Almost, but it's less passive than that. This is a scam wherein crooked lawyers steal money from taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and whatever activist causes they chose. And also make the point that you should passively accept being shot if the elite decide you need to be shot.
So it's all good when all the Charges are Nullified, and Civil Action demanding Compensation is brought against the Municipal Entity of Kenosha, agreed?
As in Kyle Sues for Wrongful Prosecution, and Injury, and wins, also ending this Prosecutor's Career.
The facts of the case will be the facts of the case. It may take years, but I'll wager it won't go well for Kenosha, after his Acquittal, if the Charges aren't dropped before Trial.
also gun law is really labyrinthine. In my state someone under 18 couldnt buy a rifle... but older law allowed transfers within immediate family. So; a kid could still have an AR if a parent gave it to them. Hardly anyone realized that including police. But that was the law....
Haha, no that's not what I'm saying. I'm referring to your grand privledge of funding or paying for licenses etc to be allowed to simply operate in today's overregulated society.
Yes this here is such a problem. I have always tried so hard to stay rigidly on the line of legal, guns ammo etc. I have spent so much time and money educating myself and complying. And the laws are written to intentionally leave so much gray, that on any day you can be arrested on "interpretation" its such a huge problem.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
and this is the problem more than any other! it's by design, as most who have gone into political office over the last half century have served at some point or another as an attorney
if your government is made up of lawyers, the laws will soon be written only in legalese so that they can enrich themselves and their brothers and sisters by ensuring if you don't want to go to jail for violating some bullshit directive, you need to hire a team of lawyers to translate the word salad for you into english.
There's something deeply immoral about laws that govern average men written in a manner which is incomprehensible to the governed. Legalese is not English. If it were, it wouldn't require a specialized dictionary. We may as well be ruled by laws written in latin or chinese.
The exception applies only for those "in compliance with" the the hunting law statute. Which means he had to actively be on a hunt with an adult or undergoing instruction. Or 16, 17 who have "obtained" a WI hunting license. Going armed under any other circumstances not in compliance with the hunting/practice regs means the exception no longer applies. It is a temporary and situational exception that expires. He wasn't hunting or accompanied by the "responsible adult" or licensed, so he was not "in compliance" with the exception.
948.60 section 3 exempts rifles and shotguns (that are not short barreled) from "firearms" prohibited to those under 18, IF and only IF they are "in compliance" with the hunting regs. You're right though that 29.593 cited in section 3 wouldn't mean they have to have the actual hunting approval (license), just that they meet one of the requirements to obtain one. Unfortunately the likely out-of-state qualifications Kyle might have seem kind of discretionary as to their acceptance... So 16-17 year olds have to be "in compliance" with eligibility requirements for obtaining a hunting license for the long gun exception to apply.
Maybe Kyle might meet requirements, and his lawyer can certainly stretch that possibility after the fact, but he's certainly not explicitly "in compliance" with what we know. It's safe to say the law, infringement it may be, is certainly intended to prohibit non-hunters under 18 from open carry.
In my state the DEC law is incorporated into the CPL - for instance the ban on loaded shotguns and rifles in a car is only written in the hunting admin law but enforced in cities where no hunting even exists.
Yeah, you've a vice versa of this case where a loophole was added by republicans for supervised or qualified young shooters to be exempted from a democrat infringement. In your example the democrats salted your hunting laws with poison pills like a loaded gun in car ban that can be exploited elsewhere. That's what passes for "compromise".
948.60 section 3c "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if.. (it is short barreled) ..or not in compliance with ss. 29.304(under 16 supervised hunting/practice) and 29.593 (meets requirement to obtain hunters license)."
So anyone 16-17 has to meet 29.593 requirement (compliance) to gain section 3c exemption of long barreled rifles and shotguns from the 948.60(2a) under 18 firearm prohibition.
question: If it's about needing to have a certain proof of eligibility to obtain hunting approval, but you're not hunting in the first place or trying to obtain approval, then how are you not in compliance?
No the law is not silent on 16-17 year olds. It says they have to "obtain" a WI hunting license to furthermore hunt or carry their firearm unsupervised. So anyone not hunting with or undergoing instruction with an adult, or with a hunting license is not actively "in compliance" with the hunting law exception. The exception to the general under 18 rule is entirely contingent on having obtained a hunting license or being under 16 with a responsible adult.
So essentially a WI hunting license is almost, but not quite, a long-gun open carry license for 16-17 year olds.
No section three exempts rifles and shotguns from "firearms" unless it is short barreled, or unless the person is not actively "in compliance" with the hunting law, which means hunting license or adult supervision.
Basically no hunting law "compliance" no exemption.
it would be smart - i have never hunted in my life but i have my hunting license as it covers me for more situations under the law when it comes to firearm "privileges"
If they have to "obtain" a WI hunting license in order to carry their firearm unsupervised, they wouldn't have to be actively hunting. All they would need is the license itself.
Even then, given that he was surrounded by other people (of which most if not all were over 18) who were doing the same thing he was, one could easily fulfill the requirement of supervision. Nowhere does the law state that a "responsible adult" must be the owner of the gun or be a person that was known by the subject prior to the incident invovling the gun.
