Andrew Branca explains why the gun possession charge against Rittenhouse needs to go....

[2aguy]

Andrew Branca over at Legal Insurrection used his Law of Self Defense Podcast to explain why the gun possession charge against Rittenhouse needs to be dismissed...

He goes through it in detail.......

The first part of the law states you are in violation if you are under 18, possess an object, and that object is a weapon...

However,

The rest of the law states that for the above to actually apply, the following two parts must also exist..

1) you have to be hunting

2) you have to be under 16....

Rittenhouse did not meet either one of those, so as the law states..without those, the first part doesn't count......he wasn't hunting, and he is 17.....

This is why the law is a mess and is likely unConstitutionally vague.....and why the gun charge needs to be dismissed.

He goes through this in about 17 minutes

Here is the post at Law of Self Defense....

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions​

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge: Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under §948.60(a)(2). This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle’s claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge. There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply here—it would not, for reasons I’ll explain below.)

The relevant part of §948.60 reads:

(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it’s pretty much an open and shut conviction. He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon (“dangerous weapon” means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, §948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to §948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

1. The defendant possessed an object.
2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” It does not read “ss. 29.304 or29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range. And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

The State’s counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled §948.60 “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18,” so they must have meant some application to “persons under 18.” After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at something—and therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State’s argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain, because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz! Really, it’s ridiculous—and ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse & Why No Necessity Defense – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

 

[pknopp]

Being the age of 17 simply means he isn't dealt with in juvenile court.

 

[Canon Shooter]

The first part of the law states you are in violation if you are under 18, possess an object, and that object is a weapon...

However,

The rest of the law states that for the above to actually apply, the following two parts must also exist..

1) you have to be hunting

2) you have to be under 16....

Rittenhouse did not meet either one of those, so as the law states..without those, the first part doesn't count......he wasn't hunting, and he is 17.....

This is why the law is a mess and is likely unConstitutionally vague.....and why the gun charge needs to be dismissed.

That's not even close to what the law says.

The law says that someone under 18 can possess a firearm if they're hunting or being supervised by an adult in a firearms course of instruction (think safety class).

Rittenhouse was under the age of 18, he was not engaged in some training course and he wasn't hunting.

He should not have possessed that weapon. Period.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Oh for the love of whomever, none of what he wrote refutes the following because Kyle admitted he armed himself for his own protection, not because he was going hunting. And isn't there a statute against carrying a prohibited firearm across state lines or something? I haven't bothered watching the trial specifically because of all of the gaslighting going on.

Disqualification Based on Age
Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from
possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions
for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited
from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21
years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon. [ss. 29.304 and
948.60, Stats.]
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2018/im_2018_02

 

[Coyote]

Rittenhouse may well be found to have acted in self defense, but his behavior that night is exactly why a very immature 17 yr old is not allowed to be armed outside of specific circumstances.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

5 year olds should be able to walk around town with loaded, 30 round magazine, AR15s.

 

[2aguy]

That's not even close to what the law says.

The law says that someone under 18 can possess a firearm if they're hunting or being supervised by an adult in a firearms course of instruction (think safety class).

Rittenhouse was under the age of 18, he was not engaged in some training course and he wasn't hunting.

He should not have possessed that weapon. Period.

No...it doesn't.....as Branca goes through in his analysis....you know, the expert in Self defense law...

 

[2aguy]

Oh for the love of whomever, none of what he wrote refutes the following because Kyle admitted he armed himself for his own protection, not because he was going hunting. And isn't there a statute against carrying a prohibited firearm across state lines or something? I haven't bothered watching the trial specifically because of all of the gaslighting going on.

Disqualification Based on Age
Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from
possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions
for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited
from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21
years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon. [ss. 29.304 and
948.60, Stats.]
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2018/im_2018_02

The statute and the qualifiers are in the first post...please reread that post...then read it again...

 

[2aguy]

Oh for the love of whomever, none of what he wrote refutes the following because Kyle admitted he armed himself for his own protection, not because he was going hunting. And isn't there a statute against carrying a prohibited firearm across state lines or something? I haven't bothered watching the trial specifically because of all of the gaslighting going on.

Disqualification Based on Age
Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from
possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions
for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited
from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21
years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon. [ss. 29.304 and
948.60, Stats.]
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/misc/lc/information_memos/2018/im_2018_02

Again...

