TexasCHLforum.com

They are just deleting all the negative replies. You could leave online reviews telling how you feel.

Ruark wrote: ↑Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:44 pm

I hope that it displays correctly, In the event that it doesn't, it is a comparison between Rittenhouse and Tamir Rice, 12 years old who was killed in 2014 with a replica Airsoft pistol with the orange ring on the barrel removed. The poster was saying that it is racism that one died and the other went home the night after their respective incidents and that the difference is why people march. I could not figure out why a white teenager shooting other white men was racist. This explains it. I'm fascinated by the false equivalencies that are used to justify finding racism in nearly everything.

It is an interesting mental exercise to compare the two situations.

I hate this media distortion crap. Tamir Rice (6' 200 lbs.) wasn't "killed for having a toy gun." He was killed of pointing an airsoft replica (indistinguishable from a real gun) at police and refusing to lower it. Sheesh. Like, go out and try that next time you see a cop and watch what happens.

airsoft.JPG

A "real" pistol and his.

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 31, 2020 8:49 am

eyedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 6:08 pm

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:53 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:08 pm

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pm

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.

His 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.

This has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.

Found this in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

...
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.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cr ... 444231001/

Wisconsin 948.60 is their regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Article (3)(c) states "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

In other words, The regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 has an exception when you have a rifle or shotgun. You must not be in violation of 941.28 and you can't be out of compliance with 29.304 or 29.593.

941.28 is a regulation on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Kyles rifle was not a short-barreled rifle, so he was not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 pertains to regulations of firearms for individuals under 16 years of age. Kyle is 17, so 29.304 doesn't even apply to him.

Section 29.593 requires anyone born 1973 or later to essentially attend a hunter safety course to go hunting (with any weapon bow, rifle, etc). Kyle was not hunting, so he was in compliance.

So per Wisconsin state law, a person under 18 cannot posses a dangerous weapon, unless that weapon is a rifle or shotgun! If a person posses a rifle or shotgun and is under the age of 18, and over the age of 16, and they are not hunting, section 948.60 does not apply to them per the letter of Wisconsin law! There us no regulation against them having the rifle or shotgun.

Seems all the fact checks are saying it was illegal for him to carry.

All the fact checkers are liberal. I would not expect them to look hard to find the truth if it helps him.

mrvmax wrote: ↑Sat Aug 29, 2020 8:26 am So as I read more facts I see I’m wrong on my post. I still think he should have stayed home but the more I read and see the more it favors him legally.

Did you read where he worked there as a community lifeguard and just stayed after work?

Oldgringo wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 9:17 pm How this plays out is going to be most interesting and will probably depend, in large part, on how the election plays out, you reckon?

Maybe Trump will pardon him if he gets convicted or befor he leaves office if he doesn't win.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:53 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:08 pm

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pm

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.

His 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.

This has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.

Found this in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

...
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.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cr ... 444231001/

Wisconsin 948.60 is their regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Article (3)(c) states "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

In other words, The regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 has an exception when you have a rifle or shotgun. You must not be in violation of 941.28 and you can't be out of compliance with 29.304 or 29.593.

941.28 is a regulation on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Kyles rifle was not a short-barreled rifle, so he was not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 pertains to regulations of firearms for individuals under 16 years of age. Kyle is 17, so 29.304 doesn't even apply to him.

Section 29.593 requires anyone born 1973 or later to essentially attend a hunter safety course to go hunting (with any weapon bow, rifle, etc). Kyle was not hunting, so he was in compliance.

So per Wisconsin state law, a person under 18 cannot posses a dangerous weapon, unless that weapon is a rifle or shotgun! If a person posses a rifle or shotgun and is under the age of 18, and over the age of 16, and they are not hunting, section 948.60 does not apply to them per the letter of Wisconsin law! There us no regulation against them having the rifle or shotgun.

ScottDLS wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:53 pm

C-dub wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 4:08 pm

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 3:21 pm

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.

His 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.

This has been my biggest concern since we found out who he was.

Found this in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

...
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.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/cr ... 444231001/

Wisconsin 948.60 is their regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

Article (3)(c) states "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

In other words, The regulation against possession of a dangerous weapon under 18 has an exception when you have a rifle or shotgun. You must not be in violation of 941.28 and you can't be out of compliance with 29.304 or 29.593.

941.28 is a regulation on short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. Kyles rifle was not a short-barreled rifle, so he was not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 pertains to regulations of firearms for individuals under 16 years of age. Kyle is 17, so 29.304 doesn't even apply to him.

Section 29.593 requires anyone born 1973 or later to essentially attend a hunter safety course to go hunting (with any weapon bow, rifle, etc). Kyle was not hunting, so he was in compliance.

So per Wisconsin state law, a person under 18 cannot posses a dangerous weapon, unless that weapon is a rifle or shotgun! If a person posses a rifle or shotgun and is under the age of 18, and over the age of 16, and they are not hunting, section 948.60 does not apply to them per the letter of Wisconsin law! There us no regulation against them having the rifle or shotgun.

Further, Wisconsin's open carry originates from their Constitution and allows anyone firearm that can be legally carried, to be openly carried by anyone legally able to do so. Thus, since Kyle's rifle was a firearm that could be legally owned, and since there was no law against Kyle possessing that rifle, he could legally open carry it.

dlh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:31 pm

eyedoc wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 5:00 pm

dlh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm After you shoot a few folks you just don't flee the scene and run home to another state.
Looks bad and allows a prosecutor down the road to make the usual comment oh flight is evidence of guilt.
Leaving the scene and fleeing to another state---that was not a wise decision in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Regarding the shooting--we can all agree he will be responsible for every bullet fired from his rifle.
A jury just might find him not guilty of the murder charges--we will wait and see.
Covid has crippled trial courts across the nation and they need to get cranking again as soon as possible
so justice can be dispensed.

There are videos of him trying to stop the police and surrender. They did not stop.

He could have driven himself to the police station and asked to see a detective. Maybe they would want to know his name, address, and telephone number? I heard he is not agreeing to extradition at this time so the judge reset his case to a date in September.
I also heard that Lin Wood was retained to represent him---he is the bulldog lawyer who represented Nick Sandmann.

It was safer to go home and surrender in a less politically charged area.

That kid definitely needs to be in the military. Good situational awareness and control.

Lin Wood offered to represent him for free. GOA is also providing support for him. I will pitch in too. If he is not agreeing to extradition, it is probably on the advice of his council.

dlh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:48 pm After you shoot a few folks you just don't flee the scene and run home to another state.
Looks bad and allows a prosecutor down the road to make the usual comment oh flight is evidence of guilt.
Leaving the scene and fleeing to another state---that was not a wise decision in my opinion. Just my opinion.
Regarding the shooting--we can all agree he will be responsible for every bullet fired from his rifle.
A jury just might find him not guilty of the murder charges--we will wait and see.
Covid has crippled trial courts across the nation and they need to get cranking again as soon as possible
so justice can be dispensed.

There are videos of him trying to stop the police and surrender. They did not stop.