948.60, 948.60(3)(c)(c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
941.28(1)(b)(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
note: Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying an AR-15, standard model average barrel length 16" and overall length 35".
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes.
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Wouldn't it be nice if the law was written clearly and concisely? Something along the lines of "The right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed." Something like that should be allot less confusing.
Laws are written by politicians. And sometimes, they are written (and subsequently amended) in a way that is obtuse to avoid triggering opposition until it's too late. I've personally seen that happen in my state.
Other times, I think they are written to make work for their lawyer friends.
No there is only an exception on long guns for those actively "in compliance" with the hunting law, those under 16 hunting or under instruction with an adult, or 16 & 17 year olds who have "obtained" (are eligible for) a WI hunter's license. No compliance, no exception.
I love how the left is trying to find the smallest thing to make Kyle look bad while ignoring that he was attacked by grown ass men who all had criminal records, who were trying to burn a town down in the middle of a riot while police sat around with their thumbs up their butts.
It doesnt matter that Blake was a convicted rapist who stole the victim's keys and was violating a restraining order who then resisted arrest and reached into his car for a weapon! He still shouldnt have been shot!
It doesnt matter that Kyle was there to defend businesses and supply medical help to anyone that needed when he got attacked by a mob of armed felons rioting and burning things! He shouldnt have shot! Also he crossed state line!
To the left in Kyle's case: Self defense or not he shouldn't have had that weapon. This was murder. Period.
Also what they think: Jay Bishop tried to pepper spray someone because we say so. Illegal gun or not, the man was defending himself against Jay. This was justified. Period.
well, the left is okay with rioting because its seen as protesting... there are thousands of videos, tweets, posts, etc all expressing the sentiment that: "its just property, who cares. we're fighting for our LIVES! why do you care about a tv?"
Yup. Made the mistake of engaging with an Antifa clown that kept saying "they have insurance, why do you value property more than lives?" He also kept insisting that Antifa and BLM are peaceful movements and the riots are something else entirely.
After wasting time trying to rationalize with him that all the violence and arson is hurting his cause, I informed him that in New York State, you're legally allowed to use lethal force to stop someone trying to commit arson.
The guy I tried to rationalize with was clearly a fully indoctrinated 'true believer'. He honestly believes he's fighting fascists and that his cause is so above reproach that he doesn't need to question himself.
Those people have no clue how a business works. The very fact they think insurance just fixes everything for instance. Much more lost than the building and material possessions.
But even for these clowns that have never built anything in their lives: will they let me smash their car windows because insurance will cover it? Where do we end up as a society if people can destroy whatever they want because 'insurance will cover it'? How can so many people be so brain dead that they don't see where that kind of thinking takes us?
Also lost on them is that insurance is based on risk, and that reimbursement comes from premiums.
An insurance company doesn't print money to reimburse losses. It comes from insurance premiums, paid by every policy holder. So, you aren't stealing from the insurance company, you are stealing from every policy holder.
Also, depending on the policy, damage from insurrection or riot may be excluded from coverage.
The reality is that not all lives hold the same amount of value to each person. Family and friends hold more value than property for most people. Enemies and aggressors on the other hand, hold less value than property to most people. Different people balance the equation differently, but it's quite hypocritical for Antifa goons to criticize people for valuing property over lives while in the same breath celebrating the death of someone who merely holds a different political philosophy and didn't destroy any of their property.
Fighting (or simply defending) against the communist insurgency is terrorism to them. They would have rather Kyle ended up like Aaron Danielson.
Sad thing is most of them will never even know Aaron's name because it will not be reported. This is how they're able to live in their own reality. All they will remember is a "angry Trump supporter murdered 2 innocent people".
They never mention that the three people were white or white-adjacent. They just say BLM protestors so the audience assumes they are black. It’s obvious when you see how differently they use racial descriptions with different fact patterns.
The police were there in the area. They did fuck all just to keep an eye on such a large crowd of people.
Overall the police failed them all. But that's what the police chiefs and the Democrats what. They want blood on the streets and don't care where it comes from.
They actually created the situation for Kyle because they blocked him from retreating back to the business he was originally protecting. They forced him into the mob.
"A 17-year old child should not have to take up arms in America to protect life and property. That is the job of state and local governments. However, those governments have failed, and law-abiding citizens have no choice but to protect their own communities as their forefathers did at Lexington and Concord in 1775," the law firm's founder, John Pierce, said in a statement."
The fundamental charge against Rittenhouse is daring to defend himself against the violent Antifa/BLM rioters who sought to kill him instead of weakly submitting to the mob.
This is to be expected when the Marxist DA is in the bag for Antifa/BLM.
The police on the ground fucked up from the start and their actions should have voided to the whole thing. After Kyle presented himself to them they told him to go home.
He should have been held until it was clear what went down. They shouldn't have even asked him any questions until his lawyer was present.
He is being held atm in part because they fucked up both. His due process in the case was fucked from the start.
Self defense in WI has a "privilege clause" that allows you to use an illegal weapon in the case of perceived harm to self or property. So even if they tried to ram through that Kyle was possessing an illegal weapon or under age they already lose by default of the privilege clause.
On bad thing I haven't seen mentioned on TDW is any mention of the video where Kyle is punching the girl in the face. Even saints have sins in their past and sadly this will come out.
