info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Socialist Judge: Gun-waving lawyer shouldn't get guns or money back
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Leroy N. Soetoro
Dec 30, 2022, 11:04:39 PM12/30/22
to
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.
Mark McCloskey sued last year to have returned a Colt AR-15 rifle and a
Bryco .380-caliber pistol that he and his wife, Patricia McCloskey,
surrendered when they pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the
confrontation with protesters. McCloskey said he was entitled to the guns
and remitted fines because Republican Gov. Mike Parson pardoned him and
his wife weeks after their guilty pleas.
On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty ruled that the pardon had no
bearing on the plea agreement, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
“Plaintiff and his wife are required to follow through with their end of
the bargain,” she wrote.
Mark McCloskey said he plans to appeal.
The McCloskeys have said they felt threatened by protesters who walked on
their private street past their home during global protests that followed
the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They emerged from their home
waving guns.
They were each indicted on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and
evidence tampering. Mark McCloskey later agreed to plead guilty to
misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was ordered to pay a $750 fine.
Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was
ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.
Earlier this year, the court suspended Mark and Patricia McCloskeys’ law
licenses but delayed the suspension and put the two on probation for a
year. The order means the couple can still practice, but the suspension
will take effect if they violate their probation by breaking any more
laws.
During the 2021 sentencing hearing, Judge David Mason asked Mark McCloskey
if he acknowledged that his actions put people at risk of personal injury.
He replied, “I sure did your honor.” Afterward on the courthouse steps,
McCloskey, at the time a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, said
he'd do it again if faced with similar circumstances.
Richard Callahan, the special prosecutor who investigated the case said
his investigation determined that the protesters were peaceful.
“There was no evidence that any of them had a weapon and no one I
interviewed realized they had ventured onto a private enclave,” he said in
a news release after the McCloskeys pleaded guilty.
--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.
Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud: sf.n...@mail.house.gov
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.
Mark McCloskey sued last year to have returned a Colt AR-15 rifle and a
Bryco .380-caliber pistol that he and his wife, Patricia McCloskey,
surrendered when they pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the
confrontation with protesters. McCloskey said he was entitled to the guns
and remitted fines because Republican Gov. Mike Parson pardoned him and
his wife weeks after their guilty pleas.
On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty ruled that the pardon had no
bearing on the plea agreement, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.
“Plaintiff and his wife are required to follow through with their end of
the bargain,” she wrote.
Mark McCloskey said he plans to appeal.
The McCloskeys have said they felt threatened by protesters who walked on
their private street past their home during global protests that followed
the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They emerged from their home
waving guns.
They were each indicted on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and
evidence tampering. Mark McCloskey later agreed to plead guilty to
misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was ordered to pay a $750 fine.
Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was
ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.
Earlier this year, the court suspended Mark and Patricia McCloskeys’ law
licenses but delayed the suspension and put the two on probation for a
year. The order means the couple can still practice, but the suspension
will take effect if they violate their probation by breaking any more
laws.
During the 2021 sentencing hearing, Judge David Mason asked Mark McCloskey
if he acknowledged that his actions put people at risk of personal injury.
He replied, “I sure did your honor.” Afterward on the courthouse steps,
McCloskey, at the time a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, said
he'd do it again if faced with similar circumstances.
Richard Callahan, the special prosecutor who investigated the case said
his investigation determined that the protesters were peaceful.
“There was no evidence that any of them had a weapon and no one I
interviewed realized they had ventured onto a private enclave,” he said in
a news release after the McCloskeys pleaded guilty.
--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.
No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.
Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud: sf.n...@mail.house.gov
Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.
Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.
President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
!Jones
Jan 2, 2023, 8:42:17 AM1/2/23
to
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
N. Soetoro" <democrat-...@mail.house.gov> wrote:
>https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
>
>ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
>governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
>national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
>should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
>guilty pleas last year.
A pardon restores freedoms that you lost upon being convicted (e.g.:
N. Soetoro" <democrat-...@mail.house.gov> wrote:
>https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
>
>ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
>governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
>national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
>should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
>guilty pleas last year.
releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or
harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the
conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
driver's license.
Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
where it becomes inconvenient to them.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jan 2, 2023, 8:50:21 AM1/2/23
to
and the judge should be tarred and feathered.
Scout
Jan 2, 2023, 11:56:23 AM1/2/23
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klaus.schadenfreude.löschen.@gmail.com> wrote in
message news:q7o5rhlscrmstafmm...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 02 Jan 2023 07:42:14 -0600, !Jones <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
>>N. Soetoro" <democrat-...@mail.house.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
>>>
>>>ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
>
>>On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
>>N. Soetoro" <democrat-...@mail.house.gov> wrote:
>>
>>>https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
>>>
>>>governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
>>>national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
>>>should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
>>>guilty pleas last year.
>>
>>A pardon restores freedoms that you lost upon being convicted (e.g.:
>>releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
>>criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
>>and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or
>>harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
>>This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
>>
>>The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
>>argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
>>ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
>>
>>It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
>>some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
>>later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the
>>conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
>>person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
>>driver's license.
Actually it would. Not the old license, they would have to apply for and get
>>>national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
>>>should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
>>>guilty pleas last year.
>>
>>A pardon restores freedoms that you lost upon being convicted (e.g.:
>>releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
>>criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
>>and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or
>>harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
>>This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
>>
>>The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
>>argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
>>ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
>>
>>It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
>>some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
>>later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the
>>conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
>>person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
>>driver's license.
a new license.
>>
>>Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
>>where it becomes inconvenient to them.
>
> They weren't "waving" any guns. All their rights should be restored,
> and the judge should be tarred and feathered.
they might not have any right to reclaim the property legally confiscated or
restitution the fees they had to pay under their conviction.
A pardon does NOT change that.. it only strikes out the criminal charges
going forward. It does not alter what has already occurred.
To get that, they have to file another lawsuit and if any actions were
improper, then they might get something back.. but since there wasn't..
nothing says they have to get the guns or money back.
Just Wondering
Jan 2, 2023, 12:15:43 PM1/2/23
to
On 1/2/2023 6:42 AM, !Jones wrote:
>
> The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
> argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
> ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
>
> The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
> argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
> ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
!Jones
Jan 2, 2023, 8:30:49 PM1/2/23
to
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.
For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.
On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law
mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.
Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
Just Wondering
Jan 3, 2023, 12:33:43 PM1/3/23
to
rights through legislative vs. judicial action.
!Jones
Jan 3, 2023, 1:02:05 PM1/3/23
to
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:33:42 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Well, you'd have to define what you mean by "material difference". I
oppose the death penalty; however, I suggest that there is a *huge*
philosophical difference between a death sentence imposed by a jury
and simply taking someone out back and shooting them... but, I suppose
the person is dead either way, and I will guess that this is what you
mean by "no material difference".
If a person is convicted of a certain genre of crime, many of which
are non-violent and have nothing to do with guns, the law stipulates
that the person automatically loses his or her freedom to possess a
gun. That is a legislative action, because the loss of freedom is
predicated on and dictated by an act of the legislature.
A "judicial action" would be where one *possible* penalty allowed by
law is the removal of gun freedom, and the court specifically imposes
that penalty, but may or may not choose to do so.
Either you can see the difference or you can't. Either way, I have
nothing more to add.
oppose the death penalty; however, I suggest that there is a *huge*
philosophical difference between a death sentence imposed by a jury
and simply taking someone out back and shooting them... but, I suppose
the person is dead either way, and I will guess that this is what you
mean by "no material difference".
If a person is convicted of a certain genre of crime, many of which
are non-violent and have nothing to do with guns, the law stipulates
that the person automatically loses his or her freedom to possess a
gun. That is a legislative action, because the loss of freedom is
predicated on and dictated by an act of the legislature.
A "judicial action" would be where one *possible* penalty allowed by
law is the removal of gun freedom, and the court specifically imposes
that penalty, but may or may not choose to do so.
Either you can see the difference or you can't. Either way, I have
nothing more to add.
0 new messages