McCloskeys Turn Down Offers For Free Rifles. Here's What They Should Do Instead.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the offers to replace the firearms owned by Ken and Patricia McCloskey that were seized by St. Louis police over the weekend, but I’m pretty sure the high-powered personal injury attorneys can afford to pick up a couple of new guns on their own. And, it should be noted, police only seized the firearms that they couple displayed when protesters broke through a gate and entered their private community in late June. Any other legally owned firearms remain in the possession of the McCloskeys, though I’m sure the St. Louis Circuit Attorney would love to order them to give up all of their guns as she pursues a case against the pair.


Still, the offers are coming in, according the couple’s attorney, who spoke to Forbes over the weekend.

A Missouri gun store has made one of at least 50 offers to Mark and Patricia McCloskey—the couple who went viral for pointing guns at anti-racism protesters passing by their St. Louis home—for a free AR-15 rifle after authorities seized the one they brandished during the incident, a lawyer representing the couple told Forbes Sunday…

Joel Schwartz, the McCloskeys’ criminal defense lawyer, told Forbes that the gun store, “along with 50 people have contacted them and offered to replace the AR-15,” but they are “kindly refuting” the gestures.

It’s really too bad the McCloskeys aren’t taking anyone up on their offer. Can you imagine the reaction if the couple actually accepted those donated firearms, then turned around and donated them as well; this time to St. Louis mothers and fathers in un-gated neighborhoods who would love an AR-15 to protect their families? Sharing the wealth, so to speak.

I’m sure there are plenty of good people in not-so-great neighborhoods who would love to have a free gun that they could use in case they become the victim of a home invasion or robbery. It would be also pretty un-elitist for the millionaire couple to work to ensure that every law-abiding St. Louisian has the same opportunity to exercise their Second Amendment rights, regardless of income.


It won’t happen, of course, though it would be fun to see. What’s far more likely to happen, at least according to the McCloskeys’ attorney, is that the couple will actually face a charge. Joel Schwartz says he believes that “charges are more likely” than they were several days ago, and indicated that a brandishing charge might be the most likely possibility if St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner does proceed with charges.

Gardner’s finding herself in a little controversy of her own at the moment, given her office’s delay in filing charges against Terrence Page, who openly admits to attacking a man at the statue of Louis IX in downtown St. Louis back on June 27th. If her office ends up filing charges against the McCloskeys for brandishing a firearm before it brings charges against Page, it’s only going to open up Gardner to more accusations of political motivation in her prosecution of the couple, and not without reason.

The case against the McCloskeys is incredibly weak, and basically boils down to the argument that the McCloskeys were not in fear of their life and therefore had no right to display their firearms on their property. The case against Page, on the other hand, is incredibly strong, given the fact that he proudly admits to pummeling a man. Both incidents received at least some national attention, but right now only one of them seems to have the attention of the prosecutor in St. Louis.




Join the conversation as a VIP Member