He was defending a small girl (allegedly and allegedly his sister) from a larger girl that was the aggressor and got jumped for it. The video is cut and out of context.
Fuck off back to Reddit with your false narrative. Its over there to the left.
A short video out of context doesn't prove anything. If Kyle was acting in defense of someone else and shutting down a violent bully, then hitting a girl could make sense.
And even if Kyle was in the wrong on another occasion, that means precisely zilch for this well documented self defense situation.
I didn't mention it to detract from his being 100% correct for using his 2nd ammendment rights for his self defense. I'm surprised you can't see how it can be used against him. Were you being serious about that part?
I could be wrong, however it seems like if his defense does their job, the well documented circumstances of his self defense incident in Kenosha should not be affected by the other video. If he acted correctly and appropriately under the well documented threatening circumstances, then the general presumption of innocence must stand.
What do you think, pede? How do you see them spinning it?
I see them spinning it just like every single politically charged event. That being they will dig into his past to extract the flimsiest negative points they can find. "Oh my God! The pediatrician said that the second he was out of the womb he was punching, kicking and biting, as if it were the devil himself!"
I'm away from the house and don't have it saved to my mobile. It's clearly him, right down to his red, white and blue crocs. He's the aggressor and it's definitely not in self defense or in defense of her.
The assailants shot first, he turned to track where the shot was coming from and saw a crazed lunatic charging him from behind. Self defense was warranted considering the various videos we've seen of people being beaten mercilessly by violent mobs.
I think you're replying to the wrong person. I have always been in the opinion of Kyle firing in self defense and showing amazing restraint. I've got zero doubt of his use of the constitutional rights in carrying a weapon and in his right to defend himself.
I'm not judging him. I had reservations about even mentioning it knowing full well that regardless of how tenderly the video was mentioned people would still be pissed off at the messenger.
This is something that a lot of people are not aware of, but this is actually the law under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute.”
This right here is correct. The Democrats like to pretend this isn't a thing, though. Merely being written into the law of the land (2nd Amendment of Constitution, explained more fully in U.S. Code) means nothing to them. Feelings and emotions of left leaning activist judges means everything.
Does anyone know what happens at age 46 as a male in the United States? Lets say I am 46 but find myself in a Kyle like situation...would that actually work against my defense then?
See how fast the fake news spreads propaganda? All over Facebook and Instagram I saw old friends, coworkers, and other random people write nasty posts about this Hero and how he crossed state lines and wasn’t legally allowed to own the gun.
this is actually the law under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute
How could minors hunt in Wisconsin if it's illegal for them to possess a rifle? They couldn't. No way these charges stick. That law only applies to SHORT-BARRELED rifles, not long guns.
The charged Kyle up the ass so they can drag it out for months and months.
Got to remember Kyle's case was a very very public display of self-defense. If he was rightfully let go that message would have been blasted across America.
"You have the legal right to defend yourself if you are endangered".
They have to stop that message for as long as possible. Even to the point, they are clearly going to get sued for millions of dollars. Just off the back of holding him for that long without justification.
It's 1000% political. Which in itself is a disgusting display of the justice system.
So glad I live in a small town in a red state and am well known by local police and the 'local system' in general for being a stand up dude. Doesnt mean if SHTF and I have to blast some commies a state charge wont happen though.
If this case goes to trial and he wins, which he will without a doubt, recent precedent will be set and everyone will be able to show up with a gun with less fear of the Marxist judges trying to take them down.
The Democrats want to send a message: if you don't lay down and let the violent mob assault or kill you, you will face charges. They want self-defense to be illegal.
Isn't it weird how the same people who say "defund the police" are the same people who want to loot, burn down your house, and kill you? Strange coincidence!
"under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute.”
Of course it's irrelevant to this charge. I'm not suggesting the should be charged and as a matter of fact, the charges current on him are erroneous, politically driven and should be dropped immediately.
Someone from Illinois, please educate me. If I’m an Illinois resident, and I cross state lines to buy a firearm, aren’t I still subject to the laws of my home state? Illinois laws are ID card, background check, and 72 hour waiting period.
I’m asking for real here, guys. I’m fixing to go to Wisconsin if you tell me what I want to hear.
Buying a firearm has different rules than simply possessing a firearm.
Buying one entails compliance with various federal laws. Kyle was simply loaned one, by someone in WI. As long as he wasn't prohibited from possession by federal law (he wasn't), WI state laws apply.
Yes. I live in IL and when I buy long guns in Indiana I have to wait 3 days. Pistols have to be shipped to an Illinois based ffl. Foid cards are even required to purchase ammo out of state.
Thanks, buddy. That’s what I thought. I’m still trying to figure out how I feel about this whole situation. Yes I think it was self defense, but I wish the lawfulness of him having a firearm was less controversial, because it just gives more fuel to the fire.
These are just show charges for a show trial. Anyone who knows anything about criminal law knows this, whether or not they are willing to admit it.
So also a way for a citizen to lose money and freedom fighting the government's prejudice actions.
Almost, but it's less passive than that. This is a scam wherein crooked lawyers steal money from taxpayers to fund their lifestyle and whatever activist causes they chose. And also make the point that you should passively accept being shot if the elite decide you need to be shot.
