Keith Mack
The McCloskeys, a couple from St. Louis, Missouri, were charged with felonies for waving guns during a protest. Despite the seizure of their firearms, the McCloskeys' right to keep and bear arms and defend their home is protected under both state law and the Constitution. The case has sparked debate about the right to bear arms and the right to defend one's property, with some arguing that prosecuting the McCloskeys is a violation of their rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Right to bear arms | Protected under state law and the Constitution |
| Right to defend their property | Protected under Missouri's "castle doctrine" law |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
The McCloskeys' right to bear arms
Missouri's Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a legal brief in support of dismissing the case, stating that prosecuting the McCloskeys is a violation of their right to bear arms and their right to defend their property. He wrote that "as long as this case continues, it will send a public message to all Missourians that, if they dare to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms in defence of family and home, they may be prosecuted and sent to prison".
Local police raided the McCloskeys' home and seized the AR-15 that Mr McCloskey brandished in front of his home. However, authorities had no legal right to seize their firearms, according to some sources.
The McCloskeys claim that in their work as personal injury lawyers, they have defended the civil rights of their clients. They also said that they had been told days before that the protest group Expect Us was planning an event, and had fire extinguishers in every room on the lower level of their mansion.
Abraham's Actions: Mosaic Law and Its Interpretation
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The McCloskeys' right to defend their home
Missouri's Attorney General, Eric Schmitt, supported the McCloskeys, arguing that prosecuting them would violate their right to bear arms and defend their property. He stated that continuing the case against them would send a message to Missourians that exercising their right to keep and bear arms in defence of their family and home could result in prosecution and imprisonment.
The McCloskeys' supporters also highlight that the couple was protecting their home, pets, and themselves from a potential threat. They argue that the couple's rights under state and federal law must be upheld, especially in the context of a large mob attempting to break into their private property.
However, critics of the McCloskeys' actions point out that brandishing weapons without cause or reason is not justifiable. The protest has been described as a "peaceful protest" for Black Lives Matter, and the authorities seized the firearms from the McCloskeys' home, suggesting that they did not believe the couple's actions were lawful.
Overall, the McCloskeys' right to defend their home remains a contentious issue, with supporters arguing for the protection of their Second Amendment rights and critics expressing concerns about the potential consequences of condoning such behaviour.
Liam Neeson's Controversial Comments: Criminal Intent?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The McCloskeys' right to defend their property
The McCloskeys' actions have been defended by some, who argue that they were within their rights to defend their property under Missouri's "castle doctrine" law and their right to bear arms. Missouri's Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a legal brief in support of dismissing the case, arguing that prosecuting the McCloskeys would violate their rights.
However, others have criticised the McCloskeys' actions, arguing that brandishing weapons on the streets without cause or reason is irresponsible and dangerous. The McCloskeys' home was searched and their firearms were seized by local police. Despite this, some still maintain that the McCloskeys' right to keep and bear arms and defend their home is protected under both state law and the Constitution.
Wealth and Crime: Unequal Legal Treatment?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The McCloskeys' right to keep and bear arms
The couple's home was searched and their firearms seized by local police after Mr McCloskey brandished an AR-15 in front of his home during a protest. The McCloskeys claim they were protecting their home and themselves from a 300-person group of riotous protestors who were attempting to invade their property.
Some sources argue that the McCloskeys were well within their rights to defend themselves and their property, and that authorities had no legal right to seize their firearms. However, others have criticised the couple for brandishing weapons on the streets without cause or reason.
The McCloskeys have stated that they would do the same thing again if faced with a similar situation, and that they had taken precautions to protect their home in case of potential threats.
Understanding Massachusetts' Comprehensive Break Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![Byrna SD [Self Defense] Kinetic Launcher Ultimate Bundle - Non Lethal Kinetic Projectile Launcher, Home & Personal Defense | Proudly Assembled in The USA](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81wu-phEIPL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
The McCloskeys' right to protect their home and family
Missouri's Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a legal brief in support of dismissing the case, writing that prosecuting the McCloskeys is a violation of their right to bear arms, and their right to defend their property. He wrote: "As long as this case continues, it will send a public message to all Missourians that, if they dare to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms in defence of family and home, they may be prosecuted and sent to prison."
The McCloskeys' supporters argue that the couple were protecting their home, pets, and themselves, and were well within the rights granted to them by state and federal law.
The McCloskeys own a personal injury law firm together, and claim that in their work they have defended the civil rights of their clients.
Smoke Breaks: Australian Worker's Legal Rights
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The McCloskeys were charged with felonies for waving guns during a protest.
It is unclear whether the McCloskeys broke the law. Some sources claim that they were within their rights to bear arms and defend their property under Missouri's "castle doctrine" law.
Yes, the local police raided the McCloskey home and seized the AR-15 that Mr McCloskey had brandished in front of his home.
The McCloskeys' right to keep and bear arms is protected under both state law and the Constitution.
