Trump may intervene in case of St. Louis couple wielding guns at protesters, Missouri governor said

The governor of Missouri says President Trump has promised to "do everything he could within his powers" to shield a St. Louis couple who wielded guns at protesters in their gated community from prosecution, even as an attorney for the client says charges are imminent.

Gov. Mike Parson said he spoke to Trump Tuesday and was reassured that the president-- who previously has retweeted a photo of the couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey holding up guns in front of their house in the June 28 incident--"understands the situation in Missouri."

"He understands the situation in St. Louis and how out of control it is for a prosecutor to let violent criminals off and not do their job and try to attack law-abiding citizens," Parson said at a press conference.

The second amendment is a constitutional right and the local prosecutor has no authority to ignore it. He is breaking the law.

A major problem is the Supreme Court refuses to enforce the Second Amendment beyond the Heller and McDonald opinions.

I cannot recall a single successful case being brought against a public official under 18 USC for violating Second Amendment rights.

Its called deprivation of rights under color of authority. The home owners had every right under the second amendment to possess and use their firearms to protect them selves.

But if they committed a crime while doing that then the deprivation of rights defense falls apart. Bear in mind that they haven't been charged with anything yet but the expectation is they'll be charged with unlawful use of a weapon, one of offenses being "Exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner." From what video I've seen it's hard to make the self-defense case but if they are charged then we'll see.

The prosecutor is violating those rights by prosecuting them for exorcising those rights.

Not if they're charged with a crime.

Its no different than a state passing a law impeding peoples right to vote.

| The state denied people the right to vote or the right to keep arms all the time. Just commit a felony and do time and see what happens.

Seems like there should be something better than a pardon - when there is no crime.

The DA is guilty of wrongful prosecution, and if a judge allowed it, the judge is guilty of violating their oath to uphold the constitution.

I don’t know enough about the law, but these tyrants should be held accountable and just throw the case out. The DA and judge should be the ones on trial.

I agree that the governor should do something, but I don’t think it should be a pardon - since the couple were within their rights.

Pardon them for what?

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.