An armed Missouri couple who pointed their firearms at Black Lives Matters protesters threatened to sue the city of St. Louis after a judge overturned their convictions for the incident.
Attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey filed applications to have their convictions thrown out in January after they pleaded guilty to misdemeanors in 2021.
On Wednesday, Judge Joseph P. Whyte removed the charges from the records following the incident outside his mansion.
The couple said they had felt threatened by protesters passing by their home in June 2020, with Mark emerging wielding an assault rifle, while his wife waved a semi-automatic pistol.
Immediately after the ruling, Mark McCloskey demanded that the city return the guns that were sized as part of his guilty pleas, threatening to file a lawsuit if not.
The armed Missouri couple, Mark (left) and Patricia McCloskey, who pointed their firearms at Black Lives Matters protesters are threatening to sue St. Louis, demanding their guns be returned.
“It’s time for the city to hand over my guns,” McCloskey told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. And if the city refuses, he said he will file another lawsuit.
Speaking to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, McCloskey said, “It’s time for the city to hand over my guns.”
Faced with opposition from prosecutors and city police, the eliminations were the latest twist in a controversial four-year saga dating back to the summer of 2020.
The McCloskeys were indicted by a grand jury in October of that year on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence.
Prosecutors later amended the charges to give jurors the alternative of misdemeanor stalking convictions instead of the weapons charge.
An investigation by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office led to the initial accusations and a harsh reaction from several Republican leaders.
Then-President Donald Trump spoke out in defense of the couple, who appeared via video at the Republican National Convention.
The couple reached a plea deal, in which Mark pleaded guilty to misdemeanor battery and his wife pleaded guilty to misdemeanor harassment.
The McCloskeys rose to fame when they were caught on camera leaving their home in an upscale neighborhood brandishing firearms at passing protesters.
No shots were fired and no one was hurt as the stone-faced couple guarded their home.
The Colt AR-15 rifle provided by the couple sells for about $1,000 (right), while the .380-caliber Bryco pistol (left) used in the incident sells alone for about $100.
They turned over Mark’s Colt AR-15 rifle, which sells for about $1,000, and a Bryco .380 caliber pistol, which costs about $100 used.
The weapons were supposed to be destroyed after the couple handed them over, but during a legal hearing it was revealed they still existed.
McCloskey sued in 2021 to get the guns back, but judges denied his request and an appeal.
At a hearing in March, they argued for a clean slate, highlighting their honest conduct since pleading guilty.
In August 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson forgave the couple for the incident.
Speaking to DailyMail.com earlier this year, Mark McCloskey said: ‘It’s a Second Amendment issue; It is that the government does not have the right to take private property without just cause and without compensation.
‘That is a constitutional right on a variety of levels.
“But mostly, it’s just that I was being punished by a woke, Soros-funded prosecutor for doing nothing but defending myself and exercising my Second Amendment rights, so I shouldn’t suffer any punishment.”
Opposing the expungement, lawyers for the city’s public safety department sought testimony from protesters about the impact of the incident.
They also questioned the use of images used in advertising campaigns for Mark McCloskey’s failed bid for the Republican Senate nomination.
Both the city and the Circuit Attorney’s office argued that the couple remained a threat due to these factors. However, Judge Whyte ultimately disagreed.
He noted that protesters’ testimonies highlighted a potential threat on the specific day of the incident, June 28, 2020, but not evidence of an ongoing danger.
He emphasized that the purpose of expunging criminal records is to offer a second chance to those who have been rehabilitated.
Furthermore, he considered McCloskey’s political ad to be free speech protected by the First Amendment, not evidence of an ongoing threat.
“It appears that the parties have attempted to make political arguments in this proceeding,” Whyte wrote. “However, this court should only examine the relevant text of the statute.”