quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Maybe get the mother-in-law to come over...

You don't know my MIL, within 15min the mob would be begging me to take her back!

Good gawd.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Million dollar home and has a Lorcin. I would like to protect my life with the cheapest gun possible. Probably put used tires on their cars.

Doesn’t surprise me at all, at my lgs there is this rich dude and his adult son that comes in every month and they shoot and buy 3 or 4 of the cheapest guns like the kel-tecs maybe a ruger ect.. then they leave and jump into a lambo and the son has some other expensive and nice car but but sure what kind. Gun jockey tells me they do this every time and the guy is some kind of ceo who’s worth millions, never buys anything over a few hundred but will buy a handful of em every time

quote:

One of our own on this forum, an LEO, said many officers would refuse to go door to door in said situation, not wholly out of principle, but on the principle of self preservation of life, aka not wanting to get dead. Makes some sense to me.

A warrant issued without a finding of probable cause is Unconstitutional and invalid on its face.

A warrant with such a finding is constitutional and valid.

In McCloskey’s case there MAY have been a crime committed, and the rifle may be evidence of that crime. I don’t know the details of the investigation, but there was enough for a judge to sign a warrant.

Just because you don’t LIKE something doesn’t make it unconstitutional or otherwise wrong. We write warrants for guns and other evidence every day from people you’d be perfectly happy seeing lose their guns or drugs or child porn or whatever... but seize a gun with a search warrant from these people and suddenly we’re going door to door confiscating guns?

I’ve taken guns from serial wife beaters, convicted felons, drunk drivers, thieves... is that JBT behavior, too?

The evidence has to be collected, investigation has to run its course and then decisions have to be made... not before. You do NOT decide in advance where an investigation is going to go, those cases either fall apart when they need to stick together, and bad guys go free, or they stick together longer than they should, risking conviction of the not guilty and waste of resources.

quote:

I’ve taken guns from serial wife beaters, convicted felons, drunk drivers, thieves... is that JBT behavior, too?

Java Behavior Trees?
John Bean Technologies?
Jefferson Bank and Trust?

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I’ve taken guns from serial wife beaters, convicted felons, drunk drivers, thieves... is that JBT behavior, too?

Java Behavior Trees?
John Bean Technologies?
Jefferson Bank and Trust?

Jelly Bacon Tart....

If, after this "investigation," no law has been found to be broken, the rifle will be returned, right?

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

I’ve taken guns from serial wife beaters, convicted felons, drunk drivers, thieves... is that JBT behavior, too?

Java Behavior Trees?
John Bean Technologies?
Jefferson Bank and Trust?

Jelly Bacon Tart....

To avoid the thread devolving further: JBT.

^^^ Ok. Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Every member should take a look at their Homeowner's Insurance Policy. Many will have an exclusion for riots or civil disturbances.

True. These exclusions are extremely common on most of property insurance policies. I do know that Chubb doesn't currently have these exclusions in their home owners policies, but I would not be surprised if they added them at my next renewal.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fenris,

quote:

Originally posted by tanksoldier:

quote:

One of our own on this forum, an LEO, said many officers would refuse to go door to door in said situation, not wholly out of principle, but on the principle of self preservation of life, aka not wanting to get dead. Makes some sense to me.

A warrant issued without a finding of probable cause is Unconstitutional and invalid on its face.

A warrant with such a finding is constitutional and valid.

In McCloskey’s case there MAY have been a crime committed, and the rifle may be evidence of that crime. I don’t know the details of the investigation, but there was enough for a judge to sign a warrant.

Just because you don’t LIKE something doesn’t make it unconstitutional or otherwise wrong. We write warrants for guns and other evidence every day from people you’d be perfectly happy seeing lose their guns or drugs or child porn or whatever... but seize a gun with a search warrant from these people and suddenly we’re going door to door confiscating guns?

I’ve taken guns from serial wife beaters, convicted felons, drunk drivers, thieves... is that JBT behavior, too?

The evidence has to be collected, investigation has to run its course and then decisions have to be made... not before. You do NOT decide in advance where an investigation is going to go, those cases either fall apart when they need to stick together, and bad guys go free, or they stick together longer than they should, risking conviction of the not guilty and waste of resources.

I haven't had enough coffee yet this morning to do this post justice and shred it apart. So, I'll do the tired lazy version.

If you can't see the difference between serial wife beaters and a couple going outside their home armed to address angry trespassers destroying private property, I'm suuuuuuuper glad you're not a cop in my city. Here's a hint, there is no justification for an investigation here.

tanksoldier, this thread isn't about you or your discomfort with a forum full of gun owners having a distaste for gun confiscations. "Wife beaters"? What does that have to do with the subject at hand? Don't behave as if you don't know the difference between a domestic violence situation and people trying to defend their home. Ridiculous.

And "A warrant with such a finding is constitutional and valid"? Don't be obtuse. You're not fooling anyone. Just cut the bullshit.

ST. LOUIS — U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley announced on social media Thursday that he is asking for a federal investigation into the St. Louis circuit attorney’s office.

Hawley’s move — asking the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office for a civil rights violation — is in apparent reaction to the drama over the Portland Place couple who waved guns at protesters last month.

