Second Amendment

Everybody Is Jumping to Conclusions About This Couple's Show of Force in Response to Trespassing Protesters

Mark and Patricia McCloskey's justification for brandishing their guns depends on facts, not ideology.

|

Last week Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the lawyers who brandished guns in response to protesters passing by their house in a private neighborhood of St. Louis on June 28, were charged with illegally exhibiting lethal weapons "in an angry or threatening manner." The merits of those charges, which are Class E felonies punishable by up to four years in prison, obviously depend on exactly what happened that day. But the heated debate about whether the McCloskeys were lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights has instead been driven by political and ideological agendas.

"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest," St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, a Democrat and the first African American to occupy her position, said when she filed the charges. "And while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis." But after Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) urged the U.S. Justice Department to open a civil rights investigation of the McCloskeys' treatment, Gardner's measured position gave way to over-the-top, inflammatory rhetoric that reflects underlying political grudges and racial suspicion.

"This is a dog whistle of racist rhetoric and cronyism politics," Gardner said. "This is a modern-day night ride, and everybody knows it." She thus equated Hawley's objections to her prosecution of the McCloskeys with Ku Klux Klan terrorism.

While the McCloskeys are white and many of the protesters were black, Hawley said nothing about race in his July 16 letter to Attorney General William Barr, although he did accuse Gardner of "a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights." The case against the McCloskeys is "part of a troubling pattern of politically motivated prosecutorial decisions," he said, citing Gardner's opposition to a law that eliminated the permit requirement for carrying a concealed firearm and her decision not to charge eight people arrested for rioting during local protests against police brutality. "There is no question under Missouri law that the McCloskeys had the right to own and use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence," Hawley asserted, "and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound."

The couple also has the support of other prominent Republicans. Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt condemned the case against the McCloskeys as a "political prosecution." Gov. Mike Parson said he probably would pardon them if they were convicted. President Donald Trump called Gardner's investigation of the couple "a disgrace."

Parson's position on the case is especially revealing, since he admitted he is not familiar with the facts required to determine whether the McCloskeys' actions were legal. The couple "had every right" to brandish their guns, he told reporters on July 14, accusing Gardner of "attempting to take their constitutional rights away." But he also said he was still "reviewing all the available facts" and conceded that he did not "know all the details of it."

Three days later, in an interview with a local radio station, Parson said he was grateful that Trump had promised to "do everything he could within his powers to help with the situation" (although exactly what that might mean is unclear, since the president has no authority over local prosecutorial decisions). Asked if he would pardon the McCloskeys, Parson replied, "By all means, I would, and I think that's exactly what would happen." But he again conceded that he did not know "all the facts," adding that "if this is all about going after them because they…did a lawful act, then, yeah, if that scenario in fact happened, I don't think they're going to spend any time in jail."

Did that scenario in fact happen? It is undisputed that the protesters—who reportedly were taking a shortcut to the home of St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, where they planned to harangue her and demand her resignation for publicly revealing the names and addresses of constituents who had written to her in support of "defunding" the police—trespassed on private property by entering the gated community. Mark McCloskey—who questions the protesters' motivation, saying "the mayor's house cannot be reached through my neighborhood"—claims they broke through a locked gate to traverse a private street, verbally threatened him, and were deterred only by the guns that he and his wife wielded (a rifle and a pistol, respectively).

"I was a person scared for my life, who was protecting my wife, my home, my hearth, my livelihood," McCloskey said in a June 30 interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo. "I was a victim of a mob that came through the gate. I didn't care what color they were. I didn't care what their motivation was. I was frightened. I was assaulted. And I was in imminent fear that they would run me over, kill me, burn my house." He described "hundreds of people" who were "screaming, shouting, angry" as they "broke through the private gate." He said they were "screaming death threats at me and threatening to burn my house and kill my dog and [talking about] what rooms in my house they were going to live in after they killed me."

McCloskey explained that his fear was amplified by his knowledge of how local protests triggered by the May 25 death of George Floyd in Minneapolis had turned destructive and violent before. "When bad things happen, they unpredictably turn really bad really fast," he said. "The reason why they did not get up my steps was that my wife and I were there with weapons to keep them off our steps….They were coming at us until I displayed the weapon, and that stopped them."

On those facts, Hawley is correct that the McCloskeys "had the right to…use their firearms to protect themselves from threatened violence." Missouri law allows anyone to use deadly force when "he or she reasonably believes" it is "necessary to protect himself, or herself or her unborn child, or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony." The law also says a person may use deadly force against anyone who "attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person." It adds that people facing such a threat in their own home have no duty to retreat from the confrontation—a rule, known as the "castle doctrine," that applies in every state.

Research by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch casts doubt on at least one element of Mark McCloskey's story. Based on video shot by a protester, reporter Jeremy Kohler found that the gate was unlocked, undamaged, and open when the first members of the group entered the private street. The video, Kohler said, shows those protesters veering away from the McCloskeys' house rather than approaching it, while Mark McCloskey, standing on his front porch, "immediately" begins shouting at them to leave. The man recording the scene objects that the protesters are staying on the sidewalk and asks why the McCloskeys are pointing guns at them. Later on, an organizer can be heard in another video shot by a protester urging the group to stay on the sidewalk and avoid walking on residents' property.

Notwithstanding those instructions, of course, the protesters already were illegally walking through a private neighborhood. "Any pretense of protest, as opposed to terrorism, ended when they broke through that gate," McCloskey said on CNN. Furthermore, as Kohler noted, there is a dispute about ownership of the green area between the gate and the sidewalk, which the McCloskeys claim is theirs by squatters' rights, since they have treated it as part of their front yard for years.

As far as I can tell, no video or audio evidence has emerged to confirm McCloskey's claim that protesters approached his house in a menacing way and made verbal threats. But that does not mean it did not happen, since the record is incomplete.

In this context, Chris Cuomo's attitude during his hostile interview with McCloskey and his lawyer, Albert Watkins, is maddening. "We can talk about the legal rights and the facts," Cuomo said at the outset. "But I want to talk about, not having a right, but whether or not something is right first….How do you feel about becoming the political face of resistance to the Black Lives Matter movement?"

As McCloskey and Watkins pointed out, the couple had no control over how other people, including the president, responded to the incident. While expressing support for the Black Lives Matter message, Watkins noted that it has nothing to do with the justification for the McCloskeys' show of force. That has everything to do with "the legal rights and the facts" that Cuomo so blithely dismissed.

[This post has been revised to correct the date of George Floyd's death.]

NEXT: The Case for Replacing the Bar Exam With "Diploma Privilege"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. I basically make about $12,000-$18,000 a month online. It’s enough to comfortably replace my I was amazed how easy it was after I tried it . This is what I’ve been doing old jobs income, especially considering I only work about 10-13 hours a week from home………..Cash Mony System

    2. Warning! Hihnfection downthread.

      If you aren’t a bot, sorry to hijack your comment, gay, but it seems like Michael Hihn has gone off his meds or slipped his restraints again and is posting under the name/login ‘wm97’.

      1. You definitely are not lying.

        Whoever that is is off his fucking rocker.

      2. Oh dear.

        I never understood why anyone ever actually responded to him.

      3. I dunno, man, not enough mentions of Scalia on a gun thread to be Hihn.

        A cousin, perhaps?

  1. There’s video, Jacob.
    They were justified.

    1. Even if it weren’t on video, it’s not on them to prove they aren’t criminals. It’s up to the State to prove they ARE.

      Their claim that they were threatened and they were acting defensively has to be assumed to be true unless we have evidence that it isn’t. I’m positive some of those “protesters” were filming, if there were evidence that the homeowners were unjustified we’d have seen it by now. The silence is deafening.

      1. “Their claim that they were threatened and they were acting defensively has to be assumed to be true unless we have evidence that it isn’t”

        Yeah. Instead the “protesters” who broke the gate to the private community are assumed to be the innocent ones because there is no video evidence of them making threats. It was mostly peaceful B&E

        1. With how things work on Twitter with video, they can’t even produce a highly out of context, edited clip that makes the homeowners look bad.

          That says all you need to know. They can’t even find 5 seconds of video of one of the homeowners saying something or acting within the moment that incriminates them.

          1. I saw them waving weapons around when there was no clear danger. I saw them pointing weapons at all sorts of people who were obviously no immediate threat to them.

            And the fact the guy’s gun was unloaded tells you right there that he didn’t think the threat was that serious.

            1. No, what it tells me is that this guy, who knows pretty much nothing about guns (and in fact has a history of opposing gun ownership), listened to the idiots who say to not keep guns and ammo together. He grabbed the carbine in a hurry and didn’t take time to load it, figuring that it was scary enough looking that nobody would test whether or not it would go “bang.” And nobody did.

            2. The video shows the couple from the view of the protesters. The couple were responding to threats from the opposite direction. The protesters were only there because they had smashed an antique gate to get in. Clearly, they had demonstrated a willingness to damage property and trespass. And the couple had clearly been watching the news, where the violence and destruction of the associated protests were fairly clear.
              The couple had basically spent years and a fortune restoring one of the nicest houses in the country. They did not want to see it burned down in an orgy of senseless violence.

              If all I had to defend myself was an unloaded gun, I would probably use it as a bluff like they did.

              Honestly, you can’t support defunding the police and also be against people defending their own property. Many people seem to oppose both.

        2. I’m curious if it was so peaceful, then why were they chanting “no justice, no peace.” Sounds like they’re proclaiming their intents to be not peaceful.

          1. Precedence matters. “No justice” comes before “no peace”, meaning if the demand for justice is not met, there will be no peace. The opposite of what you wrote.

        3. Didn’t read the article, did you?

        4. The gate is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether they were under immediate threat of death or great bodily harm. Obviously, they weren’t. The guy didn’t even bother to load his gun.

          1. The gate is not irrelevant. Neither is the sign on it that said that it was a private road / walk for residents only. This isn’t a public area. The streets and sidewalks are not owned or maintained by the city or county or state.

