Brandishing lawyer won't get his guns back

[bodecea]

When did it become illegal to threaten someone.

Seriously?

 

[Woodznutz]

By their behavior.
NRA SAFETY RULES

This is the primary rule of gun safety. Always keep the gun pointed in a direction where no unintended injury or damage could ever possibly occur if it were to fire.

When holding (but not firing) a gun, always rest your finger up high alongside the frame and well outside the trigger guard. Never, ever pick up a firearm with your finger on the trigger or casually rest your finger on the trigger while you aren’t shooting. Until you are ready to fire, do not touch the trigger at all.

View attachment 880534

It looks like her finger is resting against the trigger guard, not on the trigger.

 

[Woodznutz]

Seriously?

See post #198. Please acknowledge that you have read and understand it. Thanks.

 

[bripat9643]

I mention it because you used the phrase shoot to kill. That phrase will get you in a lot of trouble. Just that phrase. And like out fairly recent example, the McMichaels, you would talk and pretty much guarantee that you stood trial.

Defensive Gun Use: What to Expect After a Self-Defense Shooting - U.S. LawShield

In this guide: defensive gun use: what to expect after a self-defense shooting, we'll cover: how to call 911, what happens to your gun and much more.

www.uslawshield.com

I offer that link as a primer on what you should do. Maybe, with a little luck, if you ever do have to fire in self defense, the lawyer will help you avoid prison. You would not believe how many people talked their way into prison.

You offered nothing but pure idiocy that doesn't apply in the situation under discussion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am about ready to put you back on ignore again.

I included my thoughts, the text of the pardon (post 42), a link to support my assertions which was written by a distinguished legal scholar at UCLA (post 236).

I would be happy to have a civil discussion with you if you have a point to make on this Law and Justice System forum.

How does one civilly tell you that you are making things up and engaging in fallacy?

So guilty please aren't guilty pleas, when you lile the guilty party.

Just... total nonsense.

You try to mask disinesty and illogic as civility, when they are neither.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Thats not how gun safety or the law works.

They didn’t get in trouble for gun safety, they got in trouble for brandishing guns at rioters.

 

[koshergrl]

I personally think anyone who brandishes a weapon as a threat is deranged. Don't you?

It's what I do when criminals trespass and threaten me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Are you sure about that?

Yes:

“While we agree that the pardon restored all of his rights forfeited by the conviction and removed any legal disqualification, disadvantage, or impediment, Missouri law is unequivocal that a gubernatorial pardon obliterates the fact of the conviction, not the fact of guilt. Thus, McCloskey’s guilty plea, for which he obtained the benefit of the State dismissing a felony charge punishable by jail time, survived the pardon and importantly, with respect to the issue at hand in this replevin action, triggered the guns’ forfeiture. Therefore, since McCloskey’s guilt remains, it follows that he is not entitled to the return of the weapons….”

Missouri Court: Mark McCloskey Pardoned But Still Guilty

There is an interesting ruling in the ongoing litigation of the case of Mark McCloskey. We previously discussed the case, which became a cause célèbre for many on the left and the right after Mark …

jonathanturley.org

 

[Woodznutz]

They didn’t get in trouble for gun safety, they got in trouble for brandishing guns at rioters.

Any reasonable observer could easily determine that their "brandishing" was purely a defensive posture, not offensive or aggressive. Under the law if someone feels threatened, they have that right. The McCloskey's are victims of woke politics, nothing more. The whole sordid episode just adds to the stench coming from liberal government.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Any reasonable observer could easily determine that their "brandishing" was purely a defensive posture, not offensive or aggressive. Under the law if someone feels threatened, they have that right. The McCloskey's are victims of woke politics, nothing more. The whole sordid episode just adds to the stench coming from liberal government.

Yeah, I don’t doubt you, the problem is, in the face of the law, it’s what is within the guidelines of the law. You and I both can know what their intent was, but, with blind justice, it’s what is legal.

 

[Crepitus]

It's what I do when criminals trespass and threaten me.

Of course you do, lol.

 

[koshergrl]

They didn’t get in trouble for gun safety, they got in trouble for brandishing guns at rioters.

Of course you do, lol.

Absolutely.
And it works, too. I drew a bead on a couple of tweakers who came onto my property once. I was on the second floor. They heard me chamber a bullet and they were GONE. I think they had heard that sound before.
They went home and killed their parents, who were good democrats.

 

[Woodznutz]

Of course you do, lol.

Hey, the '50's were great.

 

[Woodznutz]

Yeah, I don’t doubt you, the problem is, in the face of the law, it’s what is within the guidelines of the law. You and I both can know what their intent was, but, with blind justice, it’s what is legal.

Our criminal justice system is blind, or worse, they're not. You can only screw up for so long before people begin to think you're doing it on purpose. The question is, what is the purpose?