Kenosha Wisconsin Shooter discussion

[srothstein]

Pardon my ignorance but does nothing become of him regarding the straw purchase on the AR? I know in the bigger picture, he gets acquitted of some bigger charges but I don't think he's getting off scot-free.

That one is a separate issue and I don't know if the feds are going to go after him for it or not. So far, I am not sure if there really was a straw purchase or it is just the way the kids talk about things. That one could get interesting to prove. Of course, knowing the ATF and how honest and fair they are, I feel confident that they will go after him and the friend for it if he does walk on the trial now.

[RottenApple]

Pardon my ignorance but does nothing become of him regarding the straw purchase on the AR? I know in the bigger picture, he gets acquitted of some bigger charges but I don't think he's getting off scot-free.

Why would there be? KR did **NOT** "straw purchase" a firearm; The person who completed the sale did. But did he really? A straw purchase occurs when one person buys a gun for someone else who is either prohibited by law from possessing a gun or who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction.

So who is a prohibited person?

This group includes anyone who:

• is a felon

• has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (whether or not they were ever sentenced to or served a day in prison)

• is under indictment for any crime punishable by more than a year in prison

• is a fugitive

• is an unlawful user of any controlled substance

• has been adjudicated as a mental defective

• has been committed to a mental institution

• is an illegal alien

• has a dishonorable discharge from the military

• has renounced their U.S. citizenship

• is the subject of a restraining order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner, or

• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

The US military routinely takes 17 year olds and provides them with firearms. So just being 17 years old, at least under federal law, does not seem to make one a prohibited person.

[C-dub]

Pardon my ignorance but does nothing become of him regarding the straw purchase on the AR? I know in the bigger picture, he gets acquitted of some bigger charges but I don't think he's getting off scot-free.

Why would there be? KR did **NOT** "straw purchase" a firearm; The person who completed the sale did. But did he really? A straw purchase occurs when one person buys a gun for someone else who is either prohibited by law from possessing a gun or who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction.

So who is a prohibited person?

This group includes anyone who:

• is a felon

• has been convicted of any crime punishable by more than a year in prison (whether or not they were ever sentenced to or served a day in prison)

• is under indictment for any crime punishable by more than a year in prison

• is a fugitive

• is an unlawful user of any controlled substance

• has been adjudicated as a mental defective

• has been committed to a mental institution

• is an illegal alien

• has a dishonorable discharge from the military

• has renounced their U.S. citizenship

• is the subject of a restraining order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the child of an intimate partner, or

• who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

The US military routinely takes 17 year olds and provides them with firearms. So just being 17 years old, at least under federal law, does not seem to make one a prohibited person.

I don't think it needs to be a prohibited person. There was that officer back east that purchased a handgun for his dad at his LEO discount. His dad was not a prohibited person, but also not LE to be eligible for the discount. One or both or them now have criminal records and might have done jail time.

[rtschl]

Jack Posobiec of Human Events has a video about the FBI agent who testified off camera. But he first starts out about the rifle. I didn't see the defendant's friend's testimony, but per this video, the rifle belonged to the friend who lives in Wisconsin, but was bought with Kyle's money and he loaned it to Kyle to protect himself. So it never crossed State lines as the media and others keep repeating. I need to pull up that testimony and watch it myself.

But Posobiec's comments about the FBI are brutal. Interesting that in his work in IC, he said they most likely captured everyone's cell phone information from the air and could identify everyone with a cell phone. Same for all the riots in 2020. Why is the FBI not filing charges against people they most likely have identified.

https://rumble.com/voqrtz-jack-posobiec ... trial.html

[cbunt1]

Why is the FBI not filing charges against people they most likely have identified.

https://rumble.com/voqrtz-jack-posobiec ... trial.html

My first guess is because they weren't in Washington DC on January 6 ... Where people seem to be persecuted and cancelled for merely being in the city with the wrong political affiliation that day.

But that's the cynic in me talking

[rtschl]

So I just finished watching testimony of his friend that bought the AR. On direct examination he stated he bought the rifle in his name with Kyle's money and would keep it until Kyle was 18. In his testimony it was revealed that he is being charged with two felonies by the Kenosha DA for providing firearm to someone under 18 in possession of a firearm. The DA i n his question didn't state what the exact two charges are. No mention of Federal charges against either of them.

So my question, does this constitute a straw purchase since he is intending to keep it until Kyle turns 18? Reading the FAQ at http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm I'm thinking it could because at the time of the purchase Kyle is a prohibited person. But with his intention of not giving it to him until he was not a prohibited person (i.e. 18), does that change it?

The main reason I am asking is I follow several 3 gun shooters on social media including some teens who are now adults, some who I have met at a NRA convention. Could their parents be charged with a straw purchase if their intent is to give them possession once they are no longer a minor?