      2. I earned $5000 ultimate month by using operating online only for 5 to 8 hours on my computer and this was so smooth that i personally couldn’t accept as true with before working on this website. if you too need to earn this sort of huge cash then come and be part of us. do this internet-website online.********************ReadMore.

      3. We have evidence that they were not threatened to the point they needed to pull a weapon.
        For one thing, nobody was near them in the video.
        For another, the guy didn’t even load his rifle. If I had a legitimate threat in my front yard, you can count on my rifle being loaded.

        They were colossally stupid. Take a CCW class and have the instructor tell you why.

        1. Yes, clearly the fact that the weapons were not loaded proves that they were trying to do bodily harm to those encroaching on private property.

          1. Wow, some eyes you got there. You can tell whether or not a weapon is loaded from 25 yards away. Good for you, Bill.

      4. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the sametime as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five howeverI see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do……Click For Full Detail Here.

      5. Exactly and considering the damage being done it was more than reasonable for them to have concern for their own safety.

        1. Why do you claim they knew there was damage being done? They’ve said they didn’t know the gate was broken until after the confrontation.

    2. Links, please, or you are just huffing and puffing.

      1. Get your own damn links.
        Or disagree.
        It matters not either way

    3. Federal civil rights charges against the Circuit Attorney? Why not?

    4. Did you read the article?
      Have you ever been through a CCW class?
      Not justified, and a really stupid way to handle it, even if you assumed it was justified.

      1. Totally justified for me to have MY gun on MY property in any fashion I choose.

        But their gun handling was fucking atrocious and points to a lack of familiarity with their arms.

        1. Does it help to mollify your objections to know that her weapon was intentionally disabled (it was apparently a prop for a courtroom demonstration) and his was unloaded?

          For me it makes me question their sanity a bit. But at least the extreme lack of muzzle discipline is somewhat more justified. She waved that thing around like.. .well, like someone who doesn’t know how to handle a firearm.

          1. “Does it help to mollify your objections to know that her weapon was intentionally disabled (it was apparently a prop for a courtroom demonstration) and his was unloaded?”

            No. Because, as a CCW holder, I see someone pointing a gun at me and I won’t ask them how serious they are or whether their gun is working. I regard it as a deadly threat and grounds to shoot before they get any more stupid. If it turns out they take an unloaded weapon of the dead body, then that is truly a tragic tale. Sometimes stupidity is a fatal disease.

            1. And if you shoot them while you’re trespassing on their property with an aggressive mob, you go down for murder.

              1. If they are pointing guns at me, then the shooting is justified. No guns, no justification. My explanation was about where someone is pointing guns, not just walking across my lawn.

                Tell me about the CCW classes you have taken. Lots, I will bet. Right?

                1. You may think it’s justified, but the only reason you had a gun pointed at you in the first place is because you’re in the process of committing a crime and violating someone’s rights.

                  That’s murder, buddy

                  1. I didn’t give any indication of any crime at all that I would be committing. I don’t march in protests, myself, so the only reason I would have been there would have been as a regular visitor.

                    Is this the best you can do for an intelligent response?

                    1. He was giving the exact context of the particular situation that we are examining.

                      The ‘protest’ mob was illegally trespassing when they were confronted by the armed homeowners of the property they were trespassing on. If one of them had shot one or both of the homeowners in response, that would be murder.

                2. No, if they are pointing guns at you when you are trespassing, shooting them is NOT justified.
                  When you are committing a crime, your right of self defense is SIGNIFICANTLY attenuated.

          2. That does make a little difference, at least so far as to why they may not have exhibited better discipline.

        2. “Totally justified for me to have MY gun on MY property in any fashion I choose.”

          Tell it to the judge when they arrest you. Come back and tell us how long the judge laughed.

          1. Read up on MO law. They are entitled to prevent people from even ENTERING their property.

              1. Yes.

                Any further questions?

                The statutes can be viewed online. Feel free to peruse them.

              2. I don’t know about Missouri, but when I was a kid in Texas, if you went onto someone’s property they could shoot your ass dead; they simply had to have private property warnings posted at regular intervals on the boundary of their property. The colloquial term was that the land or property was “posted”.

                “Let’s go fishing. Does Waltersheid’s pond have decent bass?” “Can’t fish there, it’s posted.”

                1. . . .and besides, almost all of Waltersheid’s guns are at the bottom of the pond, following that boating accident . . .

    5. Tell us about the rules they discussed in your CCW class that convinces you they were justified.

      You have had lots of training in this particular topic, haven’t you?

      1. Did your CCW tell you not to be an overly emotional little bitch?

        Guessing you skipped that day

        1. “Did your CCW tell you not to be an overly emotional little bitch?”

          Irony. How does it work. Got any clue?

          Tell us about your CCW classes and education on the topic. We need an expert here.

          1. Holding out “CCW classes” as if they are like, law school, is hilarious.

            1. The truly amusing thing is that he seems completely unaware that CCW requirements vry form local to locale, as do laws regarding defense, gun possession, etc.
              In fact, most CCW courses are developed by the school they are taught by — all they are required to do is cover the legal requirements, and how this is done isn’t generally regulated. I’ve taught CCW courses in several states, and no two are alike.

          2. We are not discussing concealed guns. The armed protesters were not concealing theirs, and the couple were clearly not concealing theirs.
            The only real question is whether you can point a gun at someone who has forcibly broken into your property. In Missouri, you are allowed to defend your property with threat of force.

            I agree that their gun handling was horrible. But once you know that one gun was nonfunctional, and they had no ammo for the other, it is at least more understandable. When the mob broke down their gate, that is all they had to defend themselves. It is not like calling the cops was going to be helpful.
            And it worked. nobody got hurt, and their house was not vandalized beyond the broken gate.

        2. My CCW instructor was friggin’ Larry Correia.

          You may now commence imagining how awesome my CCW class was. 😀

          1. I first met him back when he used to rent a room at the Salt Lake Cabela’s and teach the course, back in the FBMG (and the first edition of MHI) days.

      2. In what way were their weapons concealed?

        1. They were hidden behind all of those rioters . . ?

  2. Here’s the problem.

    Gardner campaigned on prosecutorial reform. Brilliant. We need it. I support the concept 100%. And if I lived in the city, instead of the county, I probably would have voted for her.

    Her claims that police and prosecutors often use lawful (and sometimes unlawful?) tactics and dirty tricks to criminalize, penalize, and incarcerate people are warranted.

    But they fall on deaf ears when, even if they can get past the castle doctrine (which they might be able to), literally comes down to whether the gun is loaded and can be fired. When the handgun was seized, it was not in working order. Gardner ordered the crime lab to assemble it so it could be fired. Getting awfully close to a “dirty trick”.

    When further, this very same circuit attorney used an outside investigator who’s currently under indictment for perjury and evidence tampering in a case against a political ‘rival’. She dropped the charges because she would have had to testify in the case against the investigator.

    It’s so frustrating. She said all the right things. Prosecution in this city needs reform. It’s unjust. Unfair. And unlawful. But, if you’re gonna run on that platform….you can’t be guilty of it to go after people who disagree with you.

    1. She is a Soros plant.
      She is there to further the cause of leftist totalitarianism by any means necessary.
      That is all.

      1. If you are going to talk about the George Soros conspiracy, don’t forget the leprechauns. They are the ones that do all the dirty work.

        1. No no.
          The leprechauns are working on behalf of the Bilderbergers. It is known.

        2. So Soros didn’t fund a bunch of DA’s campaigns?

          1. Yes, absolutely. About half of them were secretly leprechauns.

            1. So you’re going with “this documented fact isn’t a fact” or a strange belief in leprechaun law, we see.

              As an expert in bird law, I urge caution in this line of argumentation

              1. Well, it’s not like he has a factual leg to stand on. Best to go with utter bullshit.

                1. I have better conspiracy theories than you do.

                  1. It’s not a Theory, dipshit

                    1. I know. I have seen the pictures of the leprechauns myself.

                  2. I bet. I’ve read your “I took a CCW class. For realz” a lot here.

        3. That is the first intelligent thing you have said.

          1. the leprechauns that is

    2. All that matters is whether the McCloskeys had a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury. It appears they did.

      1. “imminent death or serious bodily injury”

        Would you dress like that if you thought your death was imminent?

        1. Practically begging for it?

        2. No, please! Take my wife!

        3. He was dressed for dinner on the veranda.

        4. Dunno about you, but most people don’t take the time to change into something more appropriate when defending their homes against mobs. Go check out how the Rooftop Koreans were dressed.

      2. You are right about what matters. But I saw no evidence of any kind of threat that would make me pull a weapon. Quite the contrary. If I thought there was a real threat like that, I wouldn’t be walking around my front yard waving guns.
        If I was on the jury, they would go to jail. I never did like idiots who waved weapons around. For one thing, they “swept” everyone in the crowd. If they did pull the trigger, all they were going to hit were random people in the crowd. That’s colossally stupid.

        1. There was a veritable army of people who had just broken into his community (the gate was broken and security cameras spray painted). Several of which were armed. They professed allegiance to a group that had committed multiple violent felonies in the previous weeks, including arson. The fact that the group attempted to destroy evidence by damaging the cameras should be used against them (interpret any destroyed evidence as going against the person who destroyed it).

          If you do not believe that you are in danger given this set of facts, I would question your sanity. You may argue, rightly, that calling attention to themselves in this way was ineffective or counterproductive self defense, but that doesn’t invalidate that it was self defense by any rational standard of the phrase.

      3. The guy didn’t even bother to load his weapon. He didn’t think it was serious, himself. He just wanted to show off.

    3. Take a CCW class. I will bet that they will tell you that the castle doctrine really doesn’t apply in the street.

      They will also tell you that it doesn’t matter whether the gun was operational. Why? Because anyone seeing the gun is right to perceive it as a deadly threat because they don’t know that it doesn’t work. Therefore, if some legal CCW holder happened to be there, and had the gun pointed at him, he would be entitled to pull his own weapon and drop her right there.

