IMHO, The Wisconsin Attorney General Should Render An Opinion On The Legal Exception That Allowed Kyle Rittenhouse To Avoid a Gun Charge

[Concerned American]

From what I know about state AG opinions, they can only be requested from someone with "standing" such as a Wisconsin state legislature or someone else within state government. I don't believe I can make the request of any of the Legislature since I'm not a Wisconsin resident but I think it would be a good thing, either way, because what I've read thus far indicates that the exception that Kyle's defense used to get the judge to dismiss the gun charge in actuality originated as an "exception" to the hunting exception. If that is true, then it should not have been applicable to the charge that was dismissed.

Even if the WI AG determines it is not solely applicable to the hunting exception, at least there would be more clarity than we have now. I read just today that students where Kyle is enrolled online want him banned from campus and his enrollment revoked.

There are anti-gun people who sincerely would have preferred that instead of defending his life with the firearm in his possession that he had ended up on the losing end. Then there are other pro second amendment people who will support certain people's right to to use lethal force to defend not just their own lives, but the lives of others and in some cases, property among other tangible/non-tangible things.

I fall in the middle and prefer clarity, consistency and fairness in the rendering of "justice" and admit that Kyle having lied about being a EMT and that he was there is Wisconsin to volunteer his services as an EMT demonstrates to me an appalling character flaw and disconnect from reality regarding the type of person he truly is that everyone just seemed to look the other way on.

Research Guides: Historical Resources for U.S. and State Law: Attorney General Opinions

The judge already ruled. Who cares what the AG thinks.

 

[Concerned American]

There's nothing wrong with the law. You just want to make it illegal for people to defend themselves from leftist attackers.

She didn't get her pound of flesh so she wants to see if she can get an ounce or two from an innocent.

 

[Esdraelon]

It just would be nice if the legal eagles in the WI State legislature would ask the AG what the legislators originally wanted and meant when they wrote that exception for the barrel length of the firearm instead of making people guess.

The BATF defines what a Short Barreled Rifle is. It's done at the federal level and states do not have the authority to get around that definition.

Short-barreled rifle. A rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length, and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

To legally possess one of these requires a more rigorous background investigation as well as an extra expense for the "tax stamp". It's an extra 200 dollars, IIRC. There was nothing confusing about the definition. The issue arose because in their haste to bring a political prosecution, they didn't pay attention to the charges as carefully as they should.

 

[daveman]

The prosecutor wasn’t conversant even with some basic mandatory constitutional commands properly imposed on the prosecution.

If there's one defining trait of leftists, it's incompetence. They can't do a fucking thing right.

 

[BackAgain]

If there's one defining trait of leftists, it's incompetence. They can't do a fucking thing right.

The far left hates the right. Thus, they choose wrong.

 

[Abatis]

The BATF defines what a Short Barreled Rifle is. It's done at the federal level and states do not have the authority to get around that definition.

Short-barreled rifle. A rifle having one or more barrels less than 16 inches in length, and any weapon made from a rifle, whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise, if such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches.

To legally possess one of these requires a more rigorous background investigation as well as an extra expense for the "tax stamp". It's an extra 200 dollars, IIRC. There was nothing confusing about the definition. The issue arose because in their haste to bring a political prosecution, they didn't pay attention to the charges as carefully as they should.

But there are millions of AR-15's chambered in rifle calibers, all with barrels under 16 inches and an overall lengths under 26 inches in circulation, but are NOT SBR's, they are designated as a pistol. This is because they were not designed to be fired from the shoulder and/or with two hands. This is how the "brace" became legal; not a stock, just a "brace" for the shooter's forearm.

The ATF is currently reviewing the design of many braces that are in the public domain and sold under the presumption they were, and would remain, legal. The "designed to be fired from the shoulder" is the subjective criteria. Another consideration along those lines is the installation of a vertical foregrip, that seemingly benign accessory automatically makes a pistol into an SBR in need of NFA registration.

So with all the variables, the ATF is developing a scoring system that will determine if a firearm, even if it meets the basic exclusionary requirements, would need to be NFA registered. The most controversial is grading the design of the optics one puts on the gun; as scored now, any optic with short eye relief and/or magnification will make the gun an SBR, needing NFA registration.

You can be certain, if the proposed rules go through, it is going to be a royal convoluted shitshow for people who own AR or AK pistols, you will never know if you are 100% legal (NFA registration not required).