So it's all good when all the Charges are Nullified, and Civil Action demanding Compensation is brought against the Municipal Entity of Kenosha, agreed?
As in Kyle Sues for Wrongful Prosecution, and Injury, and wins, also ending this Prosecutor's Career.
Expect it.
"Kyle Sues for Wrongful Prosecution"
Good luck with that. In modern America when the left wants to punish you the trial and process is the punishment whether you broke the law or not.
The facts of the case will be the facts of the case. It may take years, but I'll wager it won't go well for Kenosha, after his Acquittal, if the Charges aren't dropped before Trial.
the city I love wont tolerate this problem in the first place...but Alas...I do not live there yet...My City can go to hell
The process is the punishment
Remember this if Durham and Barr refuse to charge any of the top Obama people involved in the coup against Trump.
"The process is the punishment."
also gun law is really labyrinthine. In my state someone under 18 couldnt buy a rifle... but older law allowed transfers within immediate family. So; a kid could still have an AR if a parent gave it to them. Hardly anyone realized that including police. But that was the law....
That is a natural result of legislators who want to micromanage human behavior with stacks of laws.
The goal is to make sure you're always violating some obscure law, so that those who step out of line can be targeted via selective enforcement.
Honestly, what's the difference between "rule of a billion obscure laws you're always guilty of" and "rule of the arbitrary whims of a king"?
The Pharisees and Sadducees did the same thing.
They took the 10 Commandments and turned them into 613.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
Then they charged you for the right to bypass their impossible set of laws.
Sound familiar?
613 was for the entire Pentateuch, including all the dietary regulations and other religious laws.
^^...and the religiosity continues to this day!
Huh. So you're not saying it's the Juice.....But it's the Juice?
Haha, no that's not what I'm saying. I'm referring to your grand privledge of funding or paying for licenses etc to be allowed to simply operate in today's overregulated society.
Yes this here is such a problem. I have always tried so hard to stay rigidly on the line of legal, guns ammo etc. I have spent so much time and money educating myself and complying. And the laws are written to intentionally leave so much gray, that on any day you can be arrested on "interpretation" its such a huge problem.
--Ayn Rand
and this is the problem more than any other! it's by design, as most who have gone into political office over the last half century have served at some point or another as an attorney
if your government is made up of lawyers, the laws will soon be written only in legalese so that they can enrich themselves and their brothers and sisters by ensuring if you don't want to go to jail for violating some bullshit directive, you need to hire a team of lawyers to translate the word salad for you into english.
complete bullshit
There's something deeply immoral about laws that govern average men written in a manner which is incomprehensible to the governed. Legalese is not English. If it were, it wouldn't require a specialized dictionary. We may as well be ruled by laws written in latin or chinese.
Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite.
"Also gun law is... always unconstitutional." FTFY
His lawyer is actually just being a good lawyer and bending the truth with specific hunting law exceptions about 16 year olds that don't apply here. It wasn't legal for him to carry a long gun, you must be 18. Pg 5 second paragraph. But who cares. That's going to get tossed with the rest of the bullshit charges against this hero.
You're wrong. Exceptions exist for rifles and shotguns. Read the relevant laws.
Look through my post history.
The exception applies only for those "in compliance with" the the hunting law statute. Which means he had to actively be on a hunt with an adult or undergoing instruction. Or 16, 17 who have "obtained" a WI hunting license. Going armed under any other circumstances not in compliance with the hunting/practice regs means the exception no longer applies. It is a temporary and situational exception that expires. He wasn't hunting or accompanied by the "responsible adult" or licensed, so he was not "in compliance" with the exception.
Don't downvote the ignorant, educate them.
To the commenter: read it again.
There are two exceptions, 29.304:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304
and 29.593:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
29.304 only applies to people under age 16. But note that it contains clauses for both:
Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm
Restrictions on hunting
Now, go look at 29.593. It only contains:
Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
For age 16 and 17, there are no restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. It only requires the certificate for hunting.
Where did you read that in 29.593?
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
948.60 section 3 exempts rifles and shotguns (that are not short barreled) from "firearms" prohibited to those under 18, IF and only IF they are "in compliance" with the hunting regs. You're right though that 29.593 cited in section 3 wouldn't mean they have to have the actual hunting approval (license), just that they meet one of the requirements to obtain one. Unfortunately the likely out-of-state qualifications Kyle might have seem kind of discretionary as to their acceptance... So 16-17 year olds have to be "in compliance" with eligibility requirements for obtaining a hunting license for the long gun exception to apply.
Maybe Kyle might meet requirements, and his lawyer can certainly stretch that possibility after the fact, but he's certainly not explicitly "in compliance" with what we know. It's safe to say the law, infringement it may be, is certainly intended to prohibit non-hunters under 18 from open carry.
Go to 3c. The firearms thing under 3a won't need to apply because merely hitting 16 gets Kyle out of 948.60
In my state the DEC law is incorporated into the CPL - for instance the ban on loaded shotguns and rifles in a car is only written in the hunting admin law but enforced in cities where no hunting even exists.
