Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion

[eyedoc]

That 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.

[Grayling813]

Extensive information on AR15.com
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/The ... 5-2362796/

[C-dub]

Extensive information on AR15.com
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/The ... 5-2362796/

Wow! There's a lot of information there.

Amusing aside:
Interview with McGinnis by Detective Cepress:
"McGinnis stated that he had handled many ARs and [Rittenhouse] was not handling the weapon very well."
Based on the videos I've seen Rittenhouse is one of the best weapons handlers under pressure I've ever seen. So much for McGinnis' credibility.]

I thought this was interesting and similar to something I said a little bit ago.

[Oldgringo]

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?

[eyedoc]

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.

[parabelum]

Extensive information on AR15.com
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/The ... 5-2362796/

Very extensive indeed. Thanks for sharing!

[srothstein]

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.

Trump cannot issue any pardon for state crimes, only federal ones.

[mrvmax]

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.

[Grayling813]

“Kyle was just a motivated 17 year old civilian. Imagine what’s out there, watching and waiting.” - Matt Bracken

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/twitter-forces-a ... 24759.html

Twitter forces Anne Coulter to delete her tweet wanting Kyle to be President.

[rtschl]

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.

At first I too thought the same - at 17 he's not a legal adult and shouldn't have been there at that time. But as Colion Noir also said as posted above - none of them should have been there as the curfew was in place. From videos and reports I have seen, he works in Kenosha as a lifeguard and was working that day. He also was cleaning graffiti off walls of a school in Kenosha. I also saw a video (that I can't find right now) interview of him done by The Daily Caller’s Richie McGinniss where he said he was there to provide medical care and he was carrying the rifle for protection. People were there to protect businesses from the rioters. I gotta say, I can't find fault in that.

Lin Wood, his attorney, who also was represented Nick Sandmann - Covington kid defamed by CNN and Washington Post, and Richard Jewel - the Atlanta Security Guard falsely accused by FBI and media during the 1996 Olympic Bombing has released a written response:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... ingbuttons

And https://www.thegatewaypundit.com has a lot of videos and interviews surrounding this incident.

[philip964]

That 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.

[eyedoc]

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?