§948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

1. The defendant possessed an object.
2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” It does not read “ss. 29.304 or29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range. And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

 

[Canon Shooter]

No...it doesn't.....as Branca goes through in his analysis....you know, the expert in Self defense law...

Never heard of him...

 

[OKTexas]

Andrew Branca over at Legal Insurrection used his Law of Self Defense Podcast to explain why the gun possession charge against Rittenhouse needs to be dismissed...

He goes through it in detail.......

The first part of the law states you are in violation if you are under 18, possess an object, and that object is a weapon...

However,

The rest of the law states that for the above to actually apply, the following two parts must also exist..

1) you have to be hunting

2) you have to be under 16....

Rittenhouse did not meet either one of those, so as the law states..without those, the first part doesn't count......he wasn't hunting, and he is 17.....

This is why the law is a mess and is likely unConstitutionally vague.....and why the gun charge needs to be dismissed.

He goes through this in about 17 minutes

Here is the post at Law of Self Defense....

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions​

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge: Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under §948.60(a)(2). This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle’s claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge. There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply here—it would not, for reasons I’ll explain below.)

The relevant part of §948.60 reads:

(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it’s pretty much an open and shut conviction. He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon (“dangerous weapon” means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, §948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to §948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

1. The defendant possessed an object.
2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” It does not read “ss. 29.304 or29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range. And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

The State’s counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled §948.60 “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18,” so they must have meant some application to “persons under 18.” After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at something—and therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State’s argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain, because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz! Really, it’s ridiculous—and ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse & Why No Necessity Defense – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

§948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child

Can they still claim he's a child while trying him as an adult?

.

 

[Rigby5]

Andrew Branca over at Legal Insurrection used his Law of Self Defense Podcast to explain why the gun possession charge against Rittenhouse needs to be dismissed...

He goes through it in detail.......

The first part of the law states you are in violation if you are under 18, possess an object, and that object is a weapon...

However,

The rest of the law states that for the above to actually apply, the following two parts must also exist..

1) you have to be hunting

2) you have to be under 16....

Rittenhouse did not meet either one of those, so as the law states..without those, the first part doesn't count......he wasn't hunting, and he is 17.....

This is why the law is a mess and is likely unConstitutionally vague.....and why the gun charge needs to be dismissed.

He goes through this in about 17 minutes

Here is the post at Law of Self Defense....

Ambiguous Gun Charge & Treacherous Jury Instructions​

That still leaves Kyle, however, with one remaining charge: Count 6, the possession of a dangerous weapon by a person-under-18 charge, under §948.60(a)(2). This is a mere misdemeanor charge, and if convicted Kyle is punishable by up to 9 months in jail (presumably lessened by any time served prior to trial).

This gun charge has, indeed, become a sticky wicket, largely because of the alleged ambiguity created by the Wisconsin legislature in drafting that statute, by the failure of the relevant Wisconsin Criminal Jury Instructions to accurately reflect the plain statutory language, and by the fecklessness of the prosecution in this case.

Also, because Kyle’s claim of self-defense, compelling against the felony charges against him, is irrelevant as a defense to this particular misdemeanor charge. There is no self-defense justification for willfully violating a gun possession law. (Some of you may be thinking that an excuse defense of necessity or lesser harms might apply here—it would not, for reasons I’ll explain below.)

The relevant part of §948.60 reads:

(2)(a) (a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

If that was the only statutory language that applies to Kyle, it’s pretty much an open and shut conviction. He was admittedly under 18, and he was in possession of an AR-15 style rifle, which certainly qualifies under Wisconsin law as a dangerous weapon (“dangerous weapon” means any firearm, per section (1) of that same statute, §948.60).

Indeed, the jury instruction that has been drafted with respect to §948.60(a)(2)—2176 Possession of a Dangerous Weapon by a Child—and specifically reflects this apparent simplicity of construction, defining for the jury the elements that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find guilt:

1. The defendant possessed an object.
2. The object was a dangerous weapon.
3. The defendant had not attained the age of 18 years at the time (he) (she) allegedly possessed a dangerous weapon.

Again, if this is the entire analysis of guilt, Kyle’s would seem a pretty open-and-shut case. He was in possession of an object, the object qualifies as a dangerous weapon, and he had not attained the age of 18 years.

