In American everyone has the right to defend their property and under the Second Amendment they have the right to bear arms. When someone steps on your property without your permission, you have the right to tell them to leave, and if they refuse to leave you have the right to use force, so why are Mark and Patricia McCloskey charged with unlawful use of a weapon? On June 28, 2020 they made international headlines and earned praise from Donald Trump when they stood on their front lawn with guns to deter protesters from trespassing on their property. That is not a crime and it certainly is not unlawful use of those weapons. They did not hurt anyone, they simply made it known that if they came on their property that they would get hurt, and from the look of it some people stepped on their lawn anyway. They had every right in the world to point guns at people trespassing on their private property and tell them to leave. Whether or not the protesters were peaceful (they were) is irrelevant to the fact that they were trespassing on private property. These charges have no basis in law and like anyone these people should not be charged with crimes they did not commit for political reasons.
Had President Donald Trump not Tweeted their picture full of compliments we don't think that the Democratic city prosecutor of St. Louis Kimberly Gardner would have even bothered pursuing the matter. People need to realize that just because Trump Tweeted his endorsement that the McCloskey's didn't do this for political reasons. They noticed a peaceful crowd of protesters coming towards their house, some of the protesters stepped on their property, and they wanted them to stay off their property. When we see liberals beaten in the streets by the police we support their right to protest and condemn the brutality of their abusers, but that goes both ways. We cannot oppose vindictive prosecution of protesters and at the same time favor filing frivolous charges against two people that chose to exercise their Second Amendment rights on their own land for the limited purpose of keeping people off of it. Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner said "It is illegal to wave weapons in a threatening matter at those participating in nonviolent protest, and while we are fortunate this situation did not escalate into deadly force, this type of conduct is unacceptable in St. Louis." Had the McCloskey's simply pointed weapons at people to keep them from protesting we would agree with her, but they were on their own property and they were pointing weapons at people to keep them off their property. The McCloskey's never told them not to protest. They just didn't want them to protest on their property. The First Amendment gives people the right to peaceably assemble in public, but it does not give them the right to do so on private property without permission from the property owner. That is why the protesters that sat on the law of the Kentucky Attorney General were arrested for trespassing (https://copblaster.com/blast/25847/protesters-arrested-at-kentucky-attorney-general-daniel-camerons-home). Had Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron been home we would have supported his right to stand on his lawn with a gun and demand that they not trespass.
We hope that by posting the following information people will protest on public property in support of the McCloskey's provided one of them is in fact her current address (we are not sure if they are current because conflicting sources state that each one is, but it is the best we can find):
KIMBERLY M GARDNER
5352 DELMAR BLVD
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63112
2017 - Now
4602 NATURAL BRIDGE AVE
SAINT LOUIS, MO 63115
1993 - 2020
The right have called us violent anarchists, communists, and worse for posting home addresses of police officers that have abused liberals even though we clearly urge people just to protest at those locations. That goes both ways, so if we see conservatives being persecuted by a liberal politician we will support picketing them at home just like we support groups like those that were protesting at the McCloskey's house to protest on public property. We were very vocal supporters of Citizens for Constitutional Freedom and have frequently advocated against state and federal authorities for wrongfully shooting their people (https://copblaster.com/blast/56/casey-michael-codding-the-murderer-of-malheur) just like we have advocated against police using excessive force on blacks (https://copblaster.com/blast/25733/derek-chauvin-chokes-the-life-out-of-george-floyd-on-camera) because we consider the cops that murdered Lavoy Finicum and George Floyd to be murderers undeserving of protection from the government. We would love to see a big crowd of Three Percenters and Oath Keepers outside Gardner's home exercising their First and Second Amendment rights to peacefully protest just like they did at the Bundy Ranch in Bunkerville, Nevada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff). We would also support Ms. Gardner if she were to stand on her lawn with a gun during a protest like that.
We are of course willing to remove Ms. Gardner's address should she come to her senses and drop all charges against the McCloskey's, but we have no reason to think that she would ever actually do that. Fortunately, the Attorney General of Missouri has voiced his intention to intervene in the case and hopefully he is successful (see video below). It might surprise people to see us cite Fox News as a source because of how pro-Black Lives Matter we are, but they seem to be the ones supporting the Second Amendment in this case. We are usually on the opposite side of people like Eric Schmidt but in this case we support defending people's right to defend themselves and their property. If the McCloskey's were black and the march was nothing but white conservative Christians we would be saying the same thing.
This posting is not an endorsement of politicized statements made by the McCloskey's since the incident at their homes. Specifically their claims that they feared for their lives and that they thought a violent mob would burn their home to the ground. We think they feared for all the expensive stuff in their house and for the integrity of their windows, paint job, and and shrubberies, but that the Second Amendment gives them the right to use guns in defense of those things.