Black man shot in Kenosha, riots starting all over again...

[T.Lex]

chip - I might be able to explain this better if I stepped through your consecutive gifting scenario in a way that would avoid the straw purchase problem.

Let's say you need a car. I have a beat up Mazda Miata that is worth $1k. We're friends and you've helped me out in the past, so I give you the car. Worth $1k.

You use the car, but manage to get back on your feet and get your own car. You don't need the Miata so you sell it for $1k.

With that cash, you buy 2 ARs back when it was possible to get 2 ARs for $1k. You are so grateful that I helped you out, you give me one of the ARs. You could even keep possession of it, but we both agree which AR is mine.

That's not a straw purchase, even if you intended when you bought it to gift it to me.

When I gave you the thing of value, there was no intent for you to buy a gun for me with it.

Now, a trickier case would be if, when I gave you the Miata, we agreed that you could use it until you got your own car, then when you sold it, you'd buy an AR for me.

But, that's the kind of thing law school final exam questions are made of.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I'm pretty sure I'm tracking what you're saying. My problem is the intervening four months before Rittenhouse ever had possession of the firearm.

Here's a scenario: would it be a straw purchase or otherwise unlawful for someone underage to give someone of age money to purchase a firearm, which the purchaser held in trust until the underage person was of age and thus could legally take ownership of the firearm?

And there is another sticking point here: it was lawful for Rittenhouse to possess a rifle as a 17 year old in Wisconsin; it simply wasn't lawful for him to purchase one in WI (both due to age, and due to not being a resident of WI). This isn't a case of someone being a "prohibited person". (This point may get more into the intent vs black-letter text of the law.)

You are assuming he never laid hands on that gun before the night in question. Remember they only live a little ways away. They both live near a border and it just sounds farther than it is due to the state line.

For all we know he could have gone up there and played with it repeatedly.

 

[jamil]

And it is perfectly lawful for a 17-year-old to possess a long gun in Wisconsin.

Well, not "perfectly". Technically. Because the law was poorly written. I'd classify "perfectly" as the law was written and intended to allow any 17 year old to possess a long gun for any purpose.

 

[jamil]

chip - I might be able to explain this better if I stepped through your consecutive gifting scenario in a way that would avoid the straw purchase problem.

Let's say you need a car. I have a beat up Mazda Miata that is worth $1k. We're friends and you've helped me out in the past, so I give you the car. Worth $1k.

You use the car, but manage to get back on your feet and get your own car. You don't need the Miata so you sell it for $1k.

With that cash, you buy 2 ARs back when it was possible to get 2 ARs for $1k. You are so grateful that I helped you out, you give me one of the ARs. You could even keep possession of it, but we both agree which AR is mine.

That's not a straw purchase, even if you intended when you bought it to gift it to me.

When I gave you the thing of value, there was no intent for you to buy a gun for me with it.

Now, a trickier case would be if, when I gave you the Miata, we agreed that you could use it until you got your own car, then when you sold it, you'd buy an AR for me.

But, that's the kind of thing law school final exam questions are made of.

Seriously? Mazda Miata?

 

[T.Lex]

Well, not "perfectly". Technically. Because the law was poorly written. I'd classify "perfectly" as the law was written and intended to allow any 17 year old to possess a long gun for any purpose.

You see, if the legal code were as clear as programming code, everything would be a conditional.

 

[T.Lex]

Seriously? Mazda Miata?

hahaha

My feed today told the story of a Miata that took out a C8 in Tennessee. Nearly brought tears to my eyes....

 

[Ark]

Seriously? Mazda Miata?

The answer is always Miata.

The rifle and the way he came into possession of it seems like a big red herring and/or character assassination attempt. It's not relevant to the charge of murder and whether he acted in self defense. I've never read a self defense statute that says "you are required to allow yourself to be killed if you have at any point in the past committed an unrelated crime or accessed a firearm in a questionable manner". It literally does not matter how he got the gun. What matters is whether he was the aggressor and whether he acted legitimately to defend his life. He is on video running away and being chased by armed criminals attempting to take his rifle and kill him.

 

[JettaKnight]

You see, if the legal code were as clear as programming code, everything would be a conditional.

And with underscores.

 

[T.Lex]

The answer is always Miata.

The rifle and the way he came into possession of it seems like a big red herring and/or character assassination attempt. It's not relevant to the charge of murder and whether he acted in self defense. I've never read a self defense statute that says "you are required to allow yourself to be killed if you have at any point in the past committed an unrelated crime or accessed a firearm in a questionable manner". It literally does not matter how he got the gun. What matters is whether he was the aggressor and whether he acted legitimately to defend his life. He is on video running away and being chased by armed criminals attempting to take his rifle and kill him.

