|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
MO: Indictment claims McCloskeys altered gun, leading to evidence tampering charge
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Indictments filed against Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple charged with felonies after waving guns at protesters in June, show that an additional charge of evidence tampering was added this week because prosecutors say the couple altered the gun Patricia McCloskey was holding that day.
The McCloskeys' lawyer claimed the gun was inoperable when she wielded it outside the couple's Central West End mansion that day, because it had been used as a prop in an earlier lawsuit against a gun manufacturer. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(10/9/2020)
|
"...it had been used as a prop in an earlier lawsuit against a gun manufacturer."
Hypocrisy + irony = POOPSTINK.
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
