It’s been nearly five years since Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who made headlines in 2020 for brandishing firearms outside their home in response to a protest, had their guns seized. Despite being pardoned by Missouri’s governor, their firearms remain in police custody.
This prolonged saga raises critical questions about the intersection of justice, gun rights, and the legal system. Here’s a look back at the story and its ongoing legal battle, based on reports from Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms and Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets.
The McCloskeys’ 2020 Encounter
The event that sparked this legal battle occurred in June 2020, as a group of protestors, angry over police brutality, marched through the Central West End neighborhood of St. Louis. Mark and Patricia McCloskey, both lawyers, were seen standing outside their mansion holding firearms. Mark held an AR-15 rifle, and Patricia was armed with a pistol. No shots were fired, but the couple’s actions, holding their firearms in a public display, set off a national debate on self-defense and the right to bear arms.
In the aftermath, the couple faced charges of unlawful use of a weapon, which would lead to the forfeiture of their firearms under Missouri law. However, just weeks after their misdemeanor guilty plea, Missouri Governor Mike Parson pardoned the McCloskeys, effectively nullifying the legal consequences of the conviction.
The Legal Hurdle – Confiscated Firearms
Although the McCloskeys were pardoned, their fight didn’t end there. Mark McCloskey, soon after the pardon, filed a lawsuit to reclaim the firearms that were seized. Yet, a series of legal decisions have blocked their attempts to have the guns returned. In December 2023, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a ruling that, despite the pardon, the McCloskeys were not entitled to their weapons due to the fact that they had pled guilty to the charges. The court reasoned that while the pardon nullified the conviction, it did not erase the fact that they had pled guilty to the offense.
As Cam Edwards pointed out in his article for Bearing Arms, this decision seems unjust, especially considering that the McCloskeys are legally able to walk into a gun store and buy a new firearm, yet they cannot get their original guns back. This contradiction has many Second Amendment advocates questioning the fairness of the legal system in this case.
The Role of the Pardon
One of the most significant aspects of this case is the role of the gubernatorial pardon. While it cleared the McCloskeys of the criminal conviction, it did not automatically restore their firearms. According to Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets, Missouri law treats the pardon as something that nullifies the conviction, but it does not erase the underlying act of pleading guilty. This legal nuance has caused confusion and frustration among those who believe that a pardon should fully restore an individual’s rights, including the right to their confiscated property.
The pardon, granted by Governor Parson, is seen as a political move, especially in the aftermath of the couple’s highly publicized stand. However, the legal system’s refusal to return the guns despite the pardon raises questions about the balance between executive clemency and the rights of individuals who have paid their debt to society.
The Expungement of Records
In a surprising turn, a St. Louis County judge ruled in June 2024 to expunge the McCloskeys’ criminal records. This decision, which was made in favor of the McCloskeys over the objections of city officials and the St. Louis Police Department, would theoretically clear the way for them to reclaim their firearms. However, even with the expungement in place, the police department refused to release the guns, citing the continued public safety risk they claimed the McCloskeys represented.
Yanis notes that the city’s stance was met with skepticism, as there was no concrete evidence that the McCloskeys posed a continued threat to public safety. In fact, the police department’s appeal to the Missouri Eastern District Court of Appeals was denied, with the court siding with the lower court’s decision to grant the expungement.
The Ongoing Legal Battle
Despite the court’s decision, the legal battle is far from over. The McCloskeys’ case is now set to continue into December 2025, with the possibility that the St. Louis Police Department may appeal the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. If that happens, the return of the McCloskeys’ firearms could be delayed well into 2026, further dragging out a legal process that has already lasted nearly five years.
According to Jared Yanis, the situation seems absurd: “The couple can legally walk into any gun store and purchase a new firearm, but they are unable to recover their original guns.” This contradiction has become a major talking point among gun rights advocates, who argue that the McCloskeys’ case exemplifies the ongoing struggles faced by those involved in high-profile gun cases.
Public Perception and Political Implications
The McCloskeys’ actions and subsequent legal battles have captured the attention of both gun rights activists and gun control advocates. For many, the case represents a chilling example of how the legal system can impact an individual’s right to bear arms, even after a pardon. The fact that the McCloskeys’ guns remain confiscated despite a gubernatorial pardon has fueled arguments that gun rights are being undermined by legal technicalities and political agendas.
Critics, particularly those on the left, have pointed to the McCloskeys as symbols of an overly permissive view of gun ownership. However, the refusal to return their guns has raised concerns among gun rights groups about the fairness of the legal process and whether individuals can truly get their rights back once they’ve been infringed upon, even with a pardon.
The Legal Struggles Over Gun Ownership
What makes this case particularly fascinating is how it highlights the complex relationship between gun ownership, legal rights, and political influence. Mark and Patricia McCloskey may be legally allowed to purchase new firearms, but the confiscation of their original weapons, despite a pardon and expungement, demonstrates the ambiguity surrounding gun ownership rights in cases where legal technicalities can override the restoration of those rights.
It’s also a powerful reminder that the fight for gun rights extends beyond just the right to own firearms; it also involves the right to have those firearms returned after they’ve been unjustly taken. For many, this is not just a matter of property – it’s a matter of principle and justice.
Why This Case Matters for Gun Rights
The McCloskey case is emblematic of larger debates about the erosion of gun rights in America, especially when legal procedures or political considerations override the rights of individuals. This ongoing fight is more than just about two people wanting their guns back – it’s a symbolic battle over the integrity of Second Amendment rights and the way they are applied in the real world.
As Cam Edwards suggests, the slow-moving wheels of justice are grinding painfully for the McCloskeys. Despite the fact that they have been pardoned, their guns remain out of reach, and the legal battles continue to pile up. This case could set a precedent for future cases involving confiscation and restitution of firearms, making it an important one to watch for those interested in the future of gun rights in America.
What’s Next for the McCloskeys?
As the case progresses toward a final decision, many are asking: Will the McCloskeys finally get their guns back? It’s unclear when the final resolution will come, but what is clear is that the couple’s fight is far from over. Their case has highlighted the tensions that exist between legal rights, political agendas, and the restoration of civil liberties after a conviction.
The McCloskeys are now armed with a pardon, an expungement of their criminal records, and a legal battle that could drag on for several more years. While it seems they may eventually win their case, the delay and complexity of the process are a reminder of how hard it can be to navigate the legal system when it comes to firearms.
A Long Road Ahead
Five years after the incident that started it all, the McCloskeys remain without their firearms. Despite being pardoned, and despite the expungement of their records, they are still locked in a legal battle over the return of their guns. As Jared Yanis aptly points out, the irony of the situation is that they can walk into a gun store and legally purchase a firearm, but the original weapons they once owned remain out of reach.
Whether the McCloskeys will ultimately win their case or whether they’ll continue to face legal hurdles remains to be seen. What’s clear is that this case will be closely watched by both gun rights supporters and those on the opposite side of the debate. It serves as a reminder of the complexities surrounding gun ownership and the challenges individuals face when trying to reclaim what was once theirs.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.