      Face it. They were idiots. I am a gun owner myself and, if I was on the jury, I would vote guilty just for their stupid handling of weapons.

      1. So you’re bragging on having taken a CCW class while at the same time talking about how you’d like to take someone else’s life because they annoy you?

        Interesting move

        1. Where did I say that?

          Don’t bother to reply. It’s clear you don’t have anything worthwhile to contribute if you pull that routine.

          1. This may surprise you, but others CAN read your comments

            1. Irony. How does it work. Got any clue?

              You were here to display your great knowledge of the law, weren’t you? When does that start?

      2. “Take a CCW class. I will bet that they will tell you that the castle doctrine really doesn’t apply in the street.”

        Missouri’s does.

        Fucking moron.

        1. That would be interesting to see. Got a link?

          1. You can Google MO’s castle doctrine just as I did. Not that difficult. It is online.

      3. You are a colossal dipshit and a fvckin moron. No one cares about your class, the law is different in every state, you blithering imbecile. And they weren’t in the street, they were on their fvckin porch and there were dozens of people on their lawn next to the sidewalk

        1. Help us out. Tell us where you got your great knowledge of the subject. Harvard Law School is my guess. When you do that, you will surely destroy all my arguments with your obvious great knowledge.

          None of the others could manage to post even one time that they had ever learned anything. I am sure that won’t be your problem.

      4. “Therefore, if some legal CCW holder happened to be there, and had the gun pointed at him, he would be entitled to pull his own weapon and drop her right there.”

        This all hinges on whether the CCW permit holder was in the process of committing a crime.

        1. And I learned that at me CCW class.

  3. People do not “brandish” guns at intruders on private property. The fact that this is under debate scares me.

    1. The law is not about brandishing.

      The law states that it is unlawful to display a weapon in an “angry or threatening manner”.

      Which makes the law very likely unconstitutionally vague. Robert Barns (civil rights attorney) explained it fairly simply – imagine it as a defamation case. Could you say I defamed you if I said you did something in an angry manner? No, you couldn’t. Because “angry” is not very specific. It has certain negative connotations, but it is also extremely subjective. What one person thinks is angry, another might not. Therefore that is opinion and not defamatory.

      So the statute is also vague. How is anyone to know what is legal and what is illegal? More specifically, how is the beat cop supposed to know if you are violating the law or not. If two beat cops could not agree as to what constitutes a violation of law, it isn’t specific enough.

      So there is likely a challenge available on constitutional grounds for vagueness.

      There is also a challenge under Heller as a second amendment violation.

      And then there’s the arbitrary and capricious prosecution. Faced with a mob of hundreds of people who are on video violating the law, the prosecutor chooses to ignore their illegal activities, ignore their provocations and only focus on the couple acting in self defense in response to those illegal activities and provocations. Her own statements have made it clear that her discretion in this matter are driven by her political ideology. So the couple might actually have a claim against the prosecutor – which would be a miracle, since they have immunity even when they actually frame someone for murder (Connick, Sr.).

      1. How about this? If you pull a weapon out in that situation with me, I take it as a threat unless you have a big smile on your face and are showing me your gun collection.

        If you pull it out at all, under any other circumstances, I consider it “threatening.” Doesn’t matter what you do from that point, and you may get shot yourself unless you have a really good, really quick explanation.

        I was on the school rifle team when I was in school. Weapons are not toys and you don’t play with them. If you pull it out, I assume you are either deadly serious, or deadly stupid.

        1. “you are either deadly serious, or deadly stupid.”

          You seem to speak from experience here.
          Hope you don’t live in one of those Red Flag states

          1. Are these the most intelligent responses you can manage?

            1. That’s an odd question.
              But I’ll admit, this is fun

        2. So in your mind, you’re allowed to break into someone’s property and trespass, and if the owner points a gun at you, YOU’RE justified in shooting him? While in the commission of a crime?

          1. Where did I say any of that?

            1. “If you pull a weapon out in that situation with me, I take it as a threat”

              ^^^ Right here.

              The situation under discussion is a mob of people trespassing on private property under circumstances that suggest violence may occur. If you meant a completely different situation, you probably should have said so, but this is what the article and the discussion are about.

        3. We all know which one you are

          1. We were all eagerly waiting for you to tell us where you got all your knowledge on this topic. It’s a lot, I bet. Just give the first four or five law degrees you earned.

            1. I am a licensed Insurance Agent and studied for the Certified Financial Planner Exam. That is good in every state, somImam already ahead of your vast CCW from a retired bumpkin sheriff knowledge

              1. If you actually by the idea that he TOOK a CCW course. A couple of his statements indicate that if he did, he forgot the Use of Deadly Force part of the class.

        4. “How about this? If you pull a weapon out in that situation with me, I take it as a threat unless you have a big smile on your face and are showing me your gun collection.

          If you pull it out at all, under any other circumstances, I consider it “threatening.” Doesn’t matter what you do from that point, and you may get shot yourself unless you have a really good, really quick explanation.”

          And if you were in the process of committing a crime, you could be charged for murder. The guy robbing a convenience store doesn’t get to make the argument that he was acting in self defense when he shot and killed the cashier who drew on him.

        5. “…….or deadly stupid…….”

          Yeah. Like that foster dude in Austin. What a dumb ass.

    2. Yeah, actually, that is what it is called. And the only justification for it is an immediate threat. Doesn’t matter where you are, you need a really good reason before you point guns at people.

      1. Leave. You sound like a baffoon mr high school rifle team member.

        1. Is this the most intelligent response you can manage?

  4. Video link is wrong. It instead points to the same location as the previous link (states which have ‘stand your ground’ laws).

  5. Good God. These articles have become really tiresome. The “protesters” were on private property. There was a sign, and they were informed by the owners that it was private property and to leave. These “protests” have become violent in MANY locations. People have been beaten and killed, property gas been destroyed. It’s COMPLETELY reasonable for any person to fear for his life when a mob of a hundred people associating themselves with a movement that has shown a propensity for violence enters their private property and then refuses to leave.
    Stop trying to blame private citizens for being terrified and defending themselves. The fault lies with the violent rioters, AND with the government agencies who can no longer be relied upon to enforce the law and keep the peace. The fault lies with every shitbag mayor, police commissioner, city council member, and governor who has refused to put this violence to bed. Same goes for the idiot with the AK, and any other mob member that gets shot by a terrified person, who’s just trying to defend himself against a mob of people who are more than willing to do violence against anyone who doesn’t prostrate themselves.

    You want fewer “protesters” getting killed? Get them out of the fucking streets, get the violent rioters under control, and return some semblance of order to life for normal people.

    I know libertarians hate the government, but this is an area where the government has a compelling interest in restoring public order. Regular people who live in these communities are fed up and scared, and in the abscence of action from the people they pay to keep order, they will continue to take matters into their own hands.

    1. I think even most libertarians accept that “preventing a violent mob from murdering me in my own home” is a valid function of government. We may not like 90% of what the police do, but I think that falls in the other 10%.

      1. Protecting the rights of citizens is the ONLY valid function of government, and one that they have failed at spectacularly from top to bottom. You really can’t blame a guy for taking up arms when he realizes the government not only CAN’T protect his rights, but also has NO INTEREST in protecting his rights.

        You’d think a libertarian publication would recognize that all of these instances of violence are the result of the fact that the government had ONE JOB and they failed to do it, and stop trying to blame Joe Citizen for protecting himself.

        1. Protecting the liberty of citizens is the ONLY valid function of government,

          FIFY

    2. If you shoot someone, or pull a gun, because they ignored your “Keep off the lawn” sign, you will go to jail.

      Take a CCW class and learn the rules.

      1. Lol

        Is this a new parody account?

        If so, well played

        1. Tell us all you know about the topic.

          Oh, you already did. Thanks.

      2. Get over yourself. Ccw class? Are you fucking kidding me? Do not come back to this website.

        1. Tell us about your vast knowledge of the topic and how it was acquired. Not even one class on any part of it, at any time, anywhere?

          I am surprised.

        2. No, please don’t run him off!
          I’m enjoying this (though it is likely to get old fast).

          For the record, I scored a perfect 1600 on my SACCWT

          1. Tell us where you got your knowledge of the topic.

            What’s the problem with that?

  6. “Based on video shot by a protester, reporter Jeremy Kohler found that the gate was unlocked, undamaged, and open when the first members of the group entered the private street.”

    The link embedded in that sentence is to a list of state laws, not a newspaper article about the condition of the gate. I’d be interested to see the video mentioned, if anyone has the link.

    1. I’d also be interested in the video, although I think his claims are irrelevant. Someone’s front door being unlocked doesn’t mean you can just roam around their house freely, and you certainly shouldn’t be surprised if a homeowner pops up with a gun if you do it anyways.

    2. https://youtu.be/7jRdd6T_DYQ?t=1666

      There’s a link. I tried to copy the link at the correct timecode, but if I didn’t, go to 27:40. It shows the gate intact and being held opened as people walk through it.

      The camera is point in the wrong direction so we don’t see the gate as it’s opened, so there’s no telling whether it was locked when protestors first arrived. Seemingly not, since there’s no noticeable delay in their little parade, but I can’t say for sure.

      1. Here is a picture of said gate more than a brief clip from a video.

        https://www.foxnews.com/us/armed-st-louis-rioters-threatened-couple-guns-attorney

        It looks damaged.

        1. I believe the “peaceful” protestors damaged it, but it was seemingly not damaged when they first entered it. It was probably people further back in the line, or else happened during the confrontation with the McCloskey’s.

          I don’t know how much that matters, I’m just trying to pain the most accurate picture.

      2. “It shows the gate intact and being held opened as people walk through it.”

        That does nothing to prove it wasn’t locked before the group got there. Someone from the group is in physical contact with the gate holding it open the first time it shows. It would be entirely possible to break a lock on a gate of that type without damaging the gate itself.

        It’s also possible they picked the lock.

        1. That’s true. And I said as much. But I shared the video because there’s nothing wrong with gathering more information.

          It still doesn’t negate the fact that there’s a very visible “Private Property No Trespassing” sign right next to the gate.

          1. The only relevant issue is whether the gun pullers were in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. You aren’t allowed to pull guns even if a thousand people walk across your lawn, unless they come directly after you.

            1. You are wrong and apparently ignorant of the laws. And you are confusing ccw ‘guidelines’ with the right to self defense on your own property. Two very different things.

              1. Is that what your CCW instructor told you? There is a difference between “guidelines” and “self defense”? Huh. Then what are the “guidelines” about? Sweeping the floor?

                Have you ever taken a CCW class? Do you know what they discuss, and why?

                1. Does your daddy bowhunt?
                  My daddy bowhunts!

                  (Damn it – can’t find the sketch – SNL, Will Ferrell as John Rocker)

                2. I hevent got my ged and I haven’t gone to adult night school either, that doesn’t mean I can’t easily conclude you’re a fucking embarrassment to your parents and wife.

                3. Holy fucking hell…are you capable of a post without mentioning how you audited CCW classes?

                  Jesus, you’re like Rain Man.

                  1. Well, in this crowd, that seems to be the highest level of education present on the topic. I invite you to beat it. Tell us about your education on the topic. Why are you so reluctant?

                    1. Your CCW teacher told me that you were a fucking idiot.

                4. This is tiresome. You took a CCW class from a lawyer licensed and admitted to the bar of all 50 states?

                  1. No, not nearly that complete and elaborate. Just some one day classes taught by a sheriff.

                    The thing is though — that seems to be waaaay more education than anyone else here. You can prove me wrong about that by telling us where you got all your knowledge.

                    1. YOUR MOM. Oh drat, you already played that trump card yourself.

                      Kudos to you. Your commitment to this bit is almost as impressive as OBL’s . He is quite the marathon runner, while you are giving it your all in this sprint

            2. That is not the case. You can definitely use firearms to protect your property against trespass. (you can’t shoot them unless the conditions you list are in play)

              Also, there is plenty of evidence to present that would show that it would be entirely reasonable to believe your home and your personal safety were in imminent danger. Simply roll tape of any number of these “peaceful” protests that quickly evolve into vandalism, looting, arson, beatings and even murder. Since their state of mind is relevant, their lawyers will be able to introduce footage going back years – all of the current stuff, stuff in Ferguson… all the way back to Reginald Denny. That all would be relevant to demonstrating their reasonable belief that this demonstration was a threat to their property and to their persons.

              The government has absolutely no case on this one, and she knows it. This is “process as punishment” for them, grandstanding for her.

              1. “You can definitely use firearms to protect your property against trespass.”

                Take a CCW class. No, you cannot pull guns to tell people to get off your lawn.

                Also, as stated elsewhere, broken gates somewhere else are irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is an immediate deadly threat at the time the weapon is pulled. You can’t pull a gun on anyone you see in the street because somebody broke a gate somewhere.

                1. Omfg sqrlsy has competition.

                  1. So, nothing intelligent to say about any of the legal points?

                    I am surprised.

                2. Take a CCW class. No, you cannot pull guns to tell people to get off your lawn.

                  I’ve taken a half dozen CCW classes, because I used to try and collect useful reciprocities.

                  And whether or not you can pull out a weapon to tell people to get off your property depends strongly on the state you’re taking the CCW class in.

                  As I mentioned above, one of those instructors was Larry Correia. Yes that one. I’d be real impressed watching someone try and declare him unknowledgable on the topic of CCW.

                  1. I see nothing to indicate that this poser has the slightest idea who Larry is. Or, for that matter that he knows which end the bullet comes out of.

            3. One of the properties of a crowd is that they don’t have to be trying to intimidate. The sheer fact that there’s a crowd of a couple hundred people together is threatening by their sheer numbers when it’s just you and your wife. They could be selling girl scout cookies and it’s still pretty fucking intimidating.

              1. Yeah, generalities don’t cut it. There have to be specific events at the time.

                1. I’d be happy to show you lengthy video clips of “Peaceful protests” in which there have been dozens of fights, injuries, and massive property taxes. The fact that the media has been gaslighting people with the “peaceful protestors” narrative actually works in favor of the McCloskeys because it makes it so much harder to recognize when violence is going to break out.

        2. Really has nothing to do with whether they were an immediate deadly threat to anyone.

        3. Whether the gate was intact is irrelevant. The only relevant point is whether it was necessary to pull a weapon to prevent great bodily injury or death at the time the gun was pulled. Broken gates don’t count. You can’t shoot people over property damage.

          Take a CCW class and see.

          1. Your statement is incorrect based on the law. Read up on Missouri’s Castle Doctrine law. You can use deadly force to defend property anywhere on your property, even if people are in your lawn.

            If this was just some kids cutting across the lawn while playing ball we wouldn’t be having this conversation, but this was a large group that illegally trespassed on private property. They don’t have a right to occupy an Applebees and shout angrily at the patrons, and they don’t have a right to enter a private neighborhood.

          2. You seem to think that a CCW class, which is directed at general “I’m walking around town with a concealed weapon” issues, has relevance in 1) what is probably a different state, 2) takes place on someone’s own property, and 3) is in the context of violent riots happening around the country at which several people had already been killed and many buildings damaged, or just plain burned down.

            And I can unequivocally say that there are states in which, yes you can legally threaten to use force on someone who comes onto your private property without your permission, even without the large, angry mob of people in the context of widespread, ongoing violent riots. There are states that allow you use deadly force to prevent a felony on your property, even if you are not in fear of “great bodily injury”. There are states that allow you to use deadly force on your own property against a person who is *fleeing* after stealing some of your property, if you believe that it is unlikely you will be able to recover the property otherwise.

      3. Google street view shows 2 mirror image foot traffic gates with a very wide (perhaps unused) vehicle gate between them. Where there are no gates there are large stone walls. There is a guard tower between the north gate and vehicle gate. My understanding is the ”peaceful” protesters damaged the north gate to get in. This was the gate closest to McCloskey’s house. Afterwards they opened the south gate from inside the private property. This is the gate that appears undamaged. Sometimes gates allow free passage out of a secure area with the lock/ latch protected by a large plate, to prevent people outside from reaching in.

        1. None of which is really relevant. The only relevant point for determining whether it was legal to pull a gun was whether the person was in immediate danger of great bodily harm or death. Broken gates somewhere else don’t count.

          Take a CCW class and ask the instructor.

          1. You dont k ow what you are talking about, This harping on what a ccw instructor may say is irrelevant. They were not in public, pulling a concealed weapon. They were on their own property. They can brandish til their hearts content as the very nature of trespass is threatening. Pulling the trigger is a different question.

            1. You have never had a CCW class, have you?

              Guess what. They discuss ALL the rules for pulling weapons under ANY circumstances, and the students typically ask extensive questions about just this sort of thing. In the home, in your business, in the street, in the park, etc., etc., etc. The rules are pretty much the same everywhere.

              1. Who needs 3 years of Law School! You Can learn everything in a couple of hours at the public library all purpose room or middle school gym

          2. Skip this “expert’s” posts, he is just like the fag who was “right there” on scene watching Foster get taught why not to bring an AK to a riot.

            1. What’s stopping you from sharing the source of your great expertise on this topic? You could destroy me entirely if you did that.

        2. I’d just invite you to watch the video of the protestors walking in. The damage to the gate was done after the first group of protestors walked in-the person carrying the camera was maybe the fourth or fifth person to walk through.

          This doesn’t mean the protestors weren’t responsible, it doesn’t mean they didn’t pick the lock, it just means they didn’t destroy it when they first entered.

      4. To my mind, it doesn’t really matter if it was locked or unlocked, it was obviously private property and a private street and a private sidewalk, so unless they were invited in, fuck them.

        1. The gate is irrelevant. The only relevant point is whether there was an immediate threat to the people with the guns. Obviously, there wasn’t, because the guy didn’t even bother to load the rifle. He was just out there to show off.

          1. Some people have tried to make it relevant by pretending that entering property you don’t own without permission isn’t trespassing.

            1. Who, besides you, said that? Or are you just seriously confused.

              Let’s try again. The issue is not trespassing. The issue is an immediate threat.

              Tell us where you got your knowledge of the topic. Why does everyone have a problem with that?

    3. The gate is entirely irrelevant to whether they were justified in pulling a weapon at the time.

      Take a CCW class and see.

  7. which the McCloskeys claim is theirs by squatters’ rights

    Now I want this monster hung!

  8. This has all the earmarks of a malicious prosecution done for ideological reasons. While it is true that the McCloskeys could have behaved in a less confrontational manner and that arguably would have been more prudent, but that in itself should not be a crime, and especially not one to throw the book at them for and confiscate their weapons given the 2nd Amendment and the Castle Doctrine. The protestors did not have a right to be on that property so the claims that they should be assumed peaceful were out the .window.

    1. The McCloskies were in there home. The mob was trespassing. The mob created the situation and are responsible for the results. Sullumn totally ignores that and holds the home owners to some ideal standard of perfect behavior while refusing the blame the mob for creating the situation.

      Fuck you Sulumn. Fuck you and everyone who has ever known you.

      1. Tell us about all the CCW classes, and or law school classes, where you learned all the legal rules for pulling a weapon.

          1. Tell your Mom. She is the one who can help you with it.

    2. Seizing their weapons is an illegal taking. Prosecuting them is intimidation and denying their federal civil rights under color of law. The Circuit Attorney should be facing 10 years in federal lockup.

      1. If I did that, I would expect to lose my weapons.

    1. According to Barnes (who believes this is a malicious, politically motivated prosecution and notes the Gardner’s troubling history) believes that the Missouri statute is unconstitutional as written because so much of it is ill-defined. He also notes that this particular statute has almost never been prosecuted in Missouri.