Yeah, you've a vice versa of this case where a loophole was added by republicans for supervised or qualified young shooters to be exempted from a democrat infringement. In your example the democrats salted your hunting laws with poison pills like a loaded gun in car ban that can be exploited elsewhere. That's what passes for "compromise".
948.60 section 3c "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if.. (it is short barreled) ..or not in compliance with ss. 29.304(under 16 supervised hunting/practice) and 29.593 (meets requirement to obtain hunters license)."
So anyone 16-17 has to meet 29.593 requirement (compliance) to gain section 3c exemption of long barreled rifles and shotguns from the 948.60(2a) under 18 firearm prohibition.
question: If it's about needing to have a certain proof of eligibility to obtain hunting approval, but you're not hunting in the first place or trying to obtain approval, then how are you not in compliance?
Yeah, I’m gonna listen to the lawyer over a random internet guy. Thanks though.
You're wrong
I broke this down with other lawyer pedes regarding the possession by a minor.
I understand your confusion, someone helped me out with it too.
https://thedonald.win/p/GvTrsNq5/x/c/16ZE9Gufd0?d=50
No the law is not silent on 16-17 year olds. It says they have to "obtain" a WI hunting license to furthermore hunt or carry their firearm unsupervised. So anyone not hunting with or undergoing instruction with an adult, or with a hunting license is not actively "in compliance" with the hunting law exception. The exception to the general under 18 rule is entirely contingent on having obtained a hunting license or being under 16 with a responsible adult.
So essentially a WI hunting license is almost, but not quite, a long-gun open carry license for 16-17 year olds.
You're completely ignoring part 3.
Which says none of it applies unless it's an sbr.
The hunting section doesn't even enter the argument
No section three exempts rifles and shotguns from "firearms" unless it is short barreled, or unless the person is not actively "in compliance" with the hunting law, which means hunting license or adult supervision.
Basically no hunting law "compliance" no exemption.
Read 3c. You're being lazy in reading the statute
Betcha he's got one
I think the lawyer would have said.
it would be smart - i have never hunted in my life but i have my hunting license as it covers me for more situations under the law when it comes to firearm "privileges"
If they have to "obtain" a WI hunting license in order to carry their firearm unsupervised, they wouldn't have to be actively hunting. All they would need is the license itself.
Even then, given that he was surrounded by other people (of which most if not all were over 18) who were doing the same thing he was, one could easily fulfill the requirement of supervision. Nowhere does the law state that a "responsible adult" must be the owner of the gun or be a person that was known by the subject prior to the incident invovling the gun.
You didn't read it. I already made it easy for you with a summary at bottom of the link.
Go to 3c of the statute then. It's not contingent. The exception eats the rule once you hit 16.
That's incorrect, Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun.
Kyle Rittenhouse was not carrying a handgun.
And WI law 948.60 "helpfully" infringes further on long guns under 18 if they aren't exempted by meeting specific hunting regulations.
948.60, 948.60(3)(c)(c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
941.28(1)(b)(b) “Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
note: Kyle Rittenhouse was carrying an AR-15, standard model average barrel length 16" and overall length 35".
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes.
§246. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Read the law more carefully. It ONLY applies to short-barreled rifles, not long guns.
No, you have it inverted, it prohibits short barrel. Will Chamberlain already did the live read legal review of WI possession laws.
You know they did a good job when even gun-loving, well intentioned 'Pedes can't agree on what the law is.
--MISSION CONSTITUTION OVERRIDE ACCOMPLISHED--
Wouldn't it be nice if the law was written clearly and concisely? Something along the lines of "The right of the people to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed." Something like that should be allot less confusing.
Don't be silly. That sounds like something old white men would have written.
Laws are written by politicians. And sometimes, they are written (and subsequently amended) in a way that is obtuse to avoid triggering opposition until it's too late. I've personally seen that happen in my state.
Other times, I think they are written to make work for their lawyer friends.
I can't give you enough updates this comment, something like 5280 would be appropriate
I think we're in agreement... the law only prohibits short-barrels, therefore Kyle was legal in possessing a long gun.
No there is only an exception on long guns for those actively "in compliance" with the hunting law, those under 16 hunting or under instruction with an adult, or 16 & 17 year olds who
have "obtained"(are eligible for) a WI hunter's license. No compliance, no exception.https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60/2/a
You are imagining words where there are none. Cite your specific texts.
Hmm, virtue vs virtue signaling. I think you should expand on this meme.
Oh yea, there's not a snowball's chance in hell that he could ever actually see jail time for the shooting of those 3 losers.
Can't wait for Chauvin to get exonerated, now I can't wait for Kyle to get exonerated too.
He's seeing jail time right now.
He's in custody.
He won't be convicted.
He'll bailout. Already tons of people donating for him to get released.
I love how the left is trying to find the smallest thing to make Kyle look bad while ignoring that he was attacked by grown ass men who all had criminal records, who were trying to burn a town down in the middle of a riot while police sat around with their thumbs up their butts.
It doesnt matter that Blake was a convicted rapist who stole the victim's keys and was violating a restraining order who then resisted arrest and reached into his car for a weapon! He still shouldnt have been shot!
It doesnt matter that Kyle was there to defend businesses and supply medical help to anyone that needed when he got attacked by a mob of armed felons rioting and burning things! He shouldnt have shot! Also he crossed state line!
