In the tumultuous year of 2020, an image that quickly became iconic depicted a St. Louis couple, firearms in hand, facing down demonstrators in a confrontation that ignited a national debate. Six years on, the legal, political, and cultural repercussions of that moment continue to shape discussions surrounding self-defense, private property protections, public assembly rights, and the authority of prosecutors.
The Standoff on Portland Place
On June 28, 2020, as Black Lives Matter demonstrations occurred across American cities following the death of George Floyd, a group of protesters proceeded through Portland Place, a private, gated street in St. Louis. Their destination was the residence of then-Mayor Lyda Krewson.
As the crowd traversed the private neighborhood, Mark McCloskey and Patricia McCloskey emerged from their residence armed with firearms — Mark holding an AR-15-style rifle and Patricia a handgun. Within hours, photographs and videos of the encounter circulated widely, transforming a localized dispute on a private St. Louis street into a focal point in the broader American dialogue concerning personal defense, property ownership, and public protest.
Many supporters saw the couple as homeowners exercising their right to defend their property amidst a period of civil unrest that had affected urban areas nationwide. Conversely, critics contended that their actions unnecessarily escalated the situation by displaying weapons to the demonstrators.
A Prolonged Legal Battle and Personal Toll
The legal and political ramifications of that day are still evident today. Mark McCloskey recently reflected on the experience, stating that it primarily underscored the importance of persistence.
A significant development occurred in 2025 when McCloskey announced the return of his AR-15 rifle. He described the process as involving three lawsuits, two appearances before the Missouri Court of Appeals, and a litigation period spanning over 1,800 days.
"It only took 3 lawsuits, 2 trips to the Court of Appeals and 1,847 days, but I got my AR15 back!" McCloskey shared on social media after retrieving the weapon. He added, "It took me 1,847 days, three lawsuits and two trips to the Court of Appeals to get my rifle back and then another 60 days or so to get that pistol back."
McCloskey also noted that the extensive legal ordeal severely impacted the couple's law practice.
"Our business was relatively destroyed," McCloskey stated. "If you Googled the McCloskey Law Center for two years after that event or longer, it said 'permanently closed.' If you Google my name right now it still says Mark McCloskey is a former personal injury lawyer. Nobody told me I retired."
Prosecution and Political Intervention
The legal dispute over the firearms was merely one component of a broader saga that quickly extended beyond the initial confrontation. The then-St. Louis Circuit Attorney, Kim Gardner, brought charges of unlawful use of a weapon against the couple, initiating a high-profile legal battle that garnered national attention. At the time, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt openly criticized the prosecution and moved to intervene, asserting that the case raised fundamental questions about the rights of Missourians to protect themselves and their property.
Six years later, Schmitt, who now serves as a Missouri senator, commented that the case exemplified what he perceives as a wider trend among progressive prosecutors during that era.
"Unfortunately, the McCloskey case became the rule, not the exception," Senator Schmitt remarked. "As violent crimes skyrocketed, progressive prosecutors like Gardner targeted conservatives in an obvious attempt to beef up liberal bona fides and advance partisan agendas instead of upholding the letter of the law."
Schmitt explained that as attorney general, his office intervened because it viewed the case as an instance of "the justice system being weaponized against law-abiding Missourians." He added, "In the Senate, I'm fighting to undo the damage caused by the Left's crusade against our justice system and punish violent criminals, not innocent Americans."
Resolution and Expungement
Ultimately, the McCloskeys entered guilty pleas to misdemeanor offenses in 2021 as part of a settlement for the case. Shortly thereafter, they were granted pardons by then-Missouri Governor Mike Parson.
In another significant development, a Missouri appeals court later upheld the expungement of the couple's convictions. Under Missouri state law, an expungement legally treats such convictions as if they never occurred.
Lessons from the Legal Counsel
Attorney Al Watkins, who represented the McCloskeys during the initial phase of the controversy, highlighted that a primary misconception about the case was the actual trigger for the confrontation. Reflecting on the situation, Watkins suggested the case offers valuable lessons for legal professionals and prosecutors operating under intense public and political scrutiny.
"Do not be afraid to ignore political pressure," Watkins advised. "Mr. and Mrs. McCloskey were immediately, incorrectly and unfairly labeled as racially motivated members of a privileged class."
Watkins pointed out that the couple had, decades prior, chosen to purchase and renovate a home in the city and raise their family within a diverse St. Louis neighborhood. Regarding the widespread national reaction, Watkins expressed no surprise at its intensity.
"The national reaction was an unsurprising and natural progression of the then-burgeoning divisiveness in our nation," he observed.
A New Public Voice
The events of June 2020 also profoundly altered the trajectory of Mark McCloskey's public life. In the subsequent years, the St. Louis attorney became an increasingly prominent figure in conservative political circles. He delivered a speech at the 2020 Republican National Convention and launched a campaign for the U.S. Senate in Missouri in 2022. More recently, he has provided legal representation for some individuals charged in connection with the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot and has advocated for compensation for those prosecuted following the incident.
Earlier this year, McCloskey temporarily ceased representing hundreds of January 6 defendants before resuming his role after the Justice Department announced plans for what it termed an "Anti-Weaponization Fund." Supporters of this fund believe it could provide compensation to individuals they consider to have been unfairly prosecuted.
According to reports, McCloskey initially withdrew due to a serious medical diagnosis, describing his condition as an "incurable, always-fatal disease," although he chose not to publicly disclose the specific illness.
Despite his later involvement in politics, McCloskey remains most strongly identified with the confrontation that took place outside his residence in June 2020. What began as a tense encounter on a private St. Louis street evolved into a complex legal battle, a political flashpoint, and a national discussion that persists almost six years later.
Enduring Impact and Future
Despite the ongoing repercussions, McCloskey stated that the experience ultimately provided him and his wife with an unexpected platform.
"It has given us a voice that we would not otherwise have," he affirmed. "I still speak around the country on constitutional rights in the First Amendment and the Second Amendment."
For his part, attorney Watkins expressed hope that the couple can finally move past the controversy.
"I am hopeful they can live out their lives without again being demonized, victimized or prosecuted for protecting their American dream," he conveyed.
While acknowledging that he and Patricia still receive occasional death threats and hateful correspondence, McCloskey affirmed their commitment to publicly discuss the constitutional issues they believe the case embodies.
"Some lingering negatives," he conceded. "But overall, once again, it has given us an opportunity to spread the word."
