Patricia McCloskey’s Gun, Inoperable When Taken By Police, Was Reassembled Later To Make It ‘Lethal,’ Report Says

The gun held by Patricia McCloskey, who along with her husband Mark was charged with a felony count of unlawful use of a weapon after they pointed their firearms at protesters marching through their neighborhood, was inoperable when it was transported to a St. Louis crime lab, but was stripped and put back together to render it operable after a request from an Assistant Circuit Attorney.

A document obtained by St. Louis-based KSDK stated:

The firearm could not be test fired as submitted. At the request of ACA (Assistant Circuit Attorney) Chris Hinckley, the firearm was field stripped and found to have been assembled incorrectly. The firing pin spring was placed in front of the firing pin, which was backwards, and will not fire in this condition. The firearm was reassembled properly, test fired and functioned as designed.

The document also stated that the disassembly and reassembly of the gun was photographed.

“Patricia McCloskey and her husband Mark McCloskey have said the handgun Patricia McCloskey waved at protesters was inoperable because they had used it as a prop during a lawsuit they once filed against a manufacturer. In order to bring it into a courtroom, they made it inoperable,” KSDK reported, adding that a member of St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Kim Gardner’s staff wrote that it was “readily capable of lethal use,” in charging documents.

“There is no reference to the operating condition of the gun in the probable cause statement police wrote on the case. The only reference to it is contained in the charging document with Hinckley’s name on it,” KSDK added.

The point of the gun being operable is significant because Missouri law requires the firearm to be “readily capable of lethal use” for the kind of charge the McCloskeys face to be legitimate, KSDK reported. As The Washington Post noted, “Missouri law defines felony unlawful use of a weapon as when a person ‘exhibits, in the presence of one or more persons, any weapon readily capable of lethal use in an angry or threatening manner.’”

The McCloskey’s attorney, Joel Schwartz, stated, “It’s disheartening to learn that a law enforcement agency altered evidence in order to prosecute an innocent member of the community.”

After the charges were filed against his clients, Schwartz said he “unequivocally believe[s] no crime was committed,” adding that the McCloskeys “support the First Amendment right of every citizen to have their voice and opinion heard. This right, however, must be balanced with the Second Amendment and Missouri law, which entitle each of us to protect our home and family from potential threats.”

On Monday, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt filed a brief to dismiss the charges against the McCloskeys. He told Fox News, “The right to keep and bear arms is given the highest level of protection in our constitution and our laws, including the Castle Doctrine, which provides broad rights to Missourians who are protecting their property and lives from those who wish to do them harm. Despite this, Circuit Attorney Gardner filed suit against the McCloskeys, who, according to published reports, were defending their property and safety. As Missouri’s Chief law enforcement officer, I won’t stand by while Missouri law is being ignored.”