Gun-toting attorneys who waved firearms at BLM protestors threaten to sue city if their new demand is not met as they have their records expunged

An armed Missouri couple who pointed their firearms at Black Lives Matters protesters have threatened to sue the city of St. Louis after a judge threw out their convictions over the incident.

Attorneys Mark and Patricia McCloskey filed motions to have their convictions overturned in January after pleading guilty to misdemeanor charges in 2021.

On Wednesday, Judge Joseph P. Whyte expunged the charges from the records after the incident outside their mansion.

The couple said they felt threatened by the protesters who passed by their home in June 2020, with Mark emerging with an assault rifle in his hand while his wife brandished a semi-automatic pistol.

Immediately after the verdict, Mark McCloskey demanded that the city return the guns that were custom-made as part of their guilty pleas, threatening to sue if they didn’t.

“It’s time for the city to cough up my guns,” McCloskey told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. And if the city refuses, he says he will file a new lawsuit.

Speaking to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, McCloskey said, “It’s time for the city to cough up my guns.”

Facing opposition from prosecutors and police, the evictions were the latest twist in a controversial four-year saga dating back to the summer of 2020.

The McCloskeys were indicted by a grand jury in October of that year on felony charges of unlawful use of a weapon and tampering with evidence.

Prosecutors later amended the indictment to give jurors the alternative of harassment convictions instead of the weapons charge.

An investigation by St. Louis Circuit Attorney Kim Gardner’s office led to the first indictments — and harsh responses from several Republican leaders.

Then-President Donald Trump spoke out in defense of the couple, who appeared via video at the Republican National Convention.

The couple reached a settlement, with Mark pleading guilty to a misdemeanor charge and his wife pleading guilty to harassment.

The McCloskeys became infamous when they were caught on camera emerging from their home in an upscale neighborhood waving firearms at protesters as they marched past

No shots were fired and no one was injured as the stone-faced couple guarded their home

The Colt AR-15 rifle surrendered by the couple costs about $1,000 (right), while the Bryco .380-caliber pistol (left) used in the incident only sells for about $100.

They turned in Mark’s Colt AR-15 rifle, which retails for about $1,000, and a Bryco .380-caliber pistol, which costs about $100 used.

The weapons were supposed to be destroyed after the couple handed them over, but a legal hearing found they still existed.

McCloskey sued in 2021 to get the guns back, but judges denied his request and appeal.

At a hearing in March, they argued for a clean slate, highlighting their upstanding behavior since the guilty pleas.

In August 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson pardoned the couple for the incident.

Speaking to DailyMail.com earlier this year, Mark McCloskey said: ‘It’s a Second Amendment issue; the point is that the government does not have the right to take private property without just cause and without compensation.

‘That is a constitutional right on several levels.

“But mostly I was just punished by a woke, Soros-funded prosecutor for doing nothing more than defending myself and exercising my Second Amendment rights, for which I should not receive any punishment.”

In opposing the lockout, lawyers for the city’s public safety department requested testimony from protesters about the impact of the incident.

They also questioned the use of imagery used in ad campaigns for Mark McCloskey’s failed bid for the Republican nomination for Senate.

Both the city and the State Attorney’s Office argued that the couple remained a threat because of these factors. However, Judge Whyte ultimately disagreed.

He noted that the protesters’ testimonies revealed a potential threat on the specific day of the incident, June 28, 2020, but were not evidence of ongoing danger.

He emphasized the purpose of removal as providing a second chance to those who have rehabilitated themselves.

Furthermore, he considered McCloskey’s political ad to be protected free speech under the First Amendment, and not evidence of an ongoing threat.

“It appears that the parties have attempted to make political arguments in these proceedings,” Whyte wrote. “However, this court need only look at the relevant language in the statute.”