Discussion:
Socialist Judge: Gun-waving lawyer shouldn't get guns or money back
(too old to reply)
Leroy N. Soetoro
2022-12-31 04:04:38 UTC
Permalink
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.

Mark McCloskey sued last year to have returned a Colt AR-15 rifle and a
Bryco .380-caliber pistol that he and his wife, Patricia McCloskey,
surrendered when they pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the
confrontation with protesters. McCloskey said he was entitled to the guns
and remitted fines because Republican Gov. Mike Parson pardoned him and
his wife weeks after their guilty pleas.

On Wednesday, Circuit Judge Joan Moriarty ruled that the pardon had no
bearing on the plea agreement, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

“Plaintiff and his wife are required to follow through with their end of
the bargain,” she wrote.

Mark McCloskey said he plans to appeal.

The McCloskeys have said they felt threatened by protesters who walked on
their private street past their home during global protests that followed
the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. They emerged from their home
waving guns.

They were each indicted on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and
evidence tampering. Mark McCloskey later agreed to plead guilty to
misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was ordered to pay a $750 fine.
Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment and was
ordered to pay a $2,000 fine.

Earlier this year, the court suspended Mark and Patricia McCloskeys’ law
licenses but delayed the suspension and put the two on probation for a
year. The order means the couple can still practice, but the suspension
will take effect if they violate their probation by breaking any more
laws.

During the 2021 sentencing hearing, Judge David Mason asked Mark McCloskey
if he acknowledged that his actions put people at risk of personal injury.
He replied, “I sure did your honor.” Afterward on the courthouse steps,
McCloskey, at the time a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, said
he'd do it again if faced with similar circumstances.

Richard Callahan, the special prosecutor who investigated the case said
his investigation determined that the protesters were peaceful.

“There was no evidence that any of them had a weapon and no one I
interviewed realized they had ventured onto a private enclave,” he said in
a news release after the McCloskeys pleaded guilty.
--
"LOCKDOWN", left-wing COVID fearmongering. 95% of COVID infections
recover with no after effects.

No collusion - Special Counsel Robert Swan Mueller III, March 2019.
Officially made Nancy Pelosi a two-time impeachment loser.

Donald J. Trump, cheated out of a second term by fraudulent "mail-in"
ballots. Report voter fraud: ***@mail.house.gov

Thank you for cleaning up the disaster of the 2008-2017 Obama / Biden
fiasco, President Trump.

Under Barack Obama's leadership, the United States of America became the
The World According To Garp. Obama sold out heterosexuals for Hollywood
queer liberal democrat donors.

President Trump boosted the economy, reduced illegal invasions, appointed
dozens of judges and three SCOTUS justices.
!Jones
2023-01-02 13:42:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.
A pardon restores freedoms that you lost upon being convicted (e.g.:
releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or
harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.

The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)

It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the
conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
driver's license.

Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
where it becomes inconvenient to them.
Klaus Schadenfreude
2023-01-02 13:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.
releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or
harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the
conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
driver's license.
Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
where it becomes inconvenient to them.
They weren't "waving" any guns. All their rights should be restored,
and the judge should be tarred and feathered.
Scout
2023-01-02 16:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by !Jones
On Sat, 31 Dec 2022 04:04:38 -0000 (UTC), in talk.politics.guns "Leroy
Post by Leroy N. Soetoro
https://news.yahoo.com/judge-gun-waving-lawyer-shouldnt-174459764.html
ST. LOUIS (AP) - A Missouri judge has ruled that a pardon from the
governor doesn't mean the St. Louis lawyer and his wife who gained
national attention for waving guns at racial injustice protesters in 2020
should get back the weapons they surrendered and fines they paid after
guilty pleas last year.
releases you from jail, etc.); however, it does *not* eliminate your
criminal record. They were both indicted on felony weapons charges
and, on plea bargain, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor assault (and/or
harassment) where the charges involved misbehavior with firearms.
This is very similar to a domestic violence conviction.
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
It would be the same had a person been convicted of DWI, sentenced to
some jail term, and lost his or her driver's license. Were the person
later pardoned, he or she would be released from jail; however, the
conviction still stands. If the applicable state law says that the
person loses their driving freedom, the pardon does *not* restore a
driver's license.
Actually it would. Not the old license, they would have to apply for and get
a new license.
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
Post by !Jones
Gun loons want the law strictly enforced... but only up to the point
where it becomes inconvenient to them.
In what way?
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
They weren't "waving" any guns. All their rights should be restored,
and the judge should be tarred and feathered.
Actually, the judge didn't say their rights wouldn't be restored. Only that
they might not have any right to reclaim the property legally confiscated or
restitution the fees they had to pay under their conviction.

A pardon does NOT change that.. it only strikes out the criminal charges
going forward. It does not alter what has already occurred.

To get that, they have to file another lawsuit and if any actions were
improper, then they might get something back.. but since there wasn't..
nothing says they have to get the guns or money back.
Just Wondering
2023-01-02 17:15:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
!Jones
2023-01-03 01:30:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:15:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
One could argue such; however, if you will read carefully, you will
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.

For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.

On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law
mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.

Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
Just Wondering
2023-01-03 17:33:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:15:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
One could argue such; however, if you will read carefully, you will
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.
For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.
On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law
mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.
Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
There is no material difference to the people between losing their
rights through legislative vs. judicial action.
!Jones
2023-01-03 18:02:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:33:42 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:15:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
One could argue such; however, if you will read carefully, you will
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.
For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.
On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law
mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.
Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
There is no material difference to the people between losing their
rights through legislative vs. judicial action.
Well, you'd have to define what you mean by "material difference". I
oppose the death penalty; however, I suggest that there is a *huge*
philosophical difference between a death sentence imposed by a jury
and simply taking someone out back and shooting them... but, I suppose
the person is dead either way, and I will guess that this is what you
mean by "no material difference".

