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

[chipbennett]

I wonder if WI even has a law that could be applied for a "straw" purchase. I am guessing not, since it looks like they are going after everything they can to get these guys.

Yet still no charge for illegal possession by the one-armed bandit. Funny, that...

 

[HoughMade]

(1) Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29 (1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.
(2) The prohibition in sub. (1) against possessing a firearm for a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following:
(a) A person to whom the firearm is surrendered under s. 813.1285.
(b) A person who has been designated under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 3. to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1. not to possess a firearm.
(c) A person who has been designated under s. 51.45 (13) (i) 3. to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 51.45 (13) (i) 1. not to possess a firearm.
(d) A person who has been designated under s. 54.10 (3) (f) 3. to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 54.10 (3) (f) 1.
(e) A person who has been designated under s. 55.12 (10) (c) to store the firearm during the duration of the order under s. 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) A person not covered under pars. (a) to (e) who has been designated to store the firearm during the duration of any temporary prohibition on the possession of a firearm.

Wis. Stat. § 941.2905- "Straw purchasing of firearms" I don't see that it applies.

 

[T.Lex]

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



Per the article, the gun was purchased May 1st, 2020. The incident happened, I believe, August 27th. Per the article, the two agreed that the gun, upon purchase, would be kept at Black's stepfather's house, since Rittenhouse couldn't yet legally own it.

The transfer in question happened four months after the purchase. It is clear, from the facts at hand, that the purchase was not a straw purchase, and was not intended to result in transfer of possession/ownership of the gun at the time of purchase.



Possession and ownership are not the same thing, and it is evident that Black and Rittenhouse did not conspire to confer ownership of the gun in question upon Rittenhouse. Rittenhouse merely temporarily possessed the firearm on the night in question - again, which occurred four months after the purchase of the firearm.

(And, said possession was 100% lawful under WI statutes.)



Uh... based on what, exactly? Rittenhouse gifted Black money to purchase a gun - a gun that was kept intentionally somewhere away from Rittenhouse because Rittenhouse could not own/possess it. On what basis did Rittenhouse own a gun that was purchased by Black and kept at Black's stepfather's house?



It is the "bought on his behalf" that you have yet to prove. All facts point to an intent not to transfer ownership/possession of the gun unlawfully to Rittenhouse.



IMHO, you are approaching this backwards. There is no evidence that Black purchased it for the purpose of transferring ownership to Rittenhouse. To establish a straw purchase, such evidence must be presented.



The facts only establish a gift purchase, not a straw purchase. Their actions establish an intent to avoid unlawful ownership/possession.

For it to be a gift purchase, Black would've had to use his own money. He didn't. He used Rittenhouse's money, as you stated.

Per the article, the two agreed that the gun, upon purchase, would be kept at Black's stepfather's house, since Rittenhouse couldn't yet legally own it.

If Rittenhouse had no ownership interest in the rifle, why would he need to agree to keep the rifle in WI?

He thought the rifle was his. Black thought the rifle was Rittenhouse's.

I don't know if the ownership (or possession) by someone under 18 would've been legal or illegal, but his ownership appears to be reasonably established.

The drawn-out gifting scenario of yours appears to be speculation.

 

[T.Lex]

Wis. Stat. § 941.2905- "Straw purchasing of firearms" I don't see that it applies.

What about the federal prohibition on straw purchases?

 

[HoughMade]

What about the federal prohibition on straw purchases?

The what now?

I've heard of a statute about false statements, but straw purchases?

 

[T.Lex]

The what now?

I've heard of a statute about false statements, but straw purchases?

'Tis the post-electoral season for hypertechnicality here at INGO?

You've heard of the prohibition on false statements to purchase firearms, but not how those false statements support federal charges describing straw purchases?

Got it.

Welcome back to me.

 

[chipbennett]

For it to be a gift purchase, Black would've had to use his own money. He didn't. He used Rittenhouse's money, as you stated.

You're losing me here. The gift was a monetary gift from Rittenhouse to Black for the purpose of purchasing a firearm owned/possessed by Black. That is a gift purchase of a firearm, not a straw purchase.

If Rittenhouse had no ownership interest in the rifle, why would he need to agree to keep the rifle in WI?

Again, you're losing me here. How is it established that Rittenhouse had any say to the contrary - or, chose to assert any say to the contrary? All the evidence points to Rittenhouse giving Black money to purchase a firearm that Black owned, possessed, and stored in WI - which they did, because any ownership/possession by Rittenhouse in IL would have been unlawful. They intentionally acted to avoid violating the law. How is that evidence of intent to violate the law?