Yup, he crossed the state line to get to his lifeguard job - earlier that day. /s
can't save a life across state lines!!! errybody knows that!
We know why crossing state lines is really an issue. That's all I needed to know!
Clown world
When BLM rioters cross state lines in buses loaded with riot gear - silence
To the left in Kyle's case: Self defense or not he shouldn't have had that weapon. This was murder. Period.
Also what they think: Jay Bishop tried to pepper spray someone because we say so. Illegal gun or not, the man was defending himself against Jay. This was justified. Period.
well, the left is okay with rioting because its seen as protesting... there are thousands of videos, tweets, posts, etc all expressing the sentiment that: "its just property, who cares. we're fighting for our LIVES! why do you care about a tv?"
Yup. Made the mistake of engaging with an Antifa clown that kept saying "they have insurance, why do you value property more than lives?" He also kept insisting that Antifa and BLM are peaceful movements and the riots are something else entirely.
After wasting time trying to rationalize with him that all the violence and arson is hurting his cause, I informed him that in New York State, you're legally allowed to use lethal force to stop someone trying to commit arson.
Didn't hear a response after that.
you cannot rationalize with residents of clown world
The guy I tried to rationalize with was clearly a fully indoctrinated 'true believer'. He honestly believes he's fighting fascists and that his cause is so above reproach that he doesn't need to question himself.
The mainstream media has blood on its hands.
That's the left, in a nutshell.
ive never encountered antifa types, but when i debate with people who HaTe ThE DrUmPf my question is always: "what policy do you disagree with?"
its amazing how fast you realize they have absolutely no clue what theyre talking about... and the bonus is... they realize it too.
Those people have no clue how a business works. The very fact they think insurance just fixes everything for instance. Much more lost than the building and material possessions.
But even for these clowns that have never built anything in their lives: will they let me smash their car windows because insurance will cover it? Where do we end up as a society if people can destroy whatever they want because 'insurance will cover it'? How can so many people be so brain dead that they don't see where that kind of thinking takes us?
Counter protest is to smash their(commies) shit and burn it. (Their anime posters and figurines) kek
Its ok! Its just stuff 😉 lol
Watch how fast they change their tune.
Also lost on them is that insurance is based on risk, and that reimbursement comes from premiums.
An insurance company doesn't print money to reimburse losses. It comes from insurance premiums, paid by every policy holder. So, you aren't stealing from the insurance company, you are stealing from every policy holder.
Also, depending on the policy, damage from insurrection or riot may be excluded from coverage.
These are people that have never had to sign the front of a check.
I value property more than lives. So does anyone here who agrees rioters burning down your homes and businesses should be shot.
At the same time, I’d save my family over my stuff in a fire. As long as they didn’t start the fire.... then I’d be in a bit of a pickle....
The reality is that not all lives hold the same amount of value to each person. Family and friends hold more value than property for most people. Enemies and aggressors on the other hand, hold less value than property to most people. Different people balance the equation differently, but it's quite hypocritical for Antifa goons to criticize people for valuing property over lives while in the same breath celebrating the death of someone who merely holds a different political philosophy and didn't destroy any of their property.
I wish I had a more organized brain like yours so I could say the things i mean without sounding like a dick
But I am kinda a dick, so I guess that’s part of the setup lol
Don't give me more credit than I deserve.
Made the mistake of reading through a Kyle thread over there. The place has really become cancer.
Become? It was always cancer, now it’s just malignant terminal 5 cancer (idk how many terminals there are and at this point I’m too afraid to ask)
Fighting (or simply defending) against the communist insurgency is terrorism to them. They would have rather Kyle ended up like Aaron Danielson.
Sad thing is most of them will never even know Aaron's name because it will not be reported. This is how they're able to live in their own reality. All they will remember is a "angry Trump supporter murdered 2 innocent people".
Reddit is full of morons who cant sift through the lies. They have no cognitive anything. No ability to do detective work.
They are all just “repeaters” of what they hear from their “Gods/Kings” they worship.
There is no saving them. They can only save themselves with the truth.
They never mention that the three people were white or white-adjacent. They just say BLM protestors so the audience assumes they are black. It’s obvious when you see how differently they use racial descriptions with different fact patterns.
The police were there in the area. They did fuck all just to keep an eye on such a large crowd of people.
Overall the police failed them all. But that's what the police chiefs and the Democrats what. They want blood on the streets and don't care where it comes from.
They actually created the situation for Kyle because they blocked him from retreating back to the business he was originally protecting. They forced him into the mob.
Do we know why they refused to let him back in?
Don't believe it was intentional, they had shut the street down. Seems the mob turned on him once he put out the dumpster fire.
"A 17-year old child should not have to take up arms in America to protect life and property. That is the job of state and local governments. However, those governments have failed, and law-abiding citizens have no choice but to protect their own communities as their forefathers did at Lexington and Concord in 1775," the law firm's founder, John Pierce, said in a statement."
This is why the 2'nd Amendment is so important.
Fucking exactly. It's not illegal to protect yourself or to defend property from arsonists.
Also, arson is a SERIOUS felony, so why aren't these protestors being tried for arson?
