Gunboards Forums banner

21 - 40 of 241 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,681 Posts
In S.Aus., we have a Law dealing with Criminal Trespass, which provides that anyone who does not remove themselves at an owners request, or causes any damage, the trespass is no longer a Civil offence but becomes Criminal and the police become involved.
The couple do appear to be a bit of a pain, but that should not be an issue in considering the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
My understanding, at least regarding the pistol, is that it has been claimed that it was inoperable. It was turned over to their original attorney (who has now recused himself) to maintain chain of custody, his words, in case the prosecutor's office wanted to investigate, which they have. In regards to the rifle, I believe that they were looking at brandishing charges.

I'm not arguing that the charges are objectively justified or correct, but only that that is the claimed reason for confiscation since it would then have been used in the commission of a crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,643 Posts
What we've got is a couple litigious lawyers and an attorney general with a decidedly liberal activist viewpoint. This will probably go to court, get thrown out then the owners will have to sue to get their guns back. Just my prediction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,768 Posts
I think you are right, Mr. Murvihill. A screaming mob that willfully breaks down a legally installed gate/fence intended to keep lawbreakers out, immediately become lawbreakers. Then, trespassing after destroying property, they approach the first home yelling they are going to "Burn it down. It's ours now." The charges against the homeowners by the AG will be tossed out and it only shows she is too biased to perform her job but instead is looking for a new job in the Democratic Party.
It's a shame what the Leftists have done to that party, BTW. It's also a shame any law enforcement officer accepted the order to take the home owner's weapons. The only way to stop this government take-over, including our guns, is for law abiding authorities and citizens to not cooperate with the Leftists. We can't keep giving-in! In my opinion, if we don't calmly stop participating in it, the take-over will go too far and violence will happen. Once violence does happen, the Left wins and anarchy prevails. I still believe we true Americans are stronger than that. But it will take sacrifice to accomplish, no different than sacrifices already paid by our veterans lying at Arlington, living with disabilities, and public servants of all types who have paid with their lives or limbs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
Well put Dave.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,646 Posts
I thought the whole idea of protecting yourself, your family, and your property with a firearm was guaranteed under rhe constitution? Now we need to worry just how we display said weapon as it might be construed to be threatening?

This is the left once again trying to erode our rights.

Whether this couple may be assholes or not, if they felt threatened then IMO they had every right to stand their ground, firearms in hand. Jesus Christ, if we dont even have a right to self protection then this country is lost forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
If no one is attempting to physically harm you you cannot point a gun at them no matter if it works or not.
Seems these people are real jerks as personal injury attorneys usually are. And they know everyone in the legal dept and practically every lawyer in the state.

https://fox6now.com/2020/07/11/police-execute-search-warrant-at-st-louis-home-of-gun-toting-couple/

The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place, the private street in a St. Louis historic district where they live, have been involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of land in the neighborhood. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch previously by pointing a gun at a neighbor who tried to cut through it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
If no one is attempting to physically harm you you cannot point a gun at them no matter if it works or not.
Seems these people are real jerks as personal injury attorneys usually are. And they know everyone in the legal dept and practically every lawyer in the state.

https://fox6now.com/2020/07/11/police-execute-search-warrant-at-st-louis-home-of-gun-toting-couple/

The McCloskeys and the trustees of Portland Place, the private street in a St. Louis historic district where they live, have been involved in a three-year legal dispute over a small piece of land in the neighborhood. The McCloskeys claim they own it, but the trustees say it belongs to the neighborhood.
Mark McCloskey said in an affidavit that he has defended the patch previously by pointing a gun at a neighbor who tried to cut through it.

Breaking down a gate onto private property is ample evidence under a reasonable man standard to conclude the mob intends physical harm.

Chanting “Burn it down, it's ours” proves intent to do physical harm.

There is no reasonable justification for defending a mob with demonstrated criminal intent.

