She should be arrested and banned from owning guns. And some big guy should kneel on her neck

Watching him fumble with the shoulder strap I was half expecting one of those scenes from comedies where the gun just starts firing randomly in all directions...

if it wasn't such a dangerous weapon. That said, I'll bet neither gun was loaded. Not sure they would even know how to do that.

They could have just stayed in their home and waited for the protesters to pass or if really threatened, call the police. But they had to make fools of themselves and now they are all over the Internet, as well as their names and the name of their law firm. Pretty dumb for seemingly successful lawyers.

Also, called brandishing...Lucky for them no one decided ot feel seriously threatened and just shot them ...Probably justified
.

Carrying
State law does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, but does prohibit exhibiting “any weapon readily capable of lethal use” in an angry or threatening manner in the presence of one or more persons. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4).

It would mean say bye-bye to your law license as well.

n/t

These folks have made a portion of their living by suing the local government. I’d bet dollars to donuts that their rivals in the prosecutors office are salivating over being able to charge these two jokers.

They’re actively representing a victim of police brutality in a high profile local case right now.

Because, you know, white, rich...

The shit you can get away with just those two attributes...

We will see.

I won't post links given the only sources I can find about this are right wing sites, but they were on their own lawn in front of their mansion. The protestors were not on public property either, which puts Missouri's rather crazy castle doctrine law into play.

You can’t stand on your lawn and point an AR at folks walking down the street, regardless of whether or not the street is publicly or privately maintained. Replace protestor with meter reader, delivery driver, firefighter, police officer, ambulance driver, landscaper or any of the other myriad people who may access that road. Can folks just stand in their front yard and point ARs at them? No.

They are dangerous.

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

He looks sooooo tempted. "How can I make it look like an accident, or somehow blame these protesters?"

I guess he had his chance!

Those two are a sorry lot. Instead of staying inside their old mansion, they got their weapons and came out to threaten people who had no interest in them or their house. They inserted themselves into a situation that had nothing to do with them.

Arrests are in order, for certain. Both she and her cowardly husband had fingers on triggers. Now, maybe they had not operated the action on their firearms and they were not ready to fire, but nobody other than them knows that or knows that is not the case.

Further, neither of them appears to be actually aiming their weapons. I suspect neither really knows much about their weapons, nor how to shoot them. Someone should take the weapons away from them, since they obviously have zero skills in using them, and so are very dangerous.

Brandishing to threaten.

He's doing his best "Say hello to my little friend" imitation.

who is she pointing at?

Had the gall to walk in front of their stately mansion with a message they didn't like.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/29/st-louis-protest-gun-mayor/

As I saw in an earlier photo here husband did.

Typical rich white conservatives. Go buy expensive guns but think they are too smart to have to take gun safety classes.

The irony? Had any of the protesters had firearms the could have legally shot and killed her. I guess, kind of, that they did not.

Mad Dog & Scarface. Be a shame if that picture withe the hashtag #mad dog & scarface went viral. Maybe they can get Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty to play them in the movie?

They’ve been doxxed, a pair of ambulance-chasing attorneys. 🙄

IT IS ON THE TRIGGER IN EVERY SINGLE PIC AND VIDEO! And, don't get me started about Rambo.

And, if that group of protestors was an actual violent mob, they would have overrun those two Dirty Harry LARPers and killed them in 15-30 seconds.

May not own, or handle a firearm for life.

...thank God for small favors. St Louis would have gone up in flames.

You got some mustard on your shirt! What a pig.

I'm not defending what these two yahoos did, but even in Jersey you have no duty to retreat when you're defending your home.

You'd have to prove to a jury that it was unreasonable for them to believe their home and safety were at risk. And with the relentless hyping of riots and looting in conservative media (and the fact the protestors might have been trespassing on private property), good luck with that.

In the video, I don't think I saw any protesters on their property.

After their legal careers are over?

She needs to become intimate with the inside of a prison cell for a while!

You are walking down the sidewalk and someone comes out of their house and points a pistol at you and their finger is on the trigger. If you had a concealed weapon wouldn't you have the right to shoot them if you are in a state where you do not have to retreat?