THIS ARTICLE STOLEN FROM WELOVETRUMP.COM. Your IP address has been recorded and a DMCA claim has been filed based on your actions. You should immediately cease and desist copying articles from WeLoveTrump.com
Charges have officially been brought against the McCloskeys for pointing guns at protesters who broke into their neighborhood.
But those charges may be short lived.
Eric Schmitt, the Missouri Attorney General, confirmed his intentions to move to dismiss the charges against the couple for protecting their property with lawfully owned firearms.
The Missouri couple was charged with "felony unlawful use of a weapon."
BLM protesters broke into their secure neighborhood and were yelling threats at the McCloskeys.
The McCloskeys took out their lawfully purchased and owned guns to prevent protesters from hurting them or damaging their property.
Many 2A advocates and supporters of the Constitution are happy that their rights are being protected.
More details below:
Observers note that the McCloskeys did not hurt anyone. Nor did they fire their weapons.
They were simply holding their legally purchased and lawfully owned firearms as a deterrent against those threatening harm.
Fox News confirms that the Missouri AG is moving to dismiss the charges:
Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt on Monday moved to dismiss charges brought by St. Louis’ top prosecutor against a couple who pointed guns at a crowd marching to the mayor’s home last month, Fox News has learned.
St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner, the city’s top prosecutor, said Mark and Patricia McCloskey – both personal injury attorneys in their 60s – will be charged with felony unlawful use of a weapon following the June 28 incident.
"It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening manner -- that is unlawful in the city of St. Louis," Gardner said in a statement. She added that she was recommending a diversion program as an alternative to jail if the McCloskeys are convicted.
Gardner declined to discuss to why Missouri’s “castle doctrine,” a law that justifies deadly force for those who are defending their homes from intruders, didn’t apply.
Within hours of the ruling, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief seeking to dismiss Gardner’s charges against the McCloskeys on the grounds that their Second Amendment rights are being violated.
“The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine, which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm,” Schmitt said in a prepared statement provided to Fox News.
“Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored,” Schmitt said.
The brief filing says the attorney general “respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this case at the earlier possible opportunity.”
The McCloskeys have said they were defending themselves, with tensions high in St. Louis amid nationwide police protests sparked by the police custody death of George Floyd. The McCloskeys said that the crowd of demonstrators broke an iron gate marked with "No Trespassing" and "Private Street" signs and that some violently threatened them.
For weeks, we've seen images of "peaceful protesters" destroying private property and hurting innocent people.
The protesters in Missouri were yelling threats at the McCloskey couple, so they were simply acting out of self-defense, observers argue.
Yet... this did not stop the Circuit Attorney's Office from filing charges against the couple.
Many liberals are criticizing Schmitt for getting involved in the case.
However, Schmitt made a public statement defending his involvement, invoking the Constitutional right to bear arms.
St. Louis Today reports:
Missouri’s top lawyer acknowledged Tuesday his intervention in a high-profile unlawful use of a weapon case involving a St. Louis couple is unusual.
“It doesn’t happen every day,” Attorney General Eric Schmitt told the Post-Dispatch in an interview in the Capitol.
But, he said his controversial decision to seek to have gun charges against Mark and Patricia McCloskey dismissed is rooted in the state’s long-held interest in the right to bear arms.
“There is a common law interest if the attorney general feels that the broader interest of Missourians are affected, like the chilling effect that this might have with people exercising their Second Amendment rights,” Schmitt said.
“I felt it was appropriate that I weigh in,” Schmitt added. “We felt it was important to get it in and make the state’s position known early.”
Gov. Mike Parson appointed Schmitt attorney general after Josh Hawley’s election to the U.S. Senate in 2018.
Schmitt’s decision to try and block St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly M. Gardner’s prosecution of the McCloskeys has met with criticism from some lawmakers and lawyers.
Rep. Rasheen Aldridge, D-St. Louis, who said he attended the June 28 protest in question, met Schmitt’s legal move with derision, calling it a “political sideshow.”
“The eagerness with which the governor and Attorney General Schmitt attacked Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner for standing up for her constituents’ First Amendment rights is alarming,” Aldridge said.
Many conservatives fear that this is a preview of what's to come if Joe Biden wins the election.
Democrats have increasingly become hostile towards guns and even the Constitution as a whole.
Many BLM activists have openly stated that they want to change the "system" in the United States.
Fortunately, there are still AG's like Schmitt who are willing to defend the constitution and its constituents.