“Targeting law-abiding citizens who exercise constitutionally protected rights for investigation & prosecution is an abuse of power,” the Missouri Republican wrote on Twitter.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey are being investigated by St. Louis police and Gardner’s office for unlawful use of a weapon during a confrontation with protesters June 28.

No charges have been filed against the McCloskeys, but police have turned their findings over to the circuit attorney’s office.

Hawley told U.S. Attorney General William Barr, in a letter dated today, that Gardner is "now threatening to prosecute not the trespassers, but the McCloskeys, and she is using the powers of her office to target them."

"This is an unacceptable abuse of power and threat to the Second Amendment," Hawley wrote.

"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, and that any criminal prosecution for these actions is legally unsound," Hawley added. "The only possible motivation for the investigation, then, is a politically motivated attempt to punish this family for exercising their Second Amendment rights."

Gardner has not yet responded to news of Hawley's announcement.

Gardner released a statement shortly after the incident, saying she was “alarmed” that peaceful protesters were “met by guns and a violent assault.” She added: “Make no mistake: we will not tolerate the use of force against those exercising their First Amendment rights, and will use the full power of Missouri law to hold people accountable.”

Earlier this week, Missouri Gov. Mike Parson said the St. Louis couple “had every right” to wave guns and shout at protesters near their property. Parson then went on to criticize Gardner, who he said was “attempting to take their constitutional rights away.”

Police served a search warrant at the McCloskeys’ mansion last Friday, and seized Mark McCloskey’s rifle. On Saturday, their attorney, Albert Watkins, turned over what he said was the handgun used in the incident.

Patricia McCloskey, reached by phone Thursday, referred a Post-Dispatch reporter to her criminal defense lawyer, Joel Schwartz. But Schwartz said hadn't seen the Hawley announcement and had no comment.

The couple previously told the Post-Dispatch they had guns out because they felt threatened as the large group of protesters moved through their neighborhood, on their way to the mayor's home to protest there. Protesters have said they made a point to stay off the McCloskeys property and that seeing the couple waving guns was frightening.

After Parson came out in support of the McCloskeys, Gardner issued a statement accusing the governor and President Donald Trump of “launching dog-whistle attacks." Gardner said Parson and Trump "came after me for doing my job and investigating a case."

“While they continue to play politics with the handling of this matter, spreading misinformation and distorting the truth, I refuse to do so,” Gardner said. “As I always do, I am reviewing all the available facts and the law and will apply them equally, regardless of the people involved.”

“It is unbelievable the governor of the State of Missouri would seek advice from one of the most divisive leaders in our generation to overpower the discretion of a locally elected prosecutor,” Gardner added. ”It is also incredible that at a time when our nation is dealing with a rapidly spreading deadly virus and our State reported a record number of new infections, they are launching these dog-whistle attacks against me. They should be focused on their jobs, and I’ll focus on mine.”


Link

Good. I hope that bought and paid for Soros stooge feels the heat. I hope the scrutiny is unbearable. It could not be levied against a more deserving recipient.

I keep seeing/reading where the pistol was non-operational; does anyone know how and why it was non-op and, how that was determined?

Just a quick question...has it been or was it ever established the "peaceful (yeah right ) protesters" were actually ON the McCloskey's property after they BROKE THROUGH THE GATE? Captain Obvious statement here, but Gardner is so full of shit. Worst part is? She KNOWS it...

quote:

has it been or was it ever established the "peaceful (yeah right ) protesters" were actually ON the McCloskey's property after they BROKE THROUGH THE GATE?

I believe that I read somewhere that the section of land/sidewalk the protesters were on was part of a disagreement between the McCloskey's and the HOA going back several years. McCloskey's claim it is theirs, HOA claims it's common ground. I don't remember seeing anything about whether or not that was ever resolved.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

I believe that I read somewhere that the section of land/sidewalk the protesters were on was part of a disagreement between the McCloskey's and the HOA going back several years. McCloskey's claim it is theirs, HOA claims it's common ground. I don't remember seeing anything about whether or not that was ever resolved.

Regardless, these rioters had no right to be there, whether they were simply passing through or not.

quote:

McCloskey's claim it is theirs, HOA claims it's common ground. I don't remember seeing anything about whether or not that was ever resolved.

I don't know about this, but it's been pretty much settled it is NOT PUBLIC. It's a private street.

quote:

St. Louis City Counselor Julian K. Bush affirmed that Portland, as well as several other streets in the West End, are indeed private.

“They are owned by the property owners, and the owners pay for them, the street repairs and maintenance,” Bush said Monday.

https://www.stltoday.com/news/...52-ba5609608d56.html

quote:

pretty much settled it is NOT PUBLIC. It's a private street.

That is correct. It's still a private community. The only disagreement was between whether it belonged to them or the subdivision.

If you look at the old photos posted previously it appears that the original dirt road was where the current grass/sidewalk sits.

Typically you can't gate streets unless they are private, this has been established that the property and streets are private, if you enter onto private streets it's probably trespass at a minimum if you refuse to leave, breaking a gate is probably some other law breaking act.

Interesting we hear nothing about arrests for protestors that trespassed and broke into private property, damaged property, threatened people with damage and harm..