Posted on 07/12/2020 8:58:24 PM PDT by blueyon
On Friday night St. Louis Police served homeowners Mark and Patricia McCloskey with a search warrant and confiscated their rifle.
The McCloskeys made national headlines when they defended their home from hundreds of BLM protesters who trespassed into their neighborhood to protest at the home of the St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.
Following the visit to their home by St. Louis City Police local gun store Alien Armory Tactical announced they will donate a free AR15 to the McCloskeys after Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner sent police to their house to confiscate their rifle.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
Well, maybe they should have thought about that before supporting the lefties in St Louis like they have for a long time. Unfortunately, being libs, I doubt that they are able to string the cause and effect of their actions together in all this. I am sure that the "don't understand" why this is happening to THEM. They are "good people", not like those mean ole conservatives.
The store doing this offering is in St Charles, on the other side of the MO River from St Louis County. This corrupt prosecutor cannot touch them.
Since no charges were filed I would say the arms need to be returned pronto.
Without charges the confiscation is nothing more than PC contrived theft.
With charges the right to trial must be given it’s day.
Details matter but always seem to be in short supply.
Exactly.
I would love to read the warrant, but haven't been able to find a legible copy.
I have a screenshot of it. You can just make out it says "rifle" and "silver pistol" on it.
If anyone can get more information off of this, I would like to be able to read it.
The only charge seems to be: "Unlawful use of a (undecipherable, code numbers undecipherable).
Here is the portion of the warrant:
*571.030. Unlawful use of weapons — exceptions — penalties. — 1. A person commits the offense of unlawful use of weapons, except as otherwise provided by sections 571.101 to 571.121, if he or she knowingly:
(1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use into any area where firearms are restricted under section 571.107; or
(2) Sets a spring gun; or
(3) Discharges or shoots a firearm into a dwelling house, a railroad train, boat, aircraft, or motor vehicle as defined in section 302.010, or any building or structure used for the assembling of people; or
(4) Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner; or
There is an exception, which I believe would apply:
5. Subdivisions (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to persons who are engaged in a lawful act of defense pursuant to section 563.031.
Section 563.031 specifically allows the use of deadly force, not just showing a weapon.
(3) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter private property that is owned or leased by an individual, or is occupied by an individual who has been given specific authority by the property owner to occupy the property, claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.
There is no question the rioters unlawfully entered private property, which makes this charge completely bogus.
(Unlawful use of a weapon”, followed by code numbers?
If that is the “Charge” justifying confiscation, WHEN IS THEIR DAY IN COURT?
I woulds also contend that “Unlawful use of a weapon” is unconstitutionally vague.
Looks like a universal CYA charge, ripe for abuse.
Some years ago the Las Vegas PD tried a similar tactic of “Carrying a Dangerous knife” against a known drug dealer.
I have mo love for drug dealers, but his lawyer got it tossed as failing the “Reasonable man” test.
No clear legal definition, no legitimate force of law.
Arghh! No, not mo.
Our post seem to have overlapped.
Marketing 101.... great bang for the dollar.
Sometimes life has other ideas. Sadly, it's a little late to "just be left alone."
Well, she can bring the charge and they just have to offer that up as an affirmative defense and that should be that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.