The straw man thing isn't about Shooter McShooterhouse.

 

[KG1]

The straw man thing isn't about Shooter McShooterhouse.

Correct. They are going after his buddy for an alleged straw purchase. That's a separate incident.

 

[Ark]

The straw man thing isn't about Shooter McShooterhouse.

Correct, and in that regard it seems like they've got the other guy for a straw purchase. But the motive behind going after that guy and getting this in the news is clear: To de-legitimize Rittenhouse ahead of his trial.

 

[MCgrease08]

Correct, and in that regard it seems like they've got the other guy for a straw purchase. But the motive behind going after that guy and getting this in the news is clear: To de-legitimize Rittenhouse ahead of his trial.

This

 

[KLB]

Correct, and in that regard it seems like they've got the other guy for a straw purchase. But the motive behind going after that guy and getting this in the news is clear: To de-legitimize Rittenhouse ahead of his trial.

No they didn't. Once again, the conversation about a straw purchase is all INGO hypothetical. The guy was charged with giving a gun to a minor who shot and killed someone.

Dominick Black, 19, was charged with two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under the age of 18, causing death, according to NBC 5.

 

[T.Lex]

Either way, the straw purchase potential prosecution (that's the feds, so he's not out of the woods yet on that) or the "don't give guns to kids" charge are both about going after someone after something bad happens.

That's the way some laws are.

If there's a straw purchase that nothing bad happens and it never comes to the attention of authorities, then its really just a purchase.

 

[KLB]

Either way, the straw purchase potential prosecution (that's the feds, so he's not out of the woods yet on that) or the "don't give guns to kids" charge are both about going after someone after something bad happens.

That's the way some laws are.

If there's a straw purchase that nothing bad happens and it never comes to the attention of authorities, then its really just a purchase.

Those laws are generally stupid. Putting people in jail for like that serves no purpose.

 

[Cameramonkey]

So anyone heard any news about lefty the felon who lost the quickdraw contest? (and his right bicep) Any prosecution news there?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Fact not in evidence. For purposes of establishing a straw purchase, the owner and ultimate possessor was Black, not Rittenhouse.

Maybe I misread, I thought the article said that Rittenhouse admitted to transferring the cash to Black to purchase the gun on his behalf. If he did admit to it, further proof is not required, as I understand it. I would much prefer that he had not made such an admission, and I hope I'm mistaken, for his sake. The simple fact is that if the Left has to exact their pound of flesh from him, I'd much prefer it be for funding a straw purchase than for the murder charges they're extraditing him to face.

Of course, if I am in error, I welcome correction with the facts.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

And it is perfectly lawful for a 17-year-old to possess a long gun in Wisconsin.

Legal to possess. Is it lawful for him to OWN it, but perhaps (per federal law) not lawful for him to PURCHASE it *at retail*?

 

[ultra...good]

It is perfectly legal for a 12 year old to possess a long gun in Wisconsin, if they have completed a hunters safety course and are hunting. Must be 18 to buy (own) a long gun, and be 21 to buy a handgun from an FFL. Can be gifted or private sale for handgun when 18.

My dad lived in Illinois and bought a rifle for my brother who lived in WI. My brother was young, maybe 13 or so. There was never really a discussion of who owned the rifle and as of now I have it because my brother was convicted of felony OWI. He has two kids, 12 year old girl 13 year old boy. Neither of them are into shooting that much and neither one of them will ever hunt. I have talked to my dad about it because technically he owns it, but he left it to my discretion to do with it as I see fit. So once a year I take it out of the safe, clean and oil it. Do not even remember the last time it was fired. My sister has three boys and if one of them get into hunting, will probably go to one of them.

As far as Rittenhouse, here is a list of everything he is facing:

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF000983&countyNo=30&index=0&mode=details

Here is what Black is facing:

https://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetail.html?caseNo=2020CF001275&countyNo=30&mode=details


I find it hard to believe that Rittenhouse has not raised enough money for bail. The guy that set that whole party in motion, Jacob whatever the sex offender, raised more then 2.5 million in a few days for a wheelchair ramp.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I find it hard to believe that Rittenhouse has not raised enough money for bail. The guy that set that whole party in motion, Jacob whatever the sex offender, raised more then 2.5 million in a few days for a wheelchair ramp.

I think everyone who has tried has had the donations cancelled and refunded by the funding sites. I know for a fact Gofundme shut the first one down. Wouldnt be surprised if others were canned as well. You can raise funds for cop killers, but not racist murderers like Kyle.