[Flightmare]

So I just finished watching testimony of his friend that bought the AR. On direct examination he stated he bought the rifle in his name with Kyle's money and would keep it until Kyle was 18. In his testimony it was revealed that he is being charged with two felonies by the Kenosha DA for providing firearm to someone under 18 in possession of a firearm. The DA i n his question didn't state what the exact two charges are. No mention of Federal charges against either of them.

So my question, does this constitute a straw purchase since he is intending to keep it until Kyle turns 18? Reading the FAQ at http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm I'm thinking it could because at the time of the purchase Kyle is a prohibited person. But with his intention of not giving it to him until he was not a prohibited person (i.e. 18), does that change it?

The main reason I am asking is I follow several 3 gun shooters on social media including some teens who are now adults, some who I have met at a NRA convention. Could their parents be charged with a straw purchase if their intent is to give them possession once they are no longer a minor?

The difference in your example is whose money is being used. I believe person can gift a firearm to another person and it not be a straw purchase. At least, that's what the "NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS" section of 4473 say for Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

[03Lightningrocks]

So I just finished watching testimony of his friend that bought the AR. On direct examination he stated he bought the rifle in his name with Kyle's money and would keep it until Kyle was 18. In his testimony it was revealed that he is being charged with two felonies by the Kenosha DA for providing firearm to someone under 18 in possession of a firearm. The DA i n his question didn't state what the exact two charges are. No mention of Federal charges against either of them.

So my question, does this constitute a straw purchase since he is intending to keep it until Kyle turns 18? Reading the FAQ at http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm I'm thinking it could because at the time of the purchase Kyle is a prohibited person. But with his intention of not giving it to him until he was not a prohibited person (i.e. 18), does that change it?

The main reason I am asking is I follow several 3 gun shooters on social media including some teens who are now adults, some who I have met at a NRA convention. Could their parents be charged with a straw purchase if their intent is to give them possession once they are no longer a minor?

The difference in your example is whose money is being used. I believe person can gift a firearm to another person and it not be a straw purchase. At least, that's what the "NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS" section of 4473 say for Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

Now I am wondering about something. I buy a shotgun for my son in law for christmas. I have no intention of keeping the shotgun for myself. What would this be classified as?

[oljames3]

So I just finished watching testimony of his friend that bought the AR. On direct examination he stated he bought the rifle in his name with Kyle's money and would keep it until Kyle was 18. In his testimony it was revealed that he is being charged with two felonies by the Kenosha DA for providing firearm to someone under 18 in possession of a firearm. The DA i n his question didn't state what the exact two charges are. No mention of Federal charges against either of them.

So my question, does this constitute a straw purchase since he is intending to keep it until Kyle turns 18? Reading the FAQ at http://www.dontlie.org/faq.cfm I'm thinking it could because at the time of the purchase Kyle is a prohibited person. But with his intention of not giving it to him until he was not a prohibited person (i.e. 18), does that change it?

The main reason I am asking is I follow several 3 gun shooters on social media including some teens who are now adults, some who I have met at a NRA convention. Could their parents be charged with a straw purchase if their intent is to give them possession once they are no longer a minor?

The difference in your example is whose money is being used. I believe person can gift a firearm to another person and it not be a straw purchase. At least, that's what the "NOTICES, INSTRUCTIONS, AND DEFINITIONS" section of 4473 say for Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer.

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473- ... 9/download

Now I am wondering about something. I buy a shotgun for my son in law for christmas. I have no intention of keeping the shotgun for myself. What would this be classified as?

This is a gift. Edwin Walker, a Texas lawyer, explains. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDa954Oor9g

[03Lightningrocks]

Thanks for the info.

[rtschl]

Appreciate the information about straw purchases.

Back to trial... I've watched the last two days, and John Curtis in below Twitter thread points out something that I didn't notice but did see. It appears the prosecutor is signaling his witnesses on how to answer on some questions on cross examination.

[cbunt1]

It appears the prosecutor is signaling his witnesses on how to answer on some questions on cross examination.

I genuinely believe that if we just watch this prosecutor long enough we'll get to watch him molt on screen ...

[G.A. Heath]

I just watched the defense impeach the prosecution witness Grosskreutz, who was shot in his arm, with their first question in less than thirty seconds. Then it goes downhill for the prosecution from there. Looks like the witness may have just scuttled his civil lawsuit too during the defense cross-examination.

[philip964]

We now have George Floyd’s rich relatives involved.

“I ain’t even gonna name the people that I know that’s up in the Kenosha trial. But it’s cameras in there. It’s definitely cameras up in there. There’s definitely people taking pictures of the juries and everything like that. We know what’s going on. So we need the same results, man.”

[oljames3]

Attorney Andrew Branca is posting analysis daily. https://lawofselfdefense.com/blog/