It's time to push back hard. I think an armed open carry militia marching on the St Louis Mayors office, prosecutors office, and homes is warranted.
They want people to be scared to even defend themselves. They need to be prosecuted for over reach under Color of Law
https://www.nukepro.net/2020/04/deprivation-of-rights-under-color-of.html
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feds Too? Call Them and ask.
Leadership
Eric S. Dreiband |
Assistant Attorney General
|
Contact
Civil Rights Division
|
(202) 514-3847
Telephone Device for the Deaf (TTY) (202) 514-0716 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1285371833316003840.html
St. Louis prosecutor Kim Gardner is engaged in a political prosecution.
I entered the case seeking a dismissal.
I entered the case seeking a dismissal.
As
AG I have a duty to protect the fundamental rights of all Missourians
including the right to keep & bear arms in self-defense of one's
person & home.
A THREAD
On behalf of all Missourians who wish to exercise their right to keep
& bear arms in self-defense of their persons, homes families &
property & as AG of the great state of MO I'm seeking a dismissal of
this politically motivated case at the earliest opportunity. #2A END THREAD
A THREAD
The right to defend one’s person, family, home and property has deep
roots in Missouri law. Self-defense is the central component of the
right to keep & bear arms, which receives the highest protection
from the MO Constitution. #2A
MO statutes specifically authorize citizens to use firearms to deter
assailants & protect themselves, their families & homes from
threatening or violent intruders. #2A
A highly publicized criminal prosecution of citizens for exercising
these fundamental freedoms threatens to intimidate & deter
law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right of self
defense.
My job as AG is to protect the fundamental rights of all Missourians,
including the right to keep & bear arm in self defense of one’s
person and home. This case casts an ominous shadow over those
fundamental rights.#2A
The prosecution sends a powerful message to all Missourians that they
exercise their fundamental right to self defense at their peril.
Missourians should not fear exposure to criminal prosecution, even
prison time, when they use firearms to defend themselves and their
homes.
As AG I am vested with authority to enter this case for several reasons:
27.060 grants the AG authority to intervene in actions that threaten
the interests of all Missourians.
I have a duty to protect & defend the const & statutory rights
of Missourians including the Constitutional right to keep & bear
arms & the right to self-defense by way of our Constitution &
Missouri’s Castle Doctrine.
I have entered the case and filed a brief seeking a dismissal of the
case to ensure ALL Missourians who wish to exercise their fundamental
right to defend themselves, their families & their homes without
fear of criminal prosecution. #2A
This case is extraordinary. Based on widely reported facts, this
prosecution targets conduct explicitly protected both by the MO
Constitution & statutes setting forth the “Castle Doctrine” of
self-defense. #2A
In other words this is not just a case of the gov’t retaliating against a
citizen for exercising a fundamental right - which is bad enough - its
also a case where the local prosecutor believes that exercising that
fundamental right is - itself - a crime.
This political prosecution is not based in law and as long as it
continues it will send a public message to ALL Missourians: If you dare
to exercise the fundamental right to keep & bear arms in defense of
family and home, you may be prosecuted and sent to prison. #2A
The Right to Keep & Bear Arms in Self-Defense of One’s Person &
Home Receives the MO Constitution’s Highest Level of Protection.
Self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” & the “central component”
of the right to keep & bear arms in both the #2A & MO Const.
See Heller decision.
This “core and lawful purpose” includes “the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth & home.” See
Heller.
The right to keep & bear arms is a “fundamental right” that is “necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” See McDonald case. #2A
The right to keep & bear arms is a “fundamental right” that is “necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” See McDonald case. #2A
The Founders viewed the right to keep & bear arms in self-defense as
a natural right that was inalienable.This recognition predated the
adoption of the US Constitution & had deep roots in English concepts
of liberty forged in the Glorious Revolution of 1689. #2A
Thus under principles of English law that the Founders viewed as
fundamental, the right to keep & bear arms was “a recognition of the
natural right of defense of one’s person or house as part of the law of
self preservation & central to the #2A."
The Founders knew the right to keep & bear arms, not the gov’t. is
the citizens first line of defense against physical attack. Thus, this
right received its greatest emphasis during times when gov’t could not
not trusted to protect citizens’ personal security. #2A
The landmark Heller decision mentions its importance for anti-slavery
advocates & post-civil war firearms for self-defense was often the
only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence.
If anything, this right is even more deeply rooted in Missouri’s unique
history & tradition. The right was explicitly in Missouri’s first
Const of 1820 stating; the “right to bear arms in defence of themselves
& of the state cannot be questioned.” #2A
Mo has even expanded this language over the years including in 2014 when
the overwhelming majority of MO voters including the language “home,
person family & property” subject to “strict scrutiny.” #2A
It goes on, “The state of MO shall be obligated to uphold these rights
& shall under NO circumstances decline to protect against their
infringement.” #2A
By Enacting the Castle Doctrine of Self-Defense, MO Statutes Explicitly
Authorize the Use of Firearms to Defend One’s Person, Family, Home, and
Property From Threatening and Violent Intruders.
Missouri has adopted one of the strongest versions of the Castle
Doctrine in the country. This Doctrine is not merely a creature of
statute, but deeply rooted in the Constitutional right to keep &
bear arms. #2A
Section 563.031 specifically authorizes MO citizens & homeowner to
protect themselves from illegal invasions & intrusions into their
homes & private property. It establishes 3 principles: #2A
1. Missourians may defend themselves
& others using physical force (including firearm)to deter the
imminent use of unlawful force by another person;
2. MOs may use deadly force against a
person who unlawfully enters or attempts to enter private property
owned by another & threatens to use unlawful force against another;
3. MOs have no duty to retreat from their own residence or property when
threatened by an unlawful intruder
Further, the Castle Doctrine specifically shields Missourians who act in
valid self-defense from prosecution for unlawful use of a weapon by
exhibiting a weapon in an angry or threatening manner under
571.030.1(4). #2A
In fact 571.030.5 states: it SHALL NOT APPLY TO PERSONS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN A LAWFUL ACT OF DEFENSE PURSUANT TO SECTION 563.031. #2A
Thus, this is not a case where the Ds must raise a self-defense as an
affirmative defense or assert the exercise of a const right as a defense
to justify conduct that otherwise would constitute a crime. Exhibiting a
weapon in an act of valid self-defense IS NOT A CRIME AT ALL.
The law is clear and unambiguous, if an intruder invades private
property & threatens to harm the homeowner or another person, a
citizen may defend him or herself. To display firearms in self-defense
as in 563.031 is not a crime & it should not be charged as a crime
at all. #2A
The Highly Politicized Prosecution of Missouri Citizens For Exercising
Their Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Self-Defense May Intimidate &
Deter Other Missourians From Exercising Their Fundamental Right of
Self-Defense.
This case reflects the opposite of the state’s constitutional obligation
under Art. I sec 23 to “uphold these rights” to keep & bear arms
self-defense & “protect against infringement.” #2AShallNotBeInfringed
In fact this political prosecution sends a powerful & dangerous
message: You exercise you right to keep & bear arms at your own
peril. If you do you may find yourself in prison. #2A
This case has significance that extends well beyond the parties. The
pendency of this case chills & deters all citizens from exercising
one of our most fundamental right, which receives the highest level of
protection in Missouri’s Constitution & laws. #2A
No comments:
Post a Comment
Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments