It began with this ridiculous story from the Kansas City Star:

A man who opened fire on a line of people waiting to get inside a Kansas City nightclub Sunday could have gone to prison years earlier on a weapons charge but recent changes in Missouri gun law helped him remain free, prosecutors said Tuesday.

Jahron Swift, 29, fatally shot 25-year-old Raeven Parks about 11:30 p.m. Sunday as she stood in line outside the 9ine Ultra Lounge, according to the Kansas City Police Department.

Not sure what any changes to my home state’s gun laws had to do with this story, but clearly there was an agenda to question the judgment in doing so with this false claim. And like clockwork …

I responded:

(Correction: Prosecutor, not judge; lame error especially after I correctly stated “prosecutor” earlier in the day while discussing it on air. Apologies, and please chalk it up to SHOT Show overload. Important to be correct, unlike the story being discussed.)

Here’s the story:

Swift had been charged with gun and cocaine felony charges in 2015.

Part of the terms of his bond included an order for Swift not to possess a firearm.

However, Mansur said a Jackson County judge denied the prosecutor’s motion to revoke Swift’s bond and put him back in jail.

Mansur said the Jackson County Attorney’s Office dropped the 2016 gun charge against Swift after Missouri lawmakers passed a new law allowing citizens to carry a concealed weapon.

[…]

Kansas City, Missouri, police said Swift opened fire at a nightclub late Sunday night killing Raeven Parks, 25, and injuring 15 other people.

Investigators said an armed security guard shot and killed Swift, potentially saving many other people from death or injury.

That Jackson County Attorney is Jean Peters Baker.

More (my emphasis):

Court records show that in August 2015, Swift was charged with felony possession of cocaine and a firearm. About a year to the day in August 2016, Swift was charged a second time with unlawful firearm possession, which could have meant a tougher sentence for Swift. But at that point a year later, Swift’s original 2015 felony case had yet to make it through the court system. A short time after Swift’s second firearm arrest, Missouri lawmakers, according to Mansur, changed the law. Mansur said the result was the second charge of Swift carrying a concealed weapon was no longer a violation and could not be used against him except for what turned out to be an unsuccessful attempt at a bond revocation. The criminal case was dropped.

For that reason, Swift went to court on the original 2015 felony charges as a first- time offender. In March 2017, about a year and a half after he was charged, Swift pleaded guilty to the firearm and drug charges. As part of the plea deal, Swift was given a three-year suspended prison sentence with probation.

Mansur said it was the best outcome the prosecutors could’ve obtained for a first time offender. One of the special terms of his probation was that he could not possess any firearm. Swift, according to Mansur, earned court compliance credit for his probation. As a result, he was released from probation nearly a year early this past April. Had the full three years run, Swift still would have been on probation when police said he opened fire at the nightclub Sunday night.

So a prohibited possessor disobeyed a law.

Liberty Alliance weighed in:

Radio host Pete Mundo also criticized the story’s misrepresentation:

The change to Missouri’s gun law didn’t force Baker to not prosecute Swift. She made that choice. Swift was, according to reports, a prohibited possessor. He chose to ignore the conditions of his freedom and illegally obtain and carry a firearm anyway. It’s irrelevant why Baker couldn’t get a 2017 charge because Swift was already a prohibited possessor and judging by Baker’s office, probation rates are already high:

A newspaper reports that Jackson County has been placing violent criminals on probation more frequently than neighboring Missouri counties.

The Kansas City Star reports that from 2009 to 2013, Jackson County judges granted probation in 33 percent of first-degree robbery cases and 25 percent of the worst felony assault cases. In some cases, defendants had to spend 120 days in custody before beginning probation.

The county has also placed 15 people convicted of second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter on probation in the last five years.

This isn’t a consequence of Missouri law, it’s a consequence of soft-on-crime Democrats who endanger the public by reducing deterrents for violent felons. Baker heavily lobbied against Missouri’s permit less carry, yet has been repeatedly accused of being soft on crime. Law-abiding Americans should be able to defend themselves against the violent predators that soft-on-crime prosecutors, judges, and politicians allow to walk free.

Shannon Watts — formerly the Vice President of Corporate and Public Affairs Company for Fleishman-Hillard and later Director of Global Public and Corporate Affairs for Monsanto (whose job included protecting Monsanto after they were accused of hiding the cancer dangers of Roundup) before being hired by Michael Bloomberg to head up Moms Demand — promoted the Kansas City Star’s false narrative and when I corrected her, she lost it and at the time of this posting, has spent the past 24 hours attempting to use her spin skills to deflect from the truth: That her group champions a prosecutor who let a violent offender walk. This is incompatible with the “gun sense” narrative and Watts knows it, but politics at all costs (like how Watts and Moms Demand was silent after their endorsed congressman Leland Yee was busted for gun-running and quietly scrubbed him from their sites)! She began a bizarre crusade of going back years in my Twitter timeline to distract from this glaring inconsistency. My responses to her Tweets:

(Seven years, actually.)

This tragedy involving Swift occurred the night before the peaceful protest in Richmond, Virginia, where thousands upon thousands of law-abiding gun owners peacefully demonstrated and expressed the importance of upholding natural rights and destroyed the false narratives hyped by gun control advocates. It isn’t all over the media because prohibited possessors who try shooting up clubs only to be stopped by armed security isn’t a good argument for no armed security anywhere (except by Moms Demand themselves, who employ armed security.)

Here is the other big truth Watts can’t afford to acknowledge:

The armed security at said KC club stopped the threat the Moms Demand prosecutor let walk. Armed security works, the Bloomberg fake “gun sense” does not.