That’s the thing though. I haven’t seen one person actually post a statute showing that a 17 posessing a firearm is even illegal. If that were the case, no one could take their kids hunting. He can’t buy one, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to have one.
We had a rule like that where I grew up. They law said it was illegal to posses, purchase, or consume alcohol in PUBLIC under 21. When I found out about it, I printed out 1000 copies of the law and handed it to everyone. This was when cops were breaking up high school parties and writing underage consumption tickets.
I think open carry is prohibited for <18. There's an exception for long guns for hunting. 16 & 17 can open carry long guns on that case. The legal question is whether the hunting bit is critical. Are long guns a blanket exception and the hunting justification is just the law's preamble, or whether it's a key element of the law
He did hit her. I know there's these videos trying to analyze the footage claiming she didn't. However later video clearly showed where she was before the incident. This proves that she was hit and dragged a good 15 feet.
There was plenty more we learned in the court case including that he watched from a hill and knew where the crowds were. Jury made the correct call.
The laws are confusing, but it seems that they want the illegal weapon possession so they can eliminate his right to a self defence claim. (Can’t claim self defence if you were committing a crime). However, even if he did commit a crime, running away helps to restore his right to self defence.
There have been some discussions about this on r/law and I think our boy will be fine in the end.
From what I've seen, he was perfectly within the law since he didn't bring the rifle from out of state (he received it in Kenosha) and the law allows 16 & 17 year olds to carry long arms. It would take intentional legal fuckery to find him guilty.
Not even that. It happens all the time where a woman is carrying a gun in her purse and shoots an attacker. Charging her for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon would be a miscarriage of justice.
But let's look at it from another angle. Let's say he had no weapon on him at all and was still being attacked, saw a tire iron on the ground at the dealership and used it as an improvised weapon to defend himself. Should he still be charged for carrying a deadly weapon?
What message does that send? That you can't defend your own life at all if you're under 18?
Even Wisconsin law makes exceptions for self-defense
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
It does not prescribe anywhere the type of weapon you may be allowed to use to defend yourself. It does not say you cannot use an "illegal weapon" to defend yourself. When your life is threatened, none of that shit matters.
That’s the thing though. I haven’t seen one person actually post a statute showing that a 17 posessing a firearm is even illegal. If that were the case, no one could take their kids hunting. He can’t buy one, but that doesn’t mean he’s not allowed to have one.
We had a rule like that where I grew up. They law said it was illegal to posses, purchase, or consume alcohol in PUBLIC under 21. When I found out about it, I printed out 1000 copies of the law and handed it to everyone. This was when cops were breaking up high school parties and writing underage consumption tickets.
And it didn't work
Yeah, my high school in CO even had an "unofficially" sanctioned smokers corner just beyond the fence.
I think open carry is prohibited for <18. There's an exception for long guns for hunting. 16 & 17 can open carry long guns on that case. The legal question is whether the hunting bit is critical. Are long guns a blanket exception and the hunting justification is just the law's preamble, or whether it's a key element of the law
but hunting commies is a sport.
Open carry doesn’t apply to long guns.
WI law does make distinctions between long rifles and short rifles that influence legality of open carry.
Yes. Until ownership (vs buying) by minors is made illegal you can usually gift your minor child a gun.
According to the USCCA page open carry is legal only for 18+. Same with possession. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/wisconsin-gun-laws-what-you-need-to-know/
Concealed/open carry laws don’t apply to long guns.
No, open carry absolutely applies to long guns. Concealed carry usually only applies to handguns because long guns aren't exactly concealable.
James Fields was also acting in self defense and they gave him life so "the town could begin to heal".
The country is so divided it's basically a crap shoot whether you'll get a fair trial with a jury.
He didn't even hit the girl that died did he, she was just some blubber monster that fell of dead from surprise.
He did hit her. I know there's these videos trying to analyze the footage claiming she didn't. However later video clearly showed where she was before the incident. This proves that she was hit and dragged a good 15 feet.
There was plenty more we learned in the court case including that he watched from a hill and knew where the crowds were. Jury made the correct call.
that's one case that was never fully explained. and it appears that he had shitty lawyers. i think it needs to be revisited.
The laws are confusing, but it seems that they want the illegal weapon possession so they can eliminate his right to a self defence claim. (Can’t claim self defence if you were committing a crime). However, even if he did commit a crime, running away helps to restore his right to self defence.
There have been some discussions about this on r/law and I think our boy will be fine in the end.
From what I've seen, he was perfectly within the law since he didn't bring the rifle from out of state (he received it in Kenosha) and the law allows 16 & 17 year olds to carry long arms. It would take intentional legal fuckery to find him guilty.
Not even that. It happens all the time where a woman is carrying a gun in her purse and shoots an attacker. Charging her for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon would be a miscarriage of justice.
But let's look at it from another angle. Let's say he had no weapon on him at all and was still being attacked, saw a tire iron on the ground at the dealership and used it as an improvised weapon to defend himself. Should he still be charged for carrying a deadly weapon?
What message does that send? That you can't defend your own life at all if you're under 18?
He should not be charged with anything at all.
Why is he even under arrest?
The Constitution is the supreme law
SCOTUS has already ruled on this repeatedly
Even Wisconsin law makes exceptions for self-defense
It does not prescribe anywhere the type of weapon you may be allowed to use to defend yourself. It does not say you cannot use an "illegal weapon" to defend yourself. When your life is threatened, none of that shit matters.
Prosecuting victims is unjust.
No, equity is why we are here. Law is just an add on.