      Of note, he believes it’s unconstitutional based on both 2nd amendment and 5th amendment grounds. I highly recommend the video.

    2. Barnes goes further and suggests that if he were their defense lawyer, he’d introduce every single example of rioting and looting that’s happened in the last five years. He would show that “[…] whenever the opportunity presented itself, what might look like a peaceful protest, devolved into rioting and looting[…]”

      (summarized quote)

      1. not just looting but violence and murder.

      2. And the only relevant question is not any riots anywhere. It is whether those people needed to pull a gun at that moment to save themselves from great bodily injury or death.

        Take a CCW class.

        1. You keep saying that. That is not at all relevant to “they committed a crime”.

          Whether it is prudent to display a gun in that situation is an entirely other matter. But yes, you are allowed to use the display of a weapon when someone trespasses. You cannot simply shoot them, but you can display a weapon.

          Which is also a bad idea – because what happens next? Either they leave…. or they escalate. If they respond and escalate, then you might find yourself in a position where you need to use the gun in self defense.

          So you are right about what a CCW instructor would tell you is the best course of action … but that does not make what they did illegal. They are charged with displaying a gun in an angry manner. There are specific elements to that crime which are probably not met, and there are specific defenses which probably do apply. Plus, the entire law is ripe for challenge on multiple grounds.

          They have a very strong case.

          1. “But yes, you are allowed to use the display of a weapon when someone trespasses. ”

            So the school kids run across your lawn and you pull out the AK-47 to scare them off. Sorry, that’s jail.

            Tell us about the CCW classes where you learned this. Any?

            If someone points a weapon at people, and waves it at the crowd, that is an “angry manner.”

            1. I have doubts that you’ve ever taken a CCW class yourself. Going on and on about something while being so pig ignorant means either you’re an idiot or your instructor is a fucking idiot.

              1. Tell us about your great source of knowledge on this topic. What’s stopping you?

                1. I promised my CCW teacher I wouldn’t go on and on, incessantly, about how I took a class once.

                  I did look up MO’s laws though. You can do the same. You WON’T, but you can.

    3. I’ve listened to couple of these. Barnes strikes me as a bit of a bullshitter but generally very knowledgeable and Viva is a good interviewer.

      1. Eh, he strikes me as having the brash, confident attitude of a highly successful lawyer. But his analysis always (at least as much as I’ve heard) seems very reasonable and on point.

        1. Yeah, dude is a national civil rights attorney who argues (and wins) these cases in federal court – and at the Supreme court. He’s no piker.

          His client list is extremely eclectic. He represents the Covington HS kids (except Sandman) and they are not looking for a monetary settlement – they want real changes to prevent them from smearing other people like that.

          He also represented Alex Jones. And some other oddball lefties that escape my memory. I don’t know how he made his money, but it seems clear that now he cherry picks cases on a national basis in order to change constitutional law in ways that he finds interesting and important.

          And yeah, he’s quite a character. He has some really kooky views on some topics. But I really like his attitude overall. Seems to be something of a conservative – libertarian hybrid. He’d probably fit in right here with us nutballs.

          1. Interesting

  9. https://radioink.com/2020/07/29/whats-really-going-on-in-seattle/

    Here is an example of what reason is calling “peaceful protests”

    Radio Ink: What’s going on out there? Is it a peaceful protest or a riot?
    Rantz: It was a riot. It wasn’t a peaceful protest. When you set fire to five construction trailers, ransack and destroy a Starbucks, throw a munition at a police station, and spend your afternoon hurling rocks, water bottles, and other items at cops, it ceases being peaceful. Anyone who treats this as just a run of the mill protest, or claims it’s just a few bad apples, are either lying or simply don’t know what they’re talking about. There have been peaceful protests. This wasn’t one of them.

    That is the protest in Seattle not this one. But, the point is that reason continually calls these protests “peaceful” in the face of obvious violence. The sorry ass reason staff will do anything to give BLM and Antifa the benefit of the doubt including believing the most outlandish and counterfactual claims of the protests being “peaceful”.

    Here someone defends themselves with a gun when the protesters break into private property and they get no benefit of the doubt. Sullumn writes an entire column basically saying that they can’t be declared innocent unless they can prove it. Their word and the concept of a person being innocent until proven guilty or giving home owners the benefit of the doubt when confronting trespassers goes right out the window.

    Sulmn has always been a nasty, stupid piece of work. He continues that tradition here. And reason continues to lie and spin for fascist mobs while actively denying the rights of ordinary people to both defend themselves and live their lives free of the threat of violence. It is utterly disgraceful.

    1. I’m sure that was just an example of an “intensifying peaceful protest” as ABC news put it.

      1. It was “mostly peaceful” until it intensified. Or course the only reason it did that was because the police showed up and forced the protesters to burn down a Starbucks. Police will do that. Whenever you see a police officer you get this uncontrollable urge to commit arson.

        The entire reason staff has made total fools of themselves this summer.

        1. The intensity of their peacefulness caused things around them to spontaneously combust. Could happen to anyone, really.

        2. The entire reason staff has made total fools of themselves this summer.

          This summer? They stopped Russiagating long enough to Interroview/Intervestigate a Supreme Court nominee for less than pubes on a coke can, then springboarded from COVID Doomsaying to peaceful arson coverage. Technically/arguably, their equivocation in this gate crashing story is just a rehash of their of advocating C. American refugees tearing down gates at the S. Mexican border last fall. And all this fancy footwork has been to avoid mention of the constant stream of evidence supporting an effective coup attempt and the scant admission that, spending aside, Trump is in every other respect as much or more than we could’ve hoped for out of Johnson.

          They started beclowning themselves in 2016, for the last 1-2 years they’ve been beclowning libertarianism and journalism at large.

    2. They’re “mostly” peaceful protests. As in a majority of the protestors take no violent action, and those protestors who do take violent action aren’t doing it most of the time. Throw a rock, wait several minutes. Set a building on fire, stand around for an hour. Most of the time they were peaceful.

      1. A combat tour is often described as 90% boredom followed by 10% sheer terror. So the War on Terror has been mostly peaceful.

      2. The only thing that matters is whether they were an immediate threat to the people who pulled the weapons at the time they pulled the weapons. Obviously, from the video, they weren’t in that kind of threat at all.

        Ask your CCW instructor about this. You have taken the CCW classes where they teach these rules, haven’t you?

        1. You are completely wrong on this. You are citing the rules for shooting someone. They did not in fact shoot anyone.

          1. Tell us about the CCW classes you have taken where you learned this. NONE? That seems to be the pattern here. Got any training in law on this topic? I am guessing NO.

            Pointing a weapon is a deadly threat and, therefore, duly considered a crime unless there is adequate justification. If someone points a weapon at me in that manner, then I will immediately assume they are a deadly threat and act accordingly.

            1. Tell us about the CCW classes you have taken where you learned this.

              Tell us about the one you took. I’d say that based on your patently incorrect assertions, the instructor needs to have the results of his teaching come back to haunt him except your abject stupidity is in no way his fault.

              Trespass and then ‘act accordingly’ to someone defending their own property and see how it turns out you dumb fuck. I look forward to reading here about how police officers abused their authority in putting several hundred grains of copper jacketed lead in your retarded ass only to have a judge and independent review board declare it to be a good shoot.

          2. You are citing the rules for shooting someone.

            He’s choosing the rules he wants to enforce like a dumbass. The rule he’s fabricating applies to what a concealed carry *permit* actually permits *on neutral ground*. Since it’s not neutral ground, *concealed* carry applies to none of this. He may as well be quoting Hoyle’s Rules of Games.

            By his “logic”, if someone breaks into your property with a gun you have to wait until they present themselves as a threat before pointing a gun, any gun, at them whether you have a CCW or not. It’s not even grade A bullshit, it’s the watery diarrhea of mental defecation.

    3. Tell us about the CCW classes you have taken where you learned all about the rules for pulling a weapon.

      You have had lots of those classes. Right?

      1. I’m calling your bullshit.

        Did the CCW class you didn’t take go into excruciating detail about the fact that you don’t, in fact, need a CCW to carry on your own property or was the instructor you didn’t listen to too busy covering how to carrying a concealed AR-15 rifle? Maybe the instructor you didn’t listen to in the class you didn’t take didn’t cover the fact that in Missouri neither a CCW permit nor the 2A authorizes you to carry on someone else’s private property but that carrying on private property is not otherwise a criminal offense.

        Eat shit and die you dumb, lying shitbag.

      2. I’m thinking a CCW class is the only class you’ve ever attended! If I’m on my property i don’t need a CCW PERMIT moron!

  10. “It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner at those participating in nonviolent protest,”

    People who have walked past a sign stating “Private Street, no outlet” are not nonviolent protesters on their way to anywhere else. They are trespassers, and in fact, trespassers after warning.
    It does not matter if the gate was open or shut, or broken down or just opened. They were trespassing on private property, and prudence would indicate an armed response; especially in light of prior events of a similar nature.

    1. Breaking and entering is a violent act. The mob broke down a gate and entered private property. The moment they did that, the protest was no longer peaceful. Sulumn is just lying here. Reason always lies for Antifa and BLM.

      1. Even if they didn’t break down a private gate, but walked through an unlocked gate makes them trespassers. If I leave the side gate to my yard unlocked and I catch a homeless dude taking a dump on my backyard lawn, he’s no less a trespasser because my gate is unlocked.

        1. And you will go to jail if you pull a gun on him for taking a dump.

          Just FYI, walking across someone’s lawn does not make them the kind of threat that justifies pulling a weapon. Ask your CCW instructor about that.

          1. I’m beginning to seriously wonder if you’re not here simply to discredit the notion of “CCW classes”

            1. You can do that easily if you just tell us about your vast experience in CCW classes, yourself.

              You do have lots of CCW classes, don’t you? Are you an instructor yourself?