But that is not the entire legal analysis. There is more, and it is found later in that same statute §948.60, in paragraph (3)(c). That section reads in relevant part:

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

So, what are §29.304 and §29.593?

The second of those, §29.593 sets out the conditions that must be met to be certified to engage in certain hunting activities. With respect to these conditions the State correctly points out that Kyle has not met any of these conditions—and therefore, they argue, Kyle is “not in compliance” with §29.593.

The first defense counter-argument here could be that that §29.593 applies to hunting activities, and Kyle was not engaged in hunting activities, and therefore §29.593 ought not apply to his circumstances at all.

Perhaps a stronger counter-argument, however, is that the plain reading of §948.60(3)(c) says it applies only “if the person is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.” It does not read “ss. 29.304 or29.593.”

So, even if Kyle can be said to be “not in compliance” with §29.593, was he also “not in compliance” with §29.304?

If we take a closer look at §29.304, we see that it is also a hunting-related statute, but one that involves restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

Wait a minute—how can Kyle be “not in compliance” with a statute that applies only to “persons under 16 years of age”? He was, after all, 17 years old at the time of these events.

Well, that’s precisely the position of the defense here. They argue that Kyle is legally exempt from the provisions of §29.304, period, because he falls outside the statute’s age range. And if he’s exempt, he can’t be “not in compliance.”

And if he can’t be “not in compliance with ss. 29.304,” he is exempt from §948.60(a)(2) “unlawful possession of a dangerous weapon because of the requirement of paragraph §948.60(3)(c), which on the facts of this case would require non-compliance with §29.304.

The State’s counter-argument to this plain reading of the statutory language is that, well, the legislature titled §948.60 “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18,” so they must have meant some application to “persons under 18.” After all, Kyle was admittedly under 18 at the time of these events

We may not understand exactly what the legislature was trying to get at, the State is arguing, but surely they were getting at something—and therefore we should ignore the plain statutory language, and subject Kyle to criminal sanction under this statute.

In effect, the State’s argument here is, pay no attention to the plain reading of the statutory language behind the curtain, because I am the great and powerful ADA Oz! Really, it’s ridiculous—and ridiculous ought have no role in a court of law where criminal sanctions and personal liberty are at stake.

The Injustice of the Gun Charge Against Kyle Rittenhouse & Why No Necessity Defense – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

Totally and completely wrong.

First of all, if the law making it illegal for a minor to be in possession of a firearm meant only short barreled rifles, it would have said so from the first sentence.
Subsection 3(c) at the very end would not be an appropriate place for such an important detail, if that is what was meant.

But it clearly is NOT what is meant.
It clearly means that a short barrel is allowed if hunting and in possession of a valid hunting license.
But Kyle was not hunting or with a valid hunting license, is not eligible for any of subsection 3(c).

To be eligible for this exception, had to be in compliance with 29.593, meaning he was hunting and had a valid hunting license.

Since he did not, he was clearly guilty.
As a WI native who has hunted there as a minor, I know this law very well, and so does any WI resident who hunts.
The judge clearly needs to be removed from the bench.

 

[Rigby5]

Can they still claim he's a child while trying him as an adult?

.

Yes, because he is an adult now and still does not repudiate his illegal and dangerous actions.

 

[Rigby5]

(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 … not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

So, unless Kyle was “not in compliance” with §29.304 and §29.593, the §948.60 gun possession statute would seem to not apply to him at all—that is, he would be legally exempt from the provisions of §948.60 entirely.

Wrong entirely.
Since Kyle was NOT in compliance, with 29.593, which required him to be hunting and with a valid hunting license, then he was guilty as charged.

 

[Rigby5]

Yes, because he is an adult now and still does not repudiate his illegal and dangerous actions.

Technically you to not incarcerate for what someone has done, because you can not change the past.
Instead you incarcerate for what they could do in the future, as a deterrent.
Clearly Kyle is a clear and present danger to society as a whole, since he would do dangerous and provocative things like carrying a rifle to a political event.

 

[2aguy]

Wrong entirely.
Since Kyle was NOT in compliance, with 29.593, which required him to be hunting and with a valid hunting license, then he was guilty as charged.

Please…..you have to immediately get on the phone and contact all of the defense lawyers, all of the prosecution lawyers, amd the judge so you can explain to them….you know….the professional lawyers with years of legal experience amd the judge, with decades on the bench…….how you are right and they are wrong……..

even the democrat party prosecution lawyers had to admit the law allowed him to have the rifle after they finally measured the rifle in court……..

