Search found 4 matches
Return to “Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion”
- Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:41 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
- Replies: 464
- Views: 118902
Re: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
Why is no one in the courtroom wearing a face diaper? Don't they know there's a global panicdemic going on...or something?
- Mon Nov 15, 2021 12:04 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
- Replies: 464
- Views: 118902
Re: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
An update. As was noted quite some time ago when the issue first came up. Rittenhouse's possession of the AR15 at age 17 was legal under WI law. The law prohibiting carrying of "dangerous weapons" by those under 18 does not apply to non-NFA long guns like his friend's AR15. An update. The judge in the trial just dismissed the gun charge today saying it didn't apply.
So:
-No he wasn't illegally carrying an AR15 that night.
-He didn't take a rifle from IL to WI that night. He borrowed a rifle from a friend.
-His friend did not straw purchase the AR15 in WI for a 17 year old IL resident. The friend bought it for himself and kept it in WI.
So:
-No he wasn't illegally carrying an AR15 that night.
-He didn't take a rifle from IL to WI that night. He borrowed a rifle from a friend.
-His friend did not straw purchase the AR15 in WI for a 17 year old IL resident. The friend bought it for himself and kept it in WI.
- Wed Nov 10, 2021 4:14 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
- Replies: 464
- Views: 118902
Re: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
The Fox commentator should have done more research. The charge doesn't apply to non-NFA long guns in WI. It's due to a law written with hunting in mind, but the text of the law makes the conduct legal.jerry_r60 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 10, 2021 2:04 pm I just heard something on Fox that was concerning. The lawyer in Fox seemed to think it wasn't the strongest thing but it's still concerning. The comment that by going after a misdimeanor charge of illegally having the gun due to age carries with it the removal of the ability to claim self defense.
I have not heard or know all the legal details around this and hope that something like this doesn't come into play.
- Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:53 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
- Replies: 464
- Views: 118902
Re: Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion
Found this in the Milwaukee Journal SentinelC-dub wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:08 pmThis has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pmHis other mistake was that he could not legally carry a rifle either. In Wisconsin, it is illegal for a minor to be in possession of any loaded weapon.Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:43 pmThat said, the shooter here likely could not legally carry a handgun, so I can't fault him on this point.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cr ... 444231001/...
Under Wisconsin statutes that say anyone under 18 who "goes armed" with any deadly weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor, Kyle Rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault-style rifle he had.
...
But John Monroe, a lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases, believes an exception for rifles and shotguns, intended to allow people age 16 and 17 to hunt, could apply.