Posted on 12/30/2022 10:24:15 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage?
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020 should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after guilty pleas last year.
Mark McCloskey sued last year to have returned a Colt AR-15 rifle and a Bryco .380-caliber pistol that he and his wife, Patricia McCloskey, surrendered when they pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the confrontation with protesters. McCloskey said he was entitled to the guns and remitted fines because Republican Gov. Mike Parson pardoned him and his wife weeks after their guilty pleas.
On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty ruled that the pardon had no bearing on the plea agreement, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
“Plaintiff and his wife are required to follow through with their end of the bargain,” she wrote.
Mark McCloskey said he plans to appeal.
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
They should never have taken a plea deal.
RACIAL INJUSTICE PROTESTERS my A**.
They were AND ARE domestic terrorists and these INNOCENT people deserve their rights back.
I was wondering why they did that?
“Does anyone remember why they pleaded guilty?”
They pointed guns at people who were not threatening them.
By size alone, That crowd streaming through private property seemed menacing enough to me!
fricking mob scaled the house fence and gate, shouting about burning the house down
disparity of force is 1000% on their side
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There are no exclusions or exceptions to this amendment, and that includes whether some rogue judge thinks that “waving around” a firearm is acceptable or not.
And what law does that break?
“They pointed guns at people who were not threatening them.”
That’s not true. They were definitely being threatened.
Well all I can say is don’t come to Texas, riot, break into private property and expect to leave upright....
Never pull a gun unless you mean to shoot somebody, then shoot at center of mass. Remember you were in fear for your life. Your lawyer can explain that to the LEO’s while you remain silent till he gets there. Stop shooting when the threat is stopped. Do not pursue anyone leaving/running away. I’m not a lawyer, I didn’t stay at Holiday Inn. This is all IMO.
Warning shots, the Easter Bunny, and unicorns don’t exist. COM.
That’s not true. They were definitely being threatened.
Didn’t the rioters break open a gate and came onto private property and the “lawyers’ were just protecting their private property and their house. The pistol was inoperative anyway.
They should never have plead guilty. But even so, with pardon, maybe return things? Probably not. Interesting to see how this plays out.
They were threatening according to reports I heard. They threatened to burn their house down. They broke down a metal/wrought iron fence to gain access to the gated neighborhood which right near their home. I think they webt on their property or were starting to before they got their guns but at the very least were on the sidewalk in front of their house saying threatening things. At one point I read the protesters either threatened or did kill their cat(not sure if my memory serves me on that one).
To end the lawfare being waged against them.
Anyone who saw the video of that event, who didn’t see the crowd as threatening, is an idiot.
Those "people" had broken down the closed gate and invaded their property. "I" would say that those "people" WERE threatening them.
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.