Missouri protest laws are very specific. The protesters lose all protection under the law the moment they threaten violence.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,074 Posts
I can see being armed to show you mean business. That’s been done in many of our local communities lately. But my own personal rule is if I point a gun at you that’s not for show I’m going to shoot you. I won’t point or shoot unless the threat is overwhelming and immediate. In this case I’ll let the jury decide if their lives were in immediate danger.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,053 Posts
I see on the TV news the police seized the AR from the St. Louis homeowner who kept many demonstrators at bay on his own property. In addition the news reported that 12 GOP members of Congress sent a letter to AG Barr requesting assistance.

I wonder what the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice will do to restore Second Amendment Rights and the AR to the homeowner?

Webley
Rather obviously, as EVIDENCE connected to the crime he and his wife committed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,053 Posts
North Bender,

My point exactly: Why was the AR Seized? If the attorney gun owner violated ANY law, why was he not arrested incident to the AR seizure? One would assume a lawyer threatened on his own land would comply with the law.

I say the Civil Rights Division of the Attorney General's Office should check this out. If a crime was committed, why was the GUN the culprit? During my federal law enforcement career, I obtained many search warrants and all required an affidavit (sworn statement) stating the reason for the need for a search warrant. I would like to read the AR affidavit. I cannot understand any of this. I have asked my congressman and senator to ask the Attorney General to look into this Civil Rights matter. If a lawyer can have his gun seized, who is next?

Webley
Because the AR is more visible and more politically hated than her Raven or whatever she had.

How do you know that HER handgun WAS NOT "seized" as well? Just because the press hasn't said it was?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
I can see being armed to show you mean business. That’s been done in many of our local communities lately. But my own personal rule is if I point a gun at you that’s not for show I’m going to shoot you. I won’t point or shoot unless the threat is overwhelming and immediate. In this case I’ll let the jury decide if their lives were in immediate danger.
Thats my motto. Those people seem be a little unhinged.
They are pointing guns at how many people? Several supposedly armed! I doubt the guy could hit anything the way he was holding his AR with the bolt ejecting casings into his belly. Fools
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
Breaking down a gate onto private property is ample evidence under a reasonable man standard to conclude the mob intends physical harm.

Chanting “Burn it down, it's ours” proves intent to do physical harm.

There is no reasonable justification for defending a mob with demonstrated criminal intent.

Missouri protest laws are very specific. The protesters lose all protection under the law the moment they threaten violence.
The issue is that the street was not his personal property though. Its owned by the HOA/Board of trustees. As long as they stayed in the street, they were not trespassing on his property. They were trespassing on the HOA/Truste's property. Therefore castle doctrine does not apply. Also, words are not enough to shoot or brandish a weapon over. There has to be a physical threat against your life before you can draw a weapon legally.

I am saying this all because if you truly want to follow the rule of law and not your own version of mob law "I think this is right so this is what is should be" then you need to follow the written law specifically and know that it might not always be favorable to your view point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,157 Posts
The issue is that the street was not his personal property though. Its owned by the HOA/Board of trustees. As long as they stayed in the street, they were not trespassing on his property. They were trespassing on the HOA/Truste's property. Therefore castle doctrine does not apply. Also, words are not enough to shoot or brandish a weapon over. There has to be a physical threat against your life before you can draw a weapon legally.

I am saying this all because if you truly want to follow the rule of law and not your own version of mob law "I think this is right so this is what is should be" then you need to follow the written law specifically and know that it might not always be favorable to your view point.
Right on. There's a lot of gray areas within those laws. Some people posting here should contact their lawyer to brush up on their state laws. And definitely get some insurance.
It would be funny if the injury lawyers have to lawyer up. hehe I bet if charged they will try and defend themselves cus injury lawyers think they are Gods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
The issue is that the street was not his personal property though. Its owned by the HOA/Board of trustees. As long as they stayed in the street, they were not trespassing on his property. They were trespassing on the HOA/Truste's property. Therefore castle doctrine does not apply. Also, words are not enough to shoot or brandish a weapon over. There has to be a physical threat against your life before you can draw a weapon legally.

