And there goes the last leg the prosecution could stand on. It also doesn't matter if the gun is illegal in another state; if it is legal in WI then no illegality is involved.
Now, to discover why Mr. Rittenhouse was under the impression that he needed to fire and who made/aided that condition a reality (BLMTIFA, Democrats, media...care to give a statement?).
the gun shots prior to baldy's attack/chase and subsequent shooting are even more of a defense. Basically, I don't think the WI DA has any legal argument left. But, I would like to see this investigated further (primarily to put Gov. Evers and the mayor in the spotlight, along with every other Dem who has allowed these riots to take place, as well as whoever is organizing/funding the rioters...these are not organic movements; we all know that).
No. You want that to be true, but it's not. Wood simply said the gun did not cross state lines, he did not claim the gun was legally able to be possessed by Kyle. The state has charged him with unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon under 18, so they think he wasn't. We'll find out if that charge sticks, in court.
See 948.60(3)(c). There's a specific exception for shotguns and rifles, as long as they aren't short-barrelled.
You have to follow the links to the other provisions of WI law, and you'll eventually figure out that at age 17, Kyle was not breaking any law of possession, based on his age.
Of course, that doesn't stop the state from throwing the book at him. They are hoping that he won't know the law and his public defender will talk him into pleading to a lesser charge because he is overwhelmed by the prospect of life in prison.
Now that Kyle has competent defense counsel, that shouldn't happen. But, there's a risk of going to trial, and Kyle may choose to take the easy way out.
Good point: that would be hard to stick, because I don't see anything in WI law that says he couldn't be in the possession of such (I might be overlooking it) -- IL law is more restrictive, but he wasn't in IL at the time. Then, would federal law be applicable?
This is going to be a big one for 2A supporters potentially.
WI law is jurisdiction. WI law is 18 for open carry, and as he was in a public space, he may be guilty. Of a misdemeanor. Not a huge issue he's facing.
No, but since the WI DA appears to be trying to intimidate him, his lawyer should do it right back.
By the way...good luck to the DA finding a jury for this one!
And there goes the last leg the prosecution could stand on. It also doesn't matter if the gun is illegal in another state; if it is legal in WI then no illegality is involved. Now, to discover why Mr. Rittenhouse was under the impression that he needed to fire and who made/aided that condition a reality (BLMTIFA, Democrats, media...care to give a statement?).
the gun shots prior to baldy's attack/chase and subsequent shooting are even more of a defense. Basically, I don't think the WI DA has any legal argument left. But, I would like to see this investigated further (primarily to put Gov. Evers and the mayor in the spotlight, along with every other Dem who has allowed these riots to take place, as well as whoever is organizing/funding the rioters...these are not organic movements; we all know that).
No. You want that to be true, but it's not. Wood simply said the gun did not cross state lines, he did not claim the gun was legally able to be possessed by Kyle. The state has charged him with unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon under 18, so they think he wasn't. We'll find out if that charge sticks, in court.
Don't downvote him for being ignorant. Educate him.
This is the WI law in question:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
See 948.60(3)(c). There's a specific exception for shotguns and rifles, as long as they aren't short-barrelled.
You have to follow the links to the other provisions of WI law, and you'll eventually figure out that at age 17, Kyle was not breaking any law of possession, based on his age.
Of course, that doesn't stop the state from throwing the book at him. They are hoping that he won't know the law and his public defender will talk him into pleading to a lesser charge because he is overwhelmed by the prospect of life in prison.
Now that Kyle has competent defense counsel, that shouldn't happen. But, there's a risk of going to trial, and Kyle may choose to take the easy way out.
Good point: that would be hard to stick, because I don't see anything in WI law that says he couldn't be in the possession of such (I might be overlooking it) -- IL law is more restrictive, but he wasn't in IL at the time. Then, would federal law be applicable? This is going to be a big one for 2A supporters potentially.
WI law is jurisdiction. WI law is 18 for open carry, and as he was in a public space, he may be guilty. Of a misdemeanor. Not a huge issue he's facing.
No, the statute has an exception for long guns. It was legal.
No, but since the WI DA appears to be trying to intimidate him, his lawyer should do it right back. By the way...good luck to the DA finding a jury for this one!