My carry insurance would have already replaced my gun.

I believe I either read somewhere or heard on a news report that IF they are convicted of a felony, they can never own another gun.

Anybody know if they are convicted and appeal and win, does that still apply?

Felons can't legally buy a gun, period. This "universal background check" the anti-gunners keep screaming about is BS. You already have to pass a background check to buy a gun. If you want a carry permit you have to get fingerprinted and get an FBI background check. What they really mean is a "universal gun registry", which would make it REALLY easy to do a gun confiscation.

If you appeal a conviction and win your record is expunged, so no it wouldn't still apply.

From the Missouri AG;

Quote: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

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

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/12853...03840.html

Equal Justice:The Politicization of Prosecution

Quote:But Kim Gardner explained herself: she was elected to pursue "equal justice." This is why Gardner refused to acknowledge BLM mob criminality, and why Gardner went after the McCloskeys despite a feeble case against them. The McCloskey prosecution is just politics; race politics, to be precise.

Kim Gardner employed the concept of "equal justice" to give a free pass to people who look like those in the past who experienced historic injustice. Gardner then shifted prejudice onto people who looked like the those whom she viewed as receiving favorable treatment in the past.

Kim Gardner simply put her weight on a racial bias see-saw.

"Indeed, [the McCloskey prosecution] is part of a troubling pattern of politically motivated prosecutorial decisions by the St. Louis Circuit Attorney," wrote Senator Josh Hawley to Attorney General Barr. Hawley called for a federal civil rights investigation into Kim Gardner's seemingly discriminatory practices. He concentrated on Second Amendment violations. However, Gardner was presented with plenty of firearms cases after taking office that she chose not to prosecute. She didn't even prosecute a man who confessed to shooting a 7-year-old child. Gardner's decision-making wasn't about trampling on the right to bear arms; it was about who held the arms. "Equal justice."

https://townhall.com/columnists/mariname...-n2572872?

This case will never make it to trial...mark it down.

(07-22-2020 09:36 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  This case will never make it to trial...mark it down.

Depends on the judge I would think.

Depends on if Judge Sullivan is available...........