Police seize firearms from couple who defended themselves from angry mob of BLM supporters.

A photo of the incident. The Federalist/Bill Greenblatt.

Police have seized firearms from the couple who defended themselves from an angry mob of Black Lives Matter supporters in St. Louis Missouri. The Federalist. The couple, Mark and Patricia McCloskey, retrieved their firearms and pointed them at the rioters after they broke a metal gate and came on to their property. Mark McCloskey said he and his wife felt like their lives were in danger and that the rioters had no reason to be on their property. Black Lives Matter claimed that the rioters were there trying to reach the Mayor of St. Louis' house but McCloskey points out that it's not possible to reach her house on the street the rioters broke into. Police have seized the AR-15 used in the incident while the handgun is in the possession of the McCloskey's lawyer. 

My Comment:

The persecution and possible prosecution of the McCloskey's is one of the most disgusting things that has come out of the George Floyd riots. They did absolutely nothing wrong morally and their actions were more than justified under Missouri law. Indeed, they would have been in their rights to open fire on these rioters and their restraint in not doing so was pretty amazing. 

There is absolutely no reason for these weapons to have been seized. With no crime having been committed there is zero reason to seize these weapons. Charges could be filed in this case but there is no crime that was committed. The McCloskey's would win at trial and would do so easily. Missouri's castle doctrine extends to property including lawns, so it's very obvious that no crime has been committed. 

So why is Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner doing this then? Other than the fact that she's racist you mean? It's very clear that the main goal of the Black Lives Matter movement is to ensure that black people are held to a different standard than anyone else. They don't care how justified it is to defend yourself against a black criminal (and these rioters were criminals the second they broke down the gate) they want it to be illegal. It doesn't matter if they broke into your property and threatened your lives, just like it doesn't matter when a drunk steals a taser from a cop and then shoots it at him. If you threaten or kill a black person then you are racist to Black Lives Matter, regardless of the obvious legal and moral justification in these cases. 

This is also about punishing the McCloskey's for having the temerity to own firearms. They have an absolute right under the 2nd Amendment to keep and bear arms and they exercised that right. That's something Democrats won't stand for. They would rather see the McCloskey's dead, their house burned down and their history erased then allow them to defend themselves. 

I also think that the goal here is to bankrupt the McCloskey's in legal fees. Gardner knows that she can't win at trial, but if she keeps up a pressure campaign she can hurt the McCloskey's severely. Not only is she damaging their back accounts, the negative publicity is going to hurt their business. 

Of course, there are more sinister motives for confiscating the McCloskey's firearms. Now that they are disarmed there is no way for them to defend themselves. The couple has already been doxxed and threatened. All it would take is one more angry mob or even just one random angry criminal, to take them out and there isn't a thing anyone could do for them. I hope that they at least have an armed friend that can lend them a weapon or stay with them for awhile. Or failing that, they can hire an armed security guard.

It's clear that the McCloskey's can't rely on the police to help them. They called for help but the police didn't show up in time. Indeed, the police weren't doing anything to stop the looting, arson and rioting in St. Louis. Police are afraid and in many cases have been ordered to stand down when it comes to Black Lives Matter. You can't rely on the cops for help under these circumstances. You need a firearm to protect yourself. 

I do wonder why we haven't heard from the NRA or other gun rights groups in this case. It might be because the McCloskey's were pretty obviously not that experienced with their firearms. Regardless, incidents like this is why groups like the NRA, the 2nd Amendment Foundation and Gun Owners of America even exist. You would think they would be screaming about this case but as far as I can tell they haven't said much at all.