Not Retards: Facts don’t care about your feelings ballsack eyes
Retards: My feelings don't care about your facts.
Let's hope the retards don't gain all the power.
Lin Wood has yuge Wood believe me.
The fundamental charge against Rittenhouse is daring to defend himself against the violent Antifa/BLM rioters who sought to kill him instead of weakly submitting to the mob.
This is to be expected when the Marxist DA is in the bag for Antifa/BLM.
They think he should've let them beat him senseless and take his gun, cause you know, they are oppressed.
Even though all 3 attackers were felons and white
So now they have absolutely nothing.
We have to keep Kyle on our radar. They'll convict him easier if we let up
The police on the ground fucked up from the start and their actions should have voided to the whole thing. After Kyle presented himself to them they told him to go home.
He should have been held until it was clear what went down. They shouldn't have even asked him any questions until his lawyer was present.
He is being held atm in part because they fucked up both. His due process in the case was fucked from the start.
Racist Dems attacking a migrating gun just looking for a better life. Separating it from it's parent, putting it in a cage.
Self defense in WI has a "privilege clause" that allows you to use an illegal weapon in the case of perceived harm to self or property. So even if they tried to ram through that Kyle was possessing an illegal weapon or under age they already lose by default of the privilege clause.
On bad thing I haven't seen mentioned on TDW is any mention of the video where Kyle is punching the girl in the face. Even saints have sins in their past and sadly this will come out.
He was defending a small girl (allegedly and allegedly his sister) from a larger girl that was the aggressor and got jumped for it. The video is cut and out of context.
Fuck off back to Reddit with your false narrative. Its over there to the left.
Calm your tits. Can you think of a more gentle way I could have broke this news to you? Find a kitten and fuck off back to your safe space.
LMAO Im not the one spreading fake news like WHAT 'BOUT WHEN HE PUNCH A GIRL LETS ALL BE CONCERNED
what a faggot 🤣😂🤣
Calm down snowflake. Cross your legs and sit on your hands while the adults discuss this.
You’re wasting your time trying to get under my skin, nerd. Good to know I got you right in the tendies though. 😉
Cry harder
Bots gonna bot
A short video out of context doesn't prove anything. If Kyle was acting in defense of someone else and shutting down a violent bully, then hitting a girl could make sense.
And even if Kyle was in the wrong on another occasion, that means precisely zilch for this well documented self defense situation.
I didn't mention it to detract from his being 100% correct for using his 2nd ammendment rights for his self defense. I'm surprised you can't see how it can be used against him. Were you being serious about that part?
I could be wrong, however it seems like if his defense does their job, the well documented circumstances of his self defense incident in Kenosha should not be affected by the other video. If he acted correctly and appropriately under the well documented threatening circumstances, then the general presumption of innocence must stand.
What do you think, pede? How do you see them spinning it?
I see them spinning it just like every single politically charged event. That being they will dig into his past to extract the flimsiest negative points they can find. "Oh my God! The pediatrician said that the second he was out of the womb he was punching, kicking and biting, as if it were the devil himself!"
It shows he's capable of violence for a very minor infraction.
I'm away from the house and don't have it saved to my mobile. It's clearly him, right down to his red, white and blue crocs. He's the aggressor and it's definitely not in self defense or in defense of her.
As I mentioned, I didn't post it to argue. Don't shoot the jukebox because the song made you cry.
What the fuck are you talking about? Two females are already fighting when he comes in.
You're a huge faggot.
The assailants shot first, he turned to track where the shot was coming from and saw a crazed lunatic charging him from behind. Self defense was warranted considering the various videos we've seen of people being beaten mercilessly by violent mobs.
I think you're replying to the wrong person. I have always been in the opinion of Kyle firing in self defense and showing amazing restraint. I've got zero doubt of his use of the constitutional rights in carrying a weapon and in his right to defend himself.
Equal rights...and lefts my man.
I'm not judging him. I had reservations about even mentioning it knowing full well that regardless of how tenderly the video was mentioned people would still be pissed off at the messenger.
Ok well Reddit is over there far off to the left; that seems to be more your speed so bye now
Sorry I hurt your fee fees.
Could you possibly be any more of a catch phrase spewing NPC 🤣
Can you link the video?
https://youtu.be/hgJL1ZH6lXg
Looks like that other girl was instigating things but he should have clearly tried to break it up not punch anyone, especially a girl.
Agreed.
If a girl is starting shit and especially a fight, shes fair game to get fucking smacked.
Remember, they want equality, we're gonna give it to them! Equal lefts and rights
When I get home. I think it was called "Kyle Rittenhouse punching girl" or something like that.
There are no illegal guns, just undocumented ones
Sandmann 2.0
Sue the shit out of every media outlet that slandered you Kyle!
You know that is coming. Sandman II
This is something that a lot of people are not aware of, but this is actually the law under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute.”
This right here is correct. The Democrats like to pretend this isn't a thing, though. Merely being written into the law of the land (2nd Amendment of Constitution, explained more fully in U.S. Code) means nothing to them. Feelings and emotions of left leaning activist judges means everything.
Does anyone know what happens at age 46 as a male in the United States? Lets say I am 46 but find myself in a Kyle like situation...would that actually work against my defense then?