You need to get help…….Rittenhouse Syndrome is destroying your brain….

 

[2aguy]

Technically you to not incarcerate for what someone has done, because you can not change the past.
Instead you incarcerate for what they could do in the future, as a deterrent.
Clearly Kyle is a clear and present danger to society as a whole, since he would do dangerous and provocative things like carrying a rifle to a political event.

Do you understand that people have been bringing rifles…openly…..to political events,for years now? And only when democrat party terrorists have attacked innocent people at these events…like the blm supporter who killed 6 police officers in Dallas amd the democrat party blmantifa terrorists who burned amd looted black and minority businesses in Kenosha has anyone been shot?

The march in Dallas was filled with people open carrying AR-15 rifles….many of them black guys…….and the only one shooting people was the blm supporter who murdered 6 police officers…….

 

[Rigby5]

Please…..you have to immediately get on the phone and contact all of the defense lawyers, all of the prosecution lawyers, amd the judge so you can explain to them….you know….the professional lawyers with years of legal experience amd the judge, with decades on the bench…….how you are right and they are wrong……..

even the democrat party prosecution lawyers had to admit the law allowed him to have the rifle after they finally measured the rifle in court……..

You need to get help…….Rittenhouse Syndrome is destroying your brain….

Obviously the defense lawyer is expected to lie, and the prosecution clearly was trying to throw the case from the beginning.
The only surprise is that the judge turned out to be either so stupid or racist? Can't tell which.

I grew up in WI, was an NRA member, passed the test for CCW in WI, etc., so I know WI gun law very well.
And clearly it is illegal for a minor to be in possession while not covered by a valid exception.
If this statute was about short barreled firearms, it would have to say so at the beginning.
The way laws have to be written, is as you go down to smaller subsections, the range, scope, and effect has to be less.
And basically the subsection 3(c) is just saying that the basic principle has an exception for a minor hunting with a valid hunting license.

Kyle could not even legally buy the rifle, much less own or possess it.
His mother would have not allowed it, and he was illegally hiding it at the Black residence.
Black is also being charged for the illegal straw purchase.

 

[Rigby5]

Do you understand that people have been bringing rifles…openly…..to political events,for years now? And only when democrat party terrorists have attacked innocent people at these events…like the blm supporter who killed 6 police officers in Dallas amd the democrat party blmantifa terrorists who burned amd looted black and minority businesses in Kenosha has anyone been shot?

The march in Dallas was filled with people open carrying AR-15 rifles….many of them black guys…….and the only one shooting people was the blm supporter who murdered 6 police officers…….

It is not totally illegal to bring firearms to a political event, but very stupid and risky.
Just the chances of an accidental discharge alone is far too great.
When it is done en-mass, for political effect, I would bet all rifles have clips removed and chambers emptied.
Otherwise it should be illegal.

If a person is defending property, like the Korean grocers at the LA riots, they are deliberately intimidating rioters, but only about the one property, not about the whole riot.
But Kyle failed to do that.
Instead we was going from person to person in the riot, deliberately showing off his rifle, in order to deliberately counter the entire riot.
Which is totally and completely illegal.
Legally he should have been shot and killed for his illegal, deliberate intimidation with a lethal weapon.

His claim he was trying to render medical aid, was ridiculous.

 

[2aguy]

Obviously the defense lawyer is expected to lie, and the prosecution clearly was trying to throw the case from the beginning.
The only surprise is that the judge turned out to be either so stupid or racist? Can't tell which.

I grew up in WI, was an NRA member, passed the test for CCW in WI, etc., so I know WI gun law very well.
And clearly it is illegal for a minor to be in possession while not covered by a valid exception.
If this statute was about short barreled firearms, it would have to say so at the beginning.
The way laws have to be written, is as you go down to smaller subsections, the range, scope, and effect has to be less.
And basically the subsection 3(c) is just saying that the basic principle has an exception for a minor hunting with a valid hunting license.

Kyle could not even legally buy the rifle, much less own or possess it.
His mother would have not allowed it, and he was illegally hiding it at the Black residence.
Black is also being charged for the illegal straw purchase.

Yes....all of the professional lawyers and the judge are wrong........even the prosecution whose best hope was the weapon conviction..........