If a person is convicted of a certain genre of crime, many of which
are non-violent and have nothing to do with guns, the law stipulates
that the person automatically loses his or her freedom to possess a
gun. That is a legislative action, because the loss of freedom is
predicated on and dictated by an act of the legislature.

A "judicial action" would be where one *possible* penalty allowed by
law is the removal of gun freedom, and the court specifically imposes
that penalty, but may or may not choose to do so.

Either you can see the difference or you can't. Either way, I have
nothing more to add.
Daffo Dils
2023-01-08 00:52:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by !Jones
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 10:33:42 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by !Jones
On Mon, 2 Jan 2023 10:15:41 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
The loss of gun freedom is carried with the conviction. (I have long
argued that, because of this statutory removal of "rights", gun
ownership was never a human right in the first place.)
Conviction of a felony results in a loss of liberty, and sometimes
life. Those losses are according to statute. By your reasoning,
life and liberty are not human rights either.
One could argue such; however, if you will read carefully, you will
see that this isn't my position. I believe I said "statutory removal
of 'rights'". By that, I was excluding those penalties specifically
imposed by a jury.
For example: if a *possible* penalty for DWI is loss of driving
freedom and a jury chooses to impose such a penalty, then a pardon
would roll that back.
On the other hand, if the legislature (in their wisdom) enacts a law
mandating the loss of the freedom to operate a vehicle from anyone
convicted of DWI, then a pardon would not reinstate the person's
driver's license because the conviction would still stand.
Since we have the statutory removal of gun freedoms predicated upon,
but not explicitly sentenced by, a conviction for unrelated offenses,
I suggest that we do not have gun *rights*, per se.
There is no material difference to the people between losing their
rights through legislative vs. judicial action.
Well, you'd have to define what you mean by "material difference". I
oppose the death penalty; however, I suggest that there is a *huge*
philosophical difference between a death sentence imposed by a jury
and simply taking someone out back and shooting them... but, I suppose
the person is dead either way, and I will guess that this is what you
mean by "no material difference".
If a person is convicted of a certain genre of crime, many of which
are non-violent and have nothing to do with guns, the law stipulates
that the person automatically loses his or her freedom to possess a
gun. That is a legislative action, because the loss of freedom is
predicated on and dictated by an act of the legislature.
A "judicial action" would be where one *possible* penalty allowed by
law is the removal of gun freedom, and the court specifically imposes
that penalty, but may or may not choose to do so.
Either you can see the difference or you can't. Either way, I have
nothing more to add.
Buy polka dot shroom bars
Polkadot chocolate helps you conquer your day or make it an adventure depending on how you choose to dose. Polka dot magic belgian chocolate bars are not only delicious, but also very powerful. These mushroom chocolates are equivalent to 4 grams of Psilocybin & Psilocin from Psychedelic Mushrooms. Aside from the full-fledged high of eating a number of chocolates, these are helpful for those who are fans of microdosing, as the chocolate hide the fungi flavor and you can eat 1 square at a time. Now available here at affordable prices. Being the official producers and suppliers of polka dot chocolate bars, it has also come to our attention that magic mushrooms have been decriminalized in Washington, DC. Each bar contains 15 easily-breakable pieces.

Polka dot shroom bars review
To continue, this is 1 of the oldest and safest medicines in the world. This psilocybin and psilocin from psychedelic mushrooms reduces stress, depression, stimulate brain cell growth. She will also increase focus, and sharpen your senses.

POLKADOT CHOCOLATE DOSAGE

MICRODOSE: 1-3 PIECES. STIMULATE THE MIND.

THERAPEUTIC: 4-9 PIECES. MINDFUL AND ELEVATED.

GOD MODE: 10-15 PIECES. WALLS MIGHT MELT.

Micro dosing psychedelics is the practice of consuming very low, sub-hallucinogenic doses of a psychedelic substance. Substances such as lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), mushroom chocolates or psilocybin containing mushrooms. Polka dot shroom bars have different verities. Each flavor taste different since they all have different ingredients. With the Cinnamon toast crunch flavor, the main ingredients are mushrooms, a naturally flavored chocolate sweetened wheat and rice cereal with a hint of cinnamon. This mushroom chocolate bar has a sweet taste due to a whopping 17 grams of sugar and 6 grams of sugar that is present in the chocolate bar.




Polka dot chocolate bars at https://rythmsofficial.com/
Buy Polka dot chocolate bars
Buy trippy flip mushroom chocolates

We provide next-day overnight drop-off at your secured delivery address with no signature required. You don’t sign up for a package and delivery is 100% secured and guaranteed, 100% money back if anything happens with the package or the package not deliver, and with the help and confirmation from the delivery company, we reship within 4 days or refund money back if you will not like to use our services.
Phone N0: +15156614951

https://rythmsofficial.com/product/polka-dot-mushroom-bars/

where to buy mushroom chocolate

buy mushroom chocolate bar

where can i buy mushroom chocolate

buy mushroom chocolate

where to buy mushroom chocolate bars

buy mushroom chocolate bars

where can you buy mushroom chocolate

can you buy mushroom chocolate i colorado

can you buy mushroom chocolate

how to buy mushroom chocolate

Loading...