Oh yeah, duh. I had my blinders on there for a second.
No. It would still be self defense.
See how fast the fake news spreads propaganda? All over Facebook and Instagram I saw old friends, coworkers, and other random people write nasty posts about this Hero and how he crossed state lines and wasn’t legally allowed to own the gun.
Turns out it was all bs.
Like usual.
Like every time.
The logic was hilarious. He crossed state lines therefore has no right to self defense!!1
My favorite part of that is that there isn't even a fucking law against doing that.
this is actually the law under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute
Holy shit that's next level.
"It always has been"
I'm over 45. I hope they take volunteers.
How could minors hunt in Wisconsin if it's illegal for them to possess a rifle? They couldn't. No way these charges stick. That law only applies to SHORT-BARRELED rifles, not long guns.
Perfect. USA is the best. We can't lose this country to the Marxist globalist commie fascists. Last country standing. Trump 2020.
The charged Kyle up the ass so they can drag it out for months and months.
Got to remember Kyle's case was a very very public display of self-defense. If he was rightfully let go that message would have been blasted across America.
"You have the legal right to defend yourself if you are endangered".
They have to stop that message for as long as possible. Even to the point, they are clearly going to get sued for millions of dollars. Just off the back of holding him for that long without justification.
It's 1000% political. Which in itself is a disgusting display of the justice system.
So glad I live in a small town in a red state and am well known by local police and the 'local system' in general for being a stand up dude. Doesnt mean if SHTF and I have to blast some commies a state charge wont happen though.
This is so important of a case. This may be the landmark case for the militia as well. If we stand a chance to fight back, he has to win this case.
If this case goes to trial and he wins, which he will without a doubt, recent precedent will be set and everyone will be able to show up with a gun with less fear of the Marxist judges trying to take them down.
Somebody please tell him its a firearm, not a weapon.
Or a rifle.
I can't wait for the movie.
He's innocent. But will be targeted by commies for at least 40 years. Imagine trying to get a burger or wings and you have to worry about commies...
Wow, well written article.
The Democrats want to send a message: if you don't lay down and let the violent mob assault or kill you, you will face charges. They want self-defense to be illegal.
Isn't it weird how the same people who say "defund the police" are the same people who want to loot, burn down your house, and kill you? Strange coincidence!
So the Kenosha kid will walk!
Nice!
Boom!
The DA needs to be made into a human pinata for this malicious prosecution
DAMN, Isnt this what i have been saying?
We should also have a go fund me page for the guy that Kyle borrowed the rifle from. He is bound to lose his rifle either way. I'll chip in $20
Fuck go fund me. Commie pieces of shit. Get him money some other way.
They would cancel the account anyway
DAs need to be held accountable for treason against their own country
I think the DA was planning on forcing him him plead down on a possession charge or something, but they don't even have that now. Get fucked lib scum.
Most important takeaway:
"under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute.”
"Fuck juries n laws n shit" -Liberals
Oh shit. I am gonna trigger some people wholesale with this.
Can they still Open carry that young?
This was a rifle. Long guns are subject to different restrictions than pistols and other short-barreled weapons
Dammit I didn’t get to see it! 😂😂
IMPRESSIVE LENGTH
Well, now what are the lefties going to cry about?
The guns owner lives in Wisconsin and the gun never left Wisconsin. Kyle was allowed by it's owner to borrow it. Which, is perfectly legal.
I do feel sorry for the taxpayers that are going to have to foot this bill, because it's going to be a massive settlement.
Considering how long they are planning to hold Kyle. Very big settlement.
It's really no loose to them personally in the long run.
Woah we’re part of the U.S. Militia?
I really need to buy an AR-15 now.
Of course it's irrelevant to this charge. I'm not suggesting the should be charged and as a matter of fact, the charges current on him are erroneous, politically driven and should be dropped immediately.
So then there should be a motion or whatever to have all charges dropped and a countersuit, right? On top of a shitton of defamation suits.
(I'm totally not a lawyer, know nothing about criminal justice but curious as to how this will develop.)
BTFO
GO HOME TO MOMMY.
Someone from Illinois, please educate me. If I’m an Illinois resident, and I cross state lines to buy a firearm, aren’t I still subject to the laws of my home state? Illinois laws are ID card, background check, and 72 hour waiting period.
I’m asking for real here, guys. I’m fixing to go to Wisconsin if you tell me what I want to hear.
Buying a firearm has different rules than simply possessing a firearm.
Buying one entails compliance with various federal laws. Kyle was simply loaned one, by someone in WI. As long as he wasn't prohibited from possession by federal law (he wasn't), WI state laws apply.
Yes. I live in IL and when I buy long guns in Indiana I have to wait 3 days. Pistols have to be shipped to an Illinois based ffl. Foid cards are even required to purchase ammo out of state.
Thanks, buddy. That’s what I thought. I’m still trying to figure out how I feel about this whole situation. Yes I think it was self defense, but I wish the lawfulness of him having a firearm was less controversial, because it just gives more fuel to the fire.
The second guy to respond to you has the correct answer regarding the legality of possession. He did not buy a gun in WI.
Ordered a shirt with the image of Kyle and " Fucked around and found out". 😉