              Or are you just talking out the place you sit?

              1. You don’t need to attend a single CCW class to know that you’re wrong, but, by all means, keep displaying your abject ignorance for everyone to see.

                Here, I’ll even help you along: You tell me where you took your CCW classes and I’ll tell you where I took mine.

            2. Is that where you convert to Catholicism?

              1. So that’s your complete education on the topic? Huh.

          2. Look at you. Just look at you.

            1. Tell me about your great experience and knowledge on the topic. Lots, I will bet.

      2. Tell us about the CCW class you took where they told you all about the justifications for pulling a weapon.

        You have had lots of CCW classes, haven’t you?

    2. The ONLY justification for pulling a weapon is immediate threat of death or great bodily injury. Your explanation doesn’t count at all. Trespassing doesn’t justify pulling a gun.

      Ask your CCW instructor in your next class. He will most likely be some kind of cop and he can probably tell you how long you will be in jail for that stuff.

      1. Can you name your CCW instructor? He might deserve to know that a former student is sullying his name so thoroughly

        1. He is a local retired sheriff. His name wouldn’t be important to you.

          Tell us the source of your great knowledge on this topic. I keep asking but it appears that you didn’t even read the article. So much for that.

          1. I read MO law. You?

          2. He is a local retired sheriff. His name wouldn’t be important to you.

            A good liar would’ve said he got his CCW in Alabama or Georgia, where you only have to pass a background check. Rather than choosing between throwing a friend under the bus or going with the “I got my CCW from uh… the ghost of James Hickok, yeah.” thinly veiled lie that your stupid ass came up with.

            Trespassing absolutely justifies brandishing a weapon and, honestly, you really should cough up the name of every educator you can remember and probably a few friends and family members too. They all owe us something for your stupidity.

  11. This is a malicious prosecution.
    It should be tossed in very short order.
    A crowd that broke and entered (there have been many picks of a damaged gate posted) and was told to leave private property is not ‘peaceful.’
    A reasonable person would be in fear of death or grave bodily injury.
    There is enough video available to charge B&E (Breaking and Entering).
    The problem is identifying people from the images.

    1. I saw the video. There is nothing it that would justify their actions.

      Take a CCW class where they tell you about the reasons you can pull a weapon. By their own actions, they were obviously not in fear of death.

  12. The law under which Gardner charged the McCloskeys specifically exempts the use of a weapon to repel a trespasser “who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, … private property that is owned or leased by an individual…claiming a justification of using protective force under this section.”

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/29/even-if-theyre-acquitted-charging-the-mccloskeys-endangers-self-defense/

    1. Gov. Parsons was a cosponsor of that bill when he was in the legislature, and also had a previous career in law enforcement which all makes this a bit ridiculous:

      Parson’s position on the case is especially revealing since he admitted he is not familiar with the facts required to determine whether the McCloskeys’ actions were legal.

      1. Yes, but has he taken a CCW class in another state from an old bumpkin?

        1. We are all eagerly waiting for you to tell us the source of your great expertise. What’s your problem?

  13. Based on video shot by a protester, reporter Jeremy Kohler found that the gate was unlocked, undamaged, and open when the first members of the group entered the private street.

    Is vandalizing an open gate supposed to be better?

    1. If I leave my front door unlocked, then I have no right to “exhibit” a weapon in front of Antifa as they go through my refrigerator and drink my beer.

      1. Tell us all about the CCW classes you took where they told you this.

  14. “This is a dog whistle of racist rhetoric and cronyism politics,” Gardner said. “This is a modern-day night ride, and everybody knows it.” She thus equated Hawley’s objections to her prosecution of the McCloskeys with Ku Klux Klan terrorism.

    Funny enough, Gardner is closer to the KKK than she realizes.

  15. What it is is political virtue signaling by Gardner. She doesn’t expect to win, just punish the McCloskeys by using up their time, money, and reputation. She can say “I tried. Look how the justice system is systematically racist. Elect me again so I can go after more of these white supremacists.”

  16. regarding the “criminal trespassing”….are we sure about that? Here in Massachusetts it’s not legally trespassing unless the boundary of the land is clearly posted with “no trespassing” signs. Or if the party in question has been verbally or otherwise notified by the property owner to stay off.

    I had to learn this the hard way with the local white trash rednecks helping themselves to my back yard.

    1. 1. There was a “no trespassing” sign clearly posted
      2. The McCloskeys (homeowners) told the crowd to leave prior to arming themselves
      3. Taxachussetes is a shithole

      1. 4. The ONLY justification for pulling or using a weapon is defense against an immediate threat of great bodily harm or death. Trespassing on someone’s lawn doesn’t cut it.

        1. Did you learn that in CCW class?

          1. You are asking because you have never been near such a class, yourself, and have no clue what they would cover?

            1. Lol

              Literally
              My sides hurt

              1. Share the joke, and the source of your great expertise.

          2. I Can pway any Creedence Cwearwater Wevival song on dwums

    2. They verbally warned them – a lot. Case closed

      1. Which law school taught you that? Why are you so reluctant to tell us how you got so well educated on this?

  17. In this context, Chris Cuomo’s attitude during his hostile interview with McCloskey and his lawyer, Albert Watkins, is maddening. “We can talk about the legal rights and the facts,” Cuomo said at the outset. “But I want to talk about, not having a right, but whether or not something is right first….How do you feel about becoming the political face of resistance to the Black Lives Matter movement?”

    I hope they pointed out to Fredo that Mr. McCloskey is “becoming the political face of resistance…” because Fredo is pushing that agenda.

    Not sure why anyone would go on CNN. It’s a partisan hack network that won’t give anyone not towing the DNC party line a fair shake.

    1. Ask him why his brother effed up the COVID response so badly in New York then.

      1. Nah, just call him Fredo and stand back like George Jetson’s dog, watching him go around the treadmill.

    2. “How do you feel about becoming the political face of resistance to the Black Lives Matter movement?”

      About the same way you feel about becoming the face of a Marxist, anti family takeover of the USA. Does your Priest know what you do for a living?

  18. Trying to justify bad behavior of rioters and looters. That is Koch reason libertarians for you.

    1. Have you ever had a CCW class?

  19. They were on their own private property and people were trespassing; that’s enough justification for pointing guns at the trespassers and tell them to get off the property. Whether people were protesting or threatening anybody is irrelevant.

    1. And you will certainly go to jail and lose your right to own firearms forever, if you try that. The ONLY justification for pulling or using a weapon is if there is an immediate threat of great bodily injury or death. Walking across someone’s lawn doesn’t get it, even if they cuss at you when you tell them to leave.

      My guess is that you have never had a CCW class? Am I right?

      1. I suggest you read up on that: https://reason.com/2020/06/29/when-can-you-threaten-deadly-force-as-a-defensive-tactic/ Missouri law disagrees with most the rest of the country. Missouri law is wrong and should be changed.

        But while I fully support the 2A, I don’t own a gun and will never own a gun because there are always better alternatives for me.

        But you are the kind of fool who has taken an CCW class, am I right?

      2. In addition, I wasn’t making a point about what the law is (Volokh covers that), I was making a point about what the law ought to be. (Fortunately, the law in most states agrees pretty well with my preferences.)

  20. Property rights are no longer a libertarian principle?

    1. Web clicks are a libertarian principle.
      Not much else.

    2. How many people here have actually had a CCW class where they discuss when and how you can display and use weapons?

      My guess is FEW. I have been a gun owner for more than sixty years. If I had done that, I would expect to spend some time in jail.

      The rule is that you can’t wave weapons around unless you are really in danger of your life. Nothing in the video says that they were in the kind of danger that would justify pointing guns at people. That’s just a fact. Those things aren’t toys to wave around every time you get ticked off at some one.

      Moreover, if there was a legal CCW holder there, one might argue that’s good reason for him to start blazing before they get any more stupid. If you point a gun at me, don’t count on me giving you any breaks at all.

      It was stupid, stupid, stupid. They aren’t mature enough to play with guns.

      1. “Nothing in the video says that they were in the kind of danger that would justify pointing guns at people.”
        Nothing except the large aggressive mob that had broken into their neighborhood

        “That’s just a fact”
        No, it’s the very definition of an opinion

        1. The guy didn’t even load his rifle. He didn’t think it was a serious threat, himself.

          1. Facts not in evidence.

            He very well could have made the logical and rational determination that he was willing to try to scare away the rioters from his home, but not that he was willing to shoot anyone.
            Or, he could have had ammo stashed away where it wasnt easy to get to.

            Either way, you are just spewing crap

      2. “Moreover, if there was a legal CCW holder there, one might argue that’s good reason for him to start blazing before they get any more stupid. If you point a gun at me, don’t count on me giving you any breaks at all.”

        And, again, if you do that while you’re committing a crime you’re screwed

        1. What crime was the CCW supposedly committing?

          1. In your hypothetical, trespassing and/or breaking and entering.
            Minimum

            1. Where did I say that? Do you usually have this much problem reading?

      3. The rule is that you can’t wave weapons around unless you are really in danger of your life

        Eugene Volokh disagrees.

        I have been a gun owner for more than sixty years.

        I don’t own a gun and will never own a gun. Guns are for men who feel inadequate. (But like drugs, they still ought to be legal.)

        1. But did Professor Volokh take a CCW class?! Huh, huh?!!

          Christ, it is Hihn, isn’t it?

        2. Guns are for men who feel inadequate.

          Well of course I feel inadequate. My dick doesn’t shoot 180 grain hunks of lead at 1200 fps. For which, I suspect, any of the young ladies I have dallied with across the decades are grateful.

          1. Read “Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex” by Larry Niven.

  21. job opportunity for everyone! Work from comfort of your home, on your computer And you cAn work with your own working hours. You cAn work this job As A pArt time or As A full time job. You cAn eArn from 65$ An hour to 1000$ A dAy! There is no limitAtions, it All depends from you And how much you wAnt to eArn eAch dAy…..Click For Online Job’s.

