemy that just happens to own guns.

No different that say the mayor of chicago that wont allow the residents of chicago to have guns in the city yet has her own security detail with guns.

So based on that why should I care for them?
If the enemy wants to eat itself out of existence is that bad?

Yes the local prosecutor is doing this out of political motivation but in this case s/he is doing it to one of his/her own. So have at it.

 

[foszoe]

Ok I did. Please read RSMo 571.030 in light of the exceptions as noted in 571.101 to 571.121 and discuss how 563.031 supersedes. Especially the lack of muzzle discipline as noted by several gun enthusiasts and experts here on INGO and the Internet in general.

Please read RSMo 563.031, specifically (2)(3).

 

[2A_Tom]

It surprises me when I see an INGO member that is not for EVERYONES RKBA and self defense.

 

[jedi]

It surprises me when I see an INGO member that is not for EVERYONES RKBA and self defense.

I'm not saying they dont have a right to bear arms or self-defense. They do. I'm just saying they dont belong to our tribe. So why should I care for them if the monster comes and eats them when they are worshipers of that same monster?

They will never be part of our tribe. They have the same mindset as the chicago mayor of all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal to others.

 

[Rick Mason]

I'm not saying they dont have a right to bear arms or self-defense. They do. I'm just saying they dont belong to our tribe. So why should I care for them if the monster comes and eats them when they are worshipers of that same monster?

They will never be part of our tribe. They have the same mindset as the chicago mayor of all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal to others.

Presented for your consideration, in light of recent attacks upon due process and the rule of law, a scene from the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons, about the famed English lawyer Sir Thomas More.

ALICE MORE: Arrest him!

SIR THOMAS MORE: For what?

ALICE: He's dangerous!

WILLIAM ROPER: For libel, he's a spy!

MARGARET MORE: Father, that man's bad.

MORE: There is no law against that.

ROPER: There is! God's law!

MORE: Then God can arrest him.

ALICE: While you talk, he's gone!

MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER: So! Now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

 

[Phase2]

A Republican slamming a democrat or vice versa is not really news though.

If you want to claim that prosecuting non-violent defenders and releasing violent offenders is not worth slamming, then you are not fit to live in any civilization.

 

[2A_Tom]

Presented for your consideration, in light of recent attacks upon due process and the rule of law, a scene from the 1966 film A Man for All Seasons, about the famed English lawyer Sir Thomas More.

ALICE MORE: Arrest him!

SIR THOMAS MORE: For what?

ALICE: He's dangerous!

WILLIAM ROPER: For libel, he's a spy!

MARGARET MORE: Father, that man's bad.

MORE: There is no law against that.

ROPER: There is! God's law!

MORE: Then God can arrest him.

ALICE: While you talk, he's gone!

MORE: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

ROPER: So! Now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

ROPER: Yes! I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

MORE: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

Excellent! Source please.

 

[2A_Tom]

A Republican slamming a democrat or vice versa is not really news though.

If you look at as totally political (as the Left contend) you would be correct. You are right that they see it that way.

However, the criticism is not political, it is moralistic, it is for rule of law and actual justice as laid out in our Constitution and legal system that THEY (yes I said they and if you don't know who they are) want to tear down.

 

[JCSR]

Breaking news on the handgun

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

"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."

 

[foszoe]

Nah, all I want to claim is A Republican slamming a democrat or vice versa is not really news.

If you want to claim that prosecuting non-violent defenders and releasing violent offenders is not worth slamming, then you are not fit to live in any civilization.

 

[MCgrease08]

Personally I would say YES.
As has been stated this couple is not one of ours.
They are BLM supporters, they have donated to local/national democrats, they have sued the police defending people claiming to have been harrased by the police. They are in essence the enemy that just happens to own guns.

No different that say the mayor of chicago that wont allow the residents of chicago to have guns in the city yet has her own security detail with guns.

So based on that why should I care for them?
If the enemy wants to eat itself out of existence is that bad?

Yes the local prosecutor is doing this out of political motivation but in this case s/he is doing it to one of his/her own. So have at it.

I'm sorry, but this is an extremely short sighted position that goes against everything our criminal justice system is built upon. Everyone deserves due process no matter their politics.

If blatant abuses can be used against "the other side" they will certainly be used against "our side" too.

 

[foszoe]

I am just saying it's expected, not a surprise. I didn't need the AG to condemn the action for me. However, as many here noted, the muzzle discipline was lacking and that appears to be the law that is snagging them up and resulted in the search warrant.

If you look at as totally political (as the Left contend) you would be correct. You are right that they see it that way.

However, the criticism is not political, it is moralistic, it is for rule of law and actual justice as laid out in our Constitution and legal system that THEY (yes I said they and if you don't know who they are) want to tear down.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok I did. Please read RSMo 571.030 in light of the exceptions as noted in 571.101 to 571.121 and discuss how 563.031 supersedes. Especially the lack of muzzle discipline as noted by several gun enthusiasts and experts here on INGO and the Internet in general.

563.031 justifies the use of deadly force. 571 applies to the unjustified use of deadly force.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm not saying they dont have a right to bear arms or self-defense. They do. I'm just saying they dont belong to our tribe. So why should I care for them if the monster comes and eats them when they are worshipers of that same monster?

They will never be part of our tribe. They have the same mindset as the chicago mayor of all animals are created equal but some animals are more equal to others.

Pinner wasn't part of "our tribe", either. The test cases that challenge bad law or wrongful prosecution rarely are part of "our tribe."