Missouri AG moves to dismiss ‘political’ charges against St. Louis couple who pointed guns at BLM protesters in ‘self-defense’
Missouri’s Attorney General is seeking to dismiss felony gun charges brought against a husband and wife who aimed firearms at protesters outside their St. Louis mansion, insisting the couple had a right to defend their home.
State AG Eric Schmitt took to Twitter on Monday night with a video statement and a lengthy series of posts, arguing the case against Mark and Patricia McCloskey – which included a felony firearms charge as well as misdemeanor assault – “threatens to intimidate and deter law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right of self defense.”
“The right to defend one’s person, family, home and property has deep roots in Missouri law. Self-defense is the central component of the right to keep and bear arms, which receives the highest protection from the MO Constitution,” wrote Schmitt, adding that he’d filed a pair of briefs to dismiss the charges.
In fact, this political prosecution sends a powerful and dangerous message: You exercise [your] right to keep and bear arms at your own peril. If you do, you may find yourself in prison.
Citizens shouldn’t be targeted for exercising their #2A right to self-defenseSTL prosecutor Kim Gardner is engaged in a political prosecutionAs AG I’m entering the case seeking a dismissal & defend all Missourians’ right to protect their lives/property pic.twitter.com/kQLXOAhFIz
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 20, 2020
St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner is engaged in a political prosecution.I entered the case seeking a dismissal.As AG I have a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all Missourians including the right to keep & bear arms in self-defense of one’s person & home.A THREAD
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric_Schmitt) July 21, 2020
Brought against the McCloskeys earlier on Monday by circuit attorney Kimberly Gardner, the suit alleges the couple illegally brandished weapons in a “threatening manner” at people “participating in a nonviolent protest.” The two homeowners claim they felt the protesters posed a threat to their lives, arguing they acted in self-defense, however the charges against them moved ahead regardless.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
Comments are closed.