  22. it’s not that everyone is jumping to conclusions, it’s that everyone is trying to use it to sell their own political talking points, independent of the facts.

    here’s some facts – the video that I saw showed no protesters approaching their house, and the two homeowners irresponsibly waving firearms around, & pointing them at people. I carry daily & I can tell you that’s not normal, nor is it legal in most circumstances.

    1. Obviously, the majority of people here have never had a CCW class. If I did that, I would expect to spend at least one night in jail.

    2. “…here’s some facts – the video that I saw showed no protesters approaching their house…”.

      Here let me fix this for you-
      … the video I saw showed no protesters approaching a homeowner armed with an AR-15…

      1. Good point. So, obviously, there was no real threat.

        And the guy with the AR15 didn’t even bother to load it, so he didn’t really think there was a serious threat, himself.

        1. Nobody is arguing that he isn’t an idiot.
          His rifle definitely should’ve been loaded, and if he wasn’t willing to do so he should’ve kept inside

          1. If he didn’t load it, then he didn’t think it was a serious threat.

            1. Or he made the stupid choice that it was a threat he could deal with through a mere show of force, and luckily turned out to be correct

              1. If he decided that he could deal with it just by making a show, then it wasn’t a deadly threat, obviously.

                Good point. You sank your own argument but, good point.

                1. I bet Zemir Begic would’ve been very happy to have an unloaded gun to wave around.

                  1. Was he there? How does that relate to the law?

                    1. You’re asking how the brutal murder, just down the street, by roving criminal justice activists relates to your claim that they obviously didn’t perceive a threat? Just want to make clear that this is something you need me to explain to you.

  23. Gov. Mike Parson said he probably would pardon them if they were convicted. … Parson’s position on the case is especially revealing since he admitted he is not familiar with the facts required to determine whether the McCloskeys’ actions were legal.

    Ah, that famously libertarian position. Pardon power shouldn’t be used for people whose actions were illegal. Non-violent drug offenders serving draconian sentences? Fuck ’em, they did the crime they can do the time.

    1. Ummmmmmmm, that’s all pardon power is, genius

      1. Haven’t you ever taken a CCW Class?

        1. We are all eagerly waiting for you to tell us where you got educated so everyone else can know as much as you do.

          Why is that a problem?

      2. I was criticizing Sullum’s framing of the situation. He seems to be suggesting that it’s a bad thing that the governor intends to pardon them without knowing the legal facts. As far as I’m concerned, that’s not in line with libertarian principles. If these people were within their natural rights to defend themselves and their property, then a pardon is appropriate, the law be damned. And Reason has run articles in the past that seem to agree with that principle, calling for more use of the presidential clemency power, particularly in regards to non-violent drug offenders who unquestionably did break the law.

        1. This commie rag doesn’t approximate anything remotely Libertarian adjacent any longer

  24. Some things as I know them:
    -Protestors came in through gate. If protestors came through previously locked gate, after the first few people, how would the other couple hundred protestors know this?
    -From most accounts, people were walking by not caring about the McCloskey’s until they came outside and started yelling at protestors.
    -I have still heard no evidence that the protestors came at the McCloskeys. Some of them just started yelling back in response.
    -The protestors were trespassing, and the neighborhood was a private gated community. How would they reasonably know this? The little “no trespassing” sign somewhere outside? They were following the crowd, focused on their protest, not looking at tax maps to figure out where private property was.
    -Were McCloskeys responding to imminent threats? Sounds like scary trash yelled at them once they went full-on gun toting suburban jackass was about as good as it got. Again, if you don’t want a brawl, don’t pull guns on a bunch of protestors.

    I don’t think Castle Doctrine was written with being aggressive jackasses in mind. Perhaps the McCloskeys should consider not picking fights, brandishing weapons, then whining like liberal babies when reality sets in.

    Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility?

    1. The rule given in CCW classes is that you are not entitled to use guns unless it is to save a life. Regardless of all the points above, it still comes down to whether they thought they were in immediate threat of death or great bodily injury at the time they pulled the weapon. Whether someone broke a gate somewhere or walked across someone’s lawn doesn’t matter. Only an immediate threat will do it.

      Obviously, from the video, they weren’t in the kind of situation that would require pulling a weapon.

      1. The rule given in CCW classes is that you are not entitled to use guns unless it is to save a life.

        Obviously, that is b.s. You can legally use guns for all sorts of things: hunting, displaying, machining, showing to your friends or enemies, target practice, or (in your case, I suspect) getting your jollies.

        In fact, the main restriction on gun use is that you can’t shoot at people unless it is to save a life.

        1. And even that is not correct. You can shoot to protect property. You can shoot to defend a pet. You can shoot in the dark of the night when someone breaks into your house, regardless of any direct threat to your life. You can shoot if someone is just trying to maim you.
          All of this is legal defensive weapon use. You can absolutely point a weapon at someone on your property even if they are not directlynthreatening you.
          Granted, not a kid running across your yard. But someone trespassing, who ignores directives to leave? That is criminal trespass and you have right to self defense, including any legally owned weapon. It is absolute garbage that proggy antigun totalitarians want to convince people that the absolute right of self defense comes with caveats dictated by lawyers.

      2. “The rule given in CCW classes is that you are not entitled to use guns unless it is to save a life. ”

        That pegs the BS-O-meter. Maybe you should take a CCW class sometime and see what they DO teach.

    2. “Whatever happened to taking personal responsibility?”

      People like you completely dismiss it for those who are part of a woke collective?

      1. I have no idea what you are even talking about. Do you?

        What I said has nothing to do with personal responsibility, except in the way people handle guns.

        1. “Comment threads, and just the general flow of conversation and context, are hard!”

          1. That seems to be your complaint.

    3. I’m betting the two pedestrian gates, the car gate, and the guard house are all clues as to whether or not the protestors belonged there.

  25. Here is something to do. When you make your post, tell everyone what your firearms training is, and whether you have ever had a CCW class where they actually discuss when and why you call pull guns on people.

    It is obvious that most people here have no clue about the rules. That’s why they give CCW classes to people who carry weapons — to keep them from getting stupid like that.

    1. Were they conceal carrying?

      1. You have never had a CCW class, have you?

        Big News. In such a class, they discuss any and all uses of the weapon and when you are allowed to display a weapon and use it, wherever you may be, under any circumstances. They discuss incidents in the street, in your home, in your business, in your yard, and any other place that anyone has a question about. So they discuss ANY use of firearms ANYWHERE.

        Like I said, you have never been near such a class, have you?

        1. Did you know – almost 1/3 of states don’t require any bullshit classes like the one you took? You bumpkin sheriff buddy doesn’t know jack about anything outside his former jurisdiction.
          Did you know that you keep contradicting yourself? There is no law against brandishing an unloaded or inoperable weapon. There is no law allowing anyone to shoot a homeowner on their own property for brandishing a weapon.

          1. The Sheriff probably doesn’t even know the local law beyond “judge is sortin’ out these ‘uns” and “these ‘uns we let be.”

            1. There’s plenty of reason to believe his sheriff buddy hasn’t drawn a breath in 20 yrs. if he isn’t an outright fabrication.

    2. You’ve never done so yourself.

      You CLAIM you took CCW classes, but seem to have less than zero knowledge on the topic of guns.

      So, please, since this is the central tenet of your existence, tell us about your rich history of classes.

      1. I asked you first. If you tell everyone where you got your vast knowledge, I am sure it will be far greater than mine, and you can win the whole debate with just one more post.

        What’s stopping you? Embarrassment?

        1. “I asked you first.”
          You forgot to stick out your tongue and say “Nyah, nyah, nyah!”

    3. tell everyone what your firearms training is, and whether you have ever had a CCW class where they actually discuss when and why you call pull guns on people.

      I suspect the CCW class is probably your highest academic degree, but I’m sorry to have to break it to you: it’s neither a legal education, nor a political education.

  26. For those who are wondering about the CCW class spamming…

    You cannot point a gun at a trespasser in most jurisdictions. That would be assault and be illegal. You absolutely have the right to arm yourself when confronting a trespasser in most jurisdictions. In fact, any law that denied you that right would most likely be in violation of the 2nd amendment, particularly after Heller. Heller finds that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically a right to self defense. So it would be difficult to make the case that you cannot use a gun to defend your home against an angry mob who are trespassing on private property.

    This is not legal advice. But it is much closer to the truth of the law than “you cannot draw a weapon unless your life is in imminent danger”. That is simply untrue. Those are the conditions for firing a weapon at someone.

    Which is not a defense of the couple’s actions as a wise use of their 2nd amendment rights. Forgetting the legal entanglements, the reality is that they very likely endangered themselves and their property more than they deterred a threat.

    1. “So it would be difficult to make the case that you cannot use a gun to defend your home against an angry mob who are trespassing on private property.”

      That depends on what you mean by “use”. As the local sheriffs explained it to me, yes, you can certainly walk out in your front yard carrying a gun. I live in a rural area, so their front yard isn’t nearly what mine is. It is perfectly OK if the trespasser sees that you have the weapon.

      If, however, you point the weapon at someone, you need justification for that, no matter where you are. You can’t just pull a gun on every kid who runs through your yard.

      And the point about CCW classes is that is the place that most people would come into contact with these particular rules.

      “But it is much closer to the truth of the law than “you cannot draw a weapon unless your life is in imminent danger”.”

      Where did you get that quote? Are those my words, or your interpretation of something you thought you read? Pro tip: If you are going to “quote” someone, make sure you do it correctly.

      1. He wasn’t quoting you. He didn’t mention how he took a CCW class a dozen times

          1. How many did you take? Why are you so reluctant to show how much more well-educated you are?

        1. We were waiting for you to tell us where you got ANY knowledge at all on the topic. What’s the problem? You don’t have any?

    2. You cannot point a gun at a trespasser in most jurisdictions.

      Just ask Garrett Foster.

