Opinion: Anti-police, leftist radicals mock rule of law, Second Amendment

There are many times when after retreating, American liberty rebounds whenever political ideologues overreach. However, if leftists can make allies of the folks who are supposed to be our system’s checks and balances (the courts and legal system), they can keep liberty in retreat.

For example, gun control activists would propose a bill that gun owners would hate but regular, non-gun-owning folks thought was “common sense,” like “universal background checks.” But then when these people find out the universal background checks include things such as when you want to give a gun as a gift even to a close family member like your son or daughter, their support tends to wane.

But, as with what happened in Washington state recently, the attorney general and courts allow initiatives to have biased ballot titles that skew the meaning of the proposal to influence the vote toward one side. The fact initiatives must have “neutral” ballot titles by state law matters little to those who have a reverence for their political ideology and none for the rule of law.

In this case, Initiative Measure No. 1639 read, “This measure would require increased background checks, training, age limitations, and waiting periods for sales or delivery of semiautomatic assault rifles; criminalize noncompliant storage upon unauthorized use; allow fees; and enact other provisions. Should this measure be enacted into law?”

To non-gun owners (who also vote on gun issues) this probably sounds reasonable. The reason the state requires neutral ballot titles is that many people will cast their votes based only on this text and will not delve deeper into explanations. That is human nature. So, how does this affect your average gun purchaser?

Okay, I picked up another rifle today, a gun Washington State now ludicrously considers an “assault weapon.” I’m a retired police officer, I hold a current LEOSA qualification, and I already own several guns, including an “assault weapon.” Yet, when my gun arrived, aside from a mountain of paperwork for a background check, I had to take a “gun safety test,” and then I still had to wait a 10-day waiting period to pick it up.

Let me ask you: How did that delay and test keep a gun out of the hands of a criminal? Also, how does that not infringe on my right to keep and bear arms? The definition of infringe is not terribly difficult to understand, and these restrictions certainly infringe on Second Amendment rights.

To illustrate what’s happening to our constitutional gun rights, take the Democrat St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner, for example. You remember Mark and Patricia McCloskey, right? They’re the couple who confronted a violent mob on their front lawn. The protesters threatened to murder them, burn down their house and business, and kill their dog. Mr. McCloskey had armed himself with an AR-15 rifle and Mrs. McCloskey had a handgun.

According to the DailyWire, Ms. Gardner is claiming the McCloskeys committed a “violent assault” when they confronted a mob of violent Black Lives Matter demonstrators who’d just, allegedly, smashed through their wrought-iron gate. The McCloskeys have said during interviews that they were well aware of what other people and their property across the country, including in St. Louis, suffered at the hands of similar mobs.

Ms. Gardner says she “will use the full power of Missouri law to hold the people accountable.” No, not the violent BLM mob committing property damage, trespassing on private property, and threatening arson, animal cruelty, and murder. She’s talking about the McCloskeys who were attempting to defend themselves and their property (and pet) from these crimes.

And, now, the officials have reportedly served a warrant on the McCloskeys and have confiscated Mr. McCloskey’s rifle (which is an extra heinous act at a time when people have publicly threatened to murder the couple).

Ms. Gardner is an attorney, so she knows what is necessary to charge a crime: probable cause. Where is the probable cause, an objective standard in law, that the McCloskeys committed a crime? Incidentally, who is the judge that signed the warrant? That jurist needs some attention, too. Or is he or she just another leftist ally?

Two elements you have to have for criminal prosecution are: a crime was committed and there is probable cause to believe a particular individual(s) committed the crime. Neither exists here. First, what is the crime? What criminal actions did the McCloskeys initiate? They were about to sit down for dinner when a mob broke a protective barrier,  trespassed onto their private property, and threatened them. You’ll notice the horde descended on them so quickly, they addressed the situation while barefoot.

Where is the assault? If there is any probable cause that a crime was committed here, it applies to the 300 people who forced their way onto the McCloskey’s property. I know I was only a cop for a couple of decades, but I believe property damage is a crime, trespassing is a crime, threatening to burn someone’s house and business down is a crime, threatening to kill someone’s dog is a crime, and, if I recall correctly, threatening to murder someone is also still a no-no.

Ms. Gardner and the judge who signed the warrant have folded jurisprudence in on itself. These selfish ideologues don’t care what the law is; they care only about what they want the law to be. Anyone in law school or a police academy after the first week knows what a crime is and what comprises probable cause. Neither applies to the McCloskeys in this incident. There is no probable cause because there is no crime.

The McCloskeys’ attorney, Albert Watkins, summed it up quite viscerally. Watkins told Fox News, “If Kimberly Gardner wants to press charges against two attorneys who are protecting their home and their family and themselves on their own property, I will tell you that it will be nothing short of the proverbial cluster f***.”

This shows that America is in a true battle for its soul. This statement is no longer hyperbole. While in the past the Right and Left had their differences and could be described as “political opponents,” today, with the Left openly adopting Marxism, bending, folding, ignoring, and rending valid laws, they have become a “political enemy” intent on destroying what makes America great. And that includes two ordinary Americans protecting with the Second Amendment the fruits of their pursuit of happiness.