Judge: Gun-waving lawyer shouldn't get guns or money back
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 ...
Absolutely ridiculous. They properly handled that and were 100% in the right. This is a total persecution and a ridiculous disgrace!
I am sooo totally with you, ... kek.
This needs to be overturned.
Castle law still in affect in my state. Others have stand your ground laws that are similar and no retreat. You enter my domain uninvited, you will be drawn on, if you enter by force you will be dealt with deadly force, you enter uninvited with a weapon, you forfeit your right to exist any longer.
Yea, well they are taking a chisel to that. One law follows another law.
That’s the thing about unconstitutional law, you don’t obey, you challenge.
Think bc they were outside on their porch, preventing (ensuring) their safety, judge ruled that way. It's WRONG for sure.
Missouri is Not Red Yet, and was anti-firearm/ CC until recently. A Lawyer should know how to get this to the SCOTUS soon.
When you have a corrupt judicial system, what do you expect?
I can't seem to find the place in the bill of rights or constitution that denies a felon of any rights after their sentence has been served.
Don’t forget that foreigner George Soros bought himself St Louis AG Kim Gardner.
https://www.worldtribune.com/how-george-soros-rewarded-his-st-louis-asset-kim-gardner/
Did any of you read the transcript? They voluntarily signed them away with their guilty pleas. The pardon does not change that paperwork. They should have plead innocent if they wanted guns back. Bigger risk, yes, but they are lawyers, they knew what they were doing.
I think the path that law paperwork sets us on is being obliterated, especially when it effects us all. So they may have gotten a bad legal specialist from a large International Law Firm that assured wider legal ramifications that their smaller self interest did not provide for.
this is a very sensationalist headline and should not be read literally. In this case a very liberal judge is violating the constitutional rights of the McCloskeys. This is not synonymous with an entire group of Americans losing a Constitutional right - as the OP headline infers
Goes to show, we need MORE guns to protect ourselves.
Another case for the Supreme Court
My father in law was a police chief, he always said shoot them and make sure they are dead. Dead men can't testify.