Gun-Toting McCloskeys Facing Official Effort To Have Their Law Licenses Suspended

The St. Louis husband and wife known for waving guns outside their home last year to ward off Black Lives Matter protesters are now facing a challenge to revoke their law licenses over the incident.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both lawyers in Missouri, have been the subject of attention in the state and nationwide over the June 2020 confrontation.

In court filings, Missouri Chief Disciplinary Counsel Alan Pratzel has asked the state’s Supreme Court to suspend their law licenses due to their guilty pleas to misdemeanors stemming from the incident, according to KCUR-FM in Kansas City.

“Mark McCloskey pleaded guilty on June 17 to misdemeanor fourth-degree assault and was ordered to pay a fine of $750. Patricia McCloskey pleaded guilty on the same date to misdemeanor harassment, with a $2,000 fine,” the NPR outlet wrote in a Twitter post published Monday.

They were pardoned by Missouri Gov. Mike Parson, the post added.

The legal move against the McCloskeys could be seen as a political effort as well. Mark McCloskey is running in the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate to replace Republican Sen. Roy Blunt, who plans to retire in 2022.

If he had his license suspended, it could give Democrats ammunition against him if he won the nomination.

The McCloskeys were originally charged by Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner in July with unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering. They became famous due to widely published images of them in front of their property facing Black Lives Matter protesters: Mark McCloskey with an AR-15 and Patricia with a silver handgun.

While the protesters were heading to the home of then-St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, Patricia McCloskey told Fox News the protesters said “that they were going to kill us.”

“They were going to come in there. They were going to burn down the house. They were going to be living in our house after I was dead, and they were pointing to different rooms and said, ‘That’s going to be my bedroom and that’s going to be the living room and I’m going to be taking a shower in that room,'” she said.

To the mainstream media, of course, the crowd was simply “peaceful protesters” who were walking by, “calling for police reforms.”

In June, the McCloskeys pleaded guilty to minor charges related to the incident.

Mark pleaded guilty to fourth-degree assault, which is a Class C misdemeanor, and his wife, Patricia, 62, pleaded guilty to second-degree harassment, a Class A misdemeanor, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The two were given $750 and $2,000 fines, respectively, but neither party faced any jail time.

As part of the deal, both McCloskeys also agreed to give up their weapons, the Post-Dispatch reported.

“This particular resolution of these two cases represents my best judgment of an appropriate and fair disposition for the parties involved as well as the public good,” Richard G. Callahan, the special prosecutor in the case, said in a statement.

The convictions were for much less severe crimes than those in their original indictment, which were two felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering.

Parson pardoned the McCloskeys in August.

In defense of their actions at the time of their plea agreement, the McCloskeys alleged that protesters had broken down the gate to their private street, trespassed on their property and even threatened to murder the couple.

Mark McCloskey said this ruling was a win for him and his wife. Following the proceedings, he even said “this is a good day for the McCloskeys,” according to the Post-Dispatch.

Do you think this effort against the McCloskeys is politically motivated? YesNo
Completing this poll entitles you to our news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Yes: 100% (2 Votes) No: 0% (0 Votes)

📺 Embedded media — coming soon

“The prosecutor dropped every charge except for alleging that I purposely placed other people in imminent risk of physical injury, right, and I sure as heck did,” he said.

“That’s what the guns were there for and I’d do it again any time the mob approaches me … In other words, I stood out on the porch with my rifle and made them back up. And that’s what I’d do again. If that’s a crime in Missouri, by God I did it, and I’d do it again.”

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.