    3. You cannot point a gun at a trespasser in most jurisdictions.

      Matter of fact, it’s so illegal that you can’t even point a gun at several of your fellow NFAC members in Baxter Park, discharge it, injure them, finish your demonstration, and then wait a couple days to find out if you will or won’t be charged.

    4. “You cannot point a gun at a trespasser in most jurisdictions. ”
      Not actually true.
      Check “Deadly Force, Justification” in WestLaw.

  27. Technically everyone was trespassing so they could’ve shot and killed everyone and they would have been justified under their state laws affect get over it

  28. Lately, I’ve been thinking about taking a CCW class. Does anyone on the board have any recommendations?

    1. I thought I saw someone up thread mention it once or twice.

    2. Calvary Chapel Worship looks like a wonderful place
      https://ccwc.org/connect/ccwc-school-of-ministry/

    3. Does anyone on the board have any recommendations?

      Try your hardest to ignore Hihn.

    4. Massad Ayoob’s ‘In The Gravest Extreme: The Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection’ is an easy read and has good info for someone just starting out. Or a re-read for those who are getting old and want to refresh. I just gave my 35y old copy away, to my Doctor who was interested in getting a permit.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massad_Ayoob#Books

  29. Can’t remember when I’ve been this conflicted.

    Case that he took a CCW class — What kind of psychopath would talk this much about a one day class he didn’t actually take?

    Case against CCW class — He thinks the entirety of US self defense law is taught for $72 ($10 lunch optional).

    1. I am having a hard time composing myself, I am sore from laughing, and yet also sad, and contemplative, and scared.

      1. But I do know what my new all-purpose Reason Comments Section comeback/buzzword is gonna be for the next few months, minimum

      2. We were waiting for you to tell us your source of knowledge. I am sure that, when you do that, everyone will be laughing just as hard as you are. What’s your problem?

      3. Sounds like the standard progression of a Hihnfection. You might actually feel sorry for him for the next couple days, you’re already well on the road to recovery.

        1. No, not feeling sorry for him, feeling sorry for Us

          1. Life on the ASD is hard. Wm97 needs a course on social cues.

            1. Life on the ASD is hard.

              You’re not joking. I can pre-process about 50% of the interactions I have a hard time with, but others are pretty much guaranteed to just leave me baffled.

    2. So tell us your source of knowledge on the topic. What’s your problem with that?

      1. How do you think lawyers normally learn stuff?

        1. Disingenuously insane and insanely disingenuous anti-gun “libertarian” Michael Hihn snookered us again!

          1. This seems too lucid for Hihn. I’m betting if it’s not real it’s a pure troll from a regular.

            1. This seems too lucid for Hihn.

              No this is pretty on par lucidity-wise. I’ll give you that he isn’t using all caps and accusing everyone of bullying but, granting your assumption that he’s not, the original Hihn usually had to get appropriately worked up before he started whining and putting people on his enemies list.

              But the whole “I’m not anti-gun but… I’ve owned guns for 60 yrs. so if I say gun control X is OK, it is.”, “I understand Heller and the law better than you do”, and the obvious lying while contradicting himself is straight out of Hihn’s playbook. If it’s not Hihn, it’s an essentially faithful, if not entirely stylistically faithful, copycat.

              1. I’m thinking my “cousin” joke at the top of the comments might not be wrong.

                It’s certainly got the repetition density and manic posting quantities of a full blown Hihnfection. But the wording itself seems too coherent.

                Then again, Hihn was just a badly written bot, so maybe someone scraped the code, tied on a different dictionary, and set it loose again.

            2. Nah, notice the slow progression of embellishment. First is was about CCW courses, then about his having been on the school shooting team (Stockton?), and each time he swirls around the latest keyword a few times before adding to his rantings.
              This guy is almost as much fun as Joe Biden.

  30. Also, don’t you just love how measured and reasonable the DA Gardiner was, until that evil Josh Hawley inflamed her

    What a complete shitshow this whole fcvkin place has become

  31. They are weirdos who are constantly suing people, but they were within their rights. Just remember, never point a gun at someone unless you’re about to shoot him.

  32. Even if it weren’t on video, it’s not on them to prove they aren’t criminals. It’s up to the State to prove they ARE.

    Their claim that they were threatened and they were acting defensively has to be assumed to be true unless we have evidence that it isn’t. I’m positive some of those “protesters” were filming if there were evidence that the homeowners were unjustified we’d have seen it by now. The silence is deafening.

    Also, don’t you just love how measured and reasonable the DA Gardiner was until that evil Josh Hawley inflamed her…

    https://www.carlarowland.com/2020/07/how-to-calculate-child-support-in.html

  33. Typical BS Reason article. You’d think self defense would be a pretty big libertarian thing. But Reason only pretends to be libertarian.

    The gate was broken down it now has a bike like through its twisted frame to hold it together. There were signs indicating no trespassing.

    So it’s not a peaceful protest if it involves protesting on private property against the owners wishes. The access road itself is private property. People have gated communities to keep idiots like these out.

    Thus even if it was just to make sure nothing happened having your weapon out is justified. Especially after calling 911 and being told the police are not coming. That “Joe Biden’s America” Trump commercial is actually non-fiction in this case.

    And in the end nothing happened . So the libertarian response would be leave it alone.

    And a lesson learned to the rest of us that its up to you to defend yourself and your property. Also very libertarian.

  34. The couple also has the support of other prominent Republicans.

    Gardner’s woke cred leveling up.

  35. Kim Gardner is up for a primary election on Tuesday, and I’ve heard a lot more ads against her – actually I’m not sure that I’ve heard any for her.

    Here’s hoping she gets primaried out. Because it’s not like a republican (or any other party) is going to win anything in the city’s general election. Especially with the Hubbards still around and operating.

  36. If people broke down or through the gate at the Whitehouse would they have guns pointed at them? If the answer is yes then there is nothing more here to discuss!

    1. My house isn’t white, but the rule still applies here.

  37. How consistent are the local prosecutors in prosecuting the brandishing of “lethal” weapons? A ball bat can be lethal as well as other objects and implements. I don’t suppose any of the “peaceful” protestors had anything in hand that might be “lethal”. The question has to be asked were the McCloskeys singled out for political reasons.

  38. The only liars are the fascist gun toting whackos
    no gate was broken, or apparently even opened

    1. How big IS a “fascist gun”?
      CAN it be toted, or must it be towed?
      Do you have to first take a CCW course?

  39. “Peaceful Protesters”?? That broke into a locked community and threatened to burn down the house and kill the dog…. That’s a joke right?

  40. There was a time, not too long ago, when protests that surrounded a private residence, even on a public street, and deprived them of the enjoyment of their property were NOT within their first amendment rights. I cannot recall exactly when the scope of first amendment allowed such action, no statute, no specific judicial decision, but it sort of was allowed to happen by default over time. It was accepted and supported, for the most part, by the media-probably in a conflation with the expansion of constitutional rights of assembly engendered by the racial outrages of the Jim Crow south. The result is a situation where two rights, both strongly valued by libertarian thought, have been brought into needless conflict.
    Limits on public assembly in what are recognized as public spaces in service to free speech have been understandably expanded such that a reasonably ordered protest cannot be prohibited or ended. However, while there is no bright line on the limits, it could be considered over the line when an entire downtown is closed down for days, depriving everyone else of the normal use of such space. But, because of the fact that all sorts of public spaces are available for demonstration, residential areas are unnecessary for such public actions. And, because residential areas, especially particular residences would only be chosen with the target of intimidating an individual or group of individuals, an act that is clearly inappropriate.

  41. Given what is apparent from this case, I would think that the appropriate action is to charge this couple with some sort of misdemeanor (improper handling of a firearm, etc.) instead of the felony charge. They were certainly technically at fault in how they handled their firearms (point at the ground with fingers off the triggers) but the situation was sketchy enough for them that it was not an entirely unreasonable idea.
    BTW, regarding breaking into the community, was the mangle gate I’ve seen in several article faked?

    1. @ Frank Thorne above, his comment deserves more notice. I quote it in full: “Frank Thorn
      July.29.2020 at 10:12 pm
      Google street view shows 2 mirror image foot traffic gates with a very wide (perhaps unused) vehicle gate between them. Where there are no gates there are large stone walls. There is a guard tower between the north gate and vehicle gate. My understanding is the ”peaceful” protesters damaged the north gate to get in. This was the gate closest to McCloskey’s house. Afterwards they opened the south gate from inside the private property. This is the gate that appears undamaged. Sometimes gates allow free passage out of a secure area with the lock/ latch protected by a large plate, to prevent people outside from reaching in.”

  42. Gawd, I’m glad I never read these comments til after the shit storms subside. Hopefully this won’t wake the sleeping beast of the “CCW Masher”, but as long as the subject is out there, try this free online CCW class. It’s real: https://www.frontsight.com/onlineccw/ . How a Concealed Carry Weapon permit in State A is relevant to an open carry on private property issue in State B, is beyond me, but it’s amazing how someone manages to hijack a whole thread like that.

  43. I like Rambo Karen. The way she waves that gun around displays a lot of class.

  44. Let’s be honest: Chris Coumo is a scumbag. Now, on to this claim:

    “…Based on video shot by a protester,..”

    You don’t seem to realize that every one of these videos is edited to show things in a light most favorable to the narrative of the video owner. The reason the video shows the gate open is because it was edited to remove the part where a protestor opened it.

  45. “…Chris Cuomo’s attitude during his hostile interview with McCloskey and his lawyer, Albert Watkins, is maddening. “We can talk about the legal rights and the facts,” Cuomo said at the outset. “But I want to talk about, not having a right, but whether or not something is right first….How do you feel about becoming the political face of resistance to the Black Lives Matter movement?”

    Don’t ever change Fredo. Complete idiots deserve someone who speaks for them too (in Fredo’s case, 5x a week for an hour at a time…)

  46. My incredibly naive and dangerous jump to conclusion is that they are innocent until proven guilty

Please to post comments