I am saying this all because if you truly want to follow the rule of law and not your own version of mob law "I think this is right so this is what is should be" then you need to follow the written law specifically and know that it might not always be favorable to your view point.
You seem to attach some importance to the fact that private property is not personal. That is a false premise and not how the law as written in Missouri sees it. Missouri, just like Florida allows communities to have private streets and common areas. My housing community has no gates because just like Missouri, none are required to have a private street. Signs are posted, the streets listed as private, and there is an HOA. We have some homes on the ocean and some not. There are community boat ramps and parking areas. They are not public. Every now and then we get some idiot that does not live in the community that tries to park their vehicle and use the boat ramps.

The Police, just like in Missouri, are not allowed on private roads unless they have probable cause to be there or are specifically called to be there. Even then, they cannot and will enforce certain laws specifically because it is private property.

If you call the police on one of those trespasser using a boat ramp they will do nothing as far as illegal parking or any of that. Legally, the public traffic laws do not apply, the Police do not patrol the neighborhood or enforce public traffic law. The Police simply tow the vehicle and charge the owner with trespass.

End of Story.

That street the protesters were on is private property according the laws of the state of Missouri. The protesters had absolutely no right or expectation of travel on those roads and committed the crime of trespass the moment they stepped onto the streets of that gated community after breaking down the gate.

Simply put...the requirement for private property to be "personal private property" does not exist anywhere in the statues.

ARE YOU ALLOWED TO PROTEST ON PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Generally, not without permission from the owner of the property. In Missouri, the private property owner has the right to limit what speech or assembly will take place on their property including not allowing it at all. If you disregard their rules, the owner is within their rights to order you off their property. If you do not comply they could seek the assistance of the police and you could be arrested and charged with trespassing.
Nor is a protest allowed to be on any public street anywhere in Missouri without a valid permit. The states does not have the authority to issue a permit to protest on private property.


MISSOURI REQUIRES PROTESTERS TO OBTAIN PERMITS IN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS:


  • A march or parade that does not stay on the sidewalk;
  • An event that requires blocking traffic or closing a street;
  • A rally requiring the use of a sound amplifier; or
  • A rally or protest at certain parks or public plazas;
  • Anytime local laws require it.
https://stltriallawyers.com/missouri-protesting-laws/


Once again, this false distinction between "personal" private property vs private property does not exist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
AR, I think you are confusing the concept of Real Property with Personal Property.

What Is Real Property?

Real property is land and any property attached directly to it, including any subset of land that has been improved through legal human actions. Examples of real properties can include buildings, ponds, canals, roads, and machinery, among other things. In land law, where the term is most commonly used, real property also entails the right of use, control, and disposition of the land and its attached objects.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/real-property.asp

The protester had absolutely no right of use to any road, sidewalk, or anything past the gate of that community.

Missouri law is specific in that entering Real Property that is gated and posted is committing the crime of First Degree Trespass.

A person does not commit the offense of trespass in the first degree by entering or remaining upon real propertyunless the real property is fenced or otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(2) Posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.
https://www.lawserver.com/law/state/missouri/mo-laws/missouri_laws_569-140

A gate that you must break down to enter combined with a large sign reading "No Trespassing" is the very definition of "likely to come to the attention of intruders".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
846 Posts
Fools they are. Should have their guns taken away just for the sake of them not killing themselves.
Most Americans are applauding them for standing up to the hate, violence, and racism being pushed by the left.

When the foundation of your movement advocates violence such as calling for the burning peoples homes as well as stealing of their property and the pushes principle you must compromise your character to achieve the movement ends...it is fatally flawed in the first place.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
6,074 Posts
I know everybody here knows you don’t point a weapon at someone unless you intend to use it because your life is in danger. Bickering over who owned the street doesn’t negate that fact.
 
21 - 40 of 241 Posts
Top