He thought the rifle was his. Black thought the rifle was Rittenhouse's.

How do we know what they think? I didn't see that asserted in the article, nor any evidence presented to support such an assertion. The article said that the two agreed that Black would keep (i.e. own/possess) the firearm, and that he would keep/store it at Black's stepfather's house.

I don't know if the ownership (or possession) by someone under 18 would've been legal or illegal, but his ownership appears to be reasonably established.

You have not provided anything to support your assertion that Rittenhouse's "ownership" of the firearm is established.

The drawn-out gifting scenario of yours appears to be speculation.

How is it drawn out? Rittenhouse paid for (i.e. gifted) a firearm for Black. Rittenhouse never owned/possessed said firearm from the time of purchase (01 May) until he possessed it the date of the incident (27 August). In the intervening time (four months), it is clearly established that Black owned/possessed/stored the firearm.

A straw purchase requires transfer of ownership of the firearm from the straw purchaser to the unlawful possessor. That clearly didn't happen.

 

[Alpo]

A straw purchase needs a lie on a form 4473 to be a federal crime, to wit:

Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)?
Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are
not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok, different reporting, with more quotes.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_38bc2084-5763-5985-9a12-573ea87de66c.html

According to the Antioch Police reports, the stepfather told police Black purchased the AR-15 for Rittenhouse in Ladysmith, Wis., using Rittenhouse’s money but putting the gun in his own name.

From Abramski v US, regarding the problem.

The individual who sends a straw to a gunstore to buy a firearm is transacting with the dealer, in every way but the most formal; and that distinguishes such a person from one who buys a gun, or receives a gun as a gift, from a private party.

@chip the notion that gifting money then gifting the gun (nested gifting?) is a defense to an allegation of a straw purchase does not pass muster. If it were a defense, then there would be no convictions for it, as every defendant would avail themselves of the sure thing.

 

[HoughMade]

'Tis the post-electoral season for hypertechnicality here at INGO?

You've heard of the prohibition on false statements to purchase firearms, but not how those false statements support federal charges describing straw purchases?

Got it.

Welcome back to me.

C'mon now...that's just me being, very slightly...humorous.

...am I the only one around here not on edge?

 

[Cameramonkey]

C'mon now...that's just me being, very slightly...humorous.

...am I the only one around here not on edge?

Guilty as charged Counselor.

Though with constant prodding from my wife, I'm doing my best to "Give it to God." and not worry about the election. Fat lady may be warming up but she hasnt sung yet. No sense sweating over which aria she is going to sing because I cant do nuttin about it. Whatever she sings, she sings.

 

[HoughMade]

Guilty as charged Counselor.

Though with constant prodding from my wife, I'm doing my best to "Give it to God." and not worry about the election. Fat lady may be warming up but she hasnt sung yet. No sense sweating over which aria she is going to sing because I cant do nuttin about it. Whatever she sings, she sings.

I did what I could. I've got a life to live. I can't waste the limited commodity of time on angst that accomplishes nothing.

 

[chipbennett]

Ok, different reporting, with more quotes.

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/lo...cle_38bc2084-5763-5985-9a12-573ea87de66c.html



From Abramski v US, regarding the problem.



@chip the notion that gifting money then gifting the gun (nested gifting?) is a defense to an allegation of a straw purchase does not pass muster. If it were a defense, then there would be no convictions for it, as every defendant would avail themselves of the sure thing.

The problem that remains is that Rittenhouse never took ownership of the gun. We have established nothing more than Rittenhouse telling Black, "Hey, I want you to buy an AR15. Here's the money for it. When you buy it, keep it, because I can't legally possess it in IL." And then Black saying, "Cool; will do! I'll keep it at my step dad's house after I buy it."

 

[HoughMade]

The problem that remains is that Rittenhouse never took ownership of the gun. We have established nothing more than Rittenhouse telling Black, "Hey, I want you to buy an AR15. Here's the money for it. When you buy it, keep it, because I can't legally possess it in IL." And then Black saying, "Cool; will do! I'll keep it at my step dad's house after I buy it."

Um...possession is possession, not ownership.

 

[T.Lex]

The problem that remains is that Rittenhouse never took ownership of the gun. We have established nothing more than Rittenhouse telling Black, "Hey, I want you to buy an AR15. Here's the money for it. When you buy it, keep it, because I can't legally possess it in IL." And then Black saying, "Cool; will do! I'll keep it at my step dad's house after I buy it."

Yeah, that gets back to the ownership v. possession paradigm that I'm struggling to explain.

The 2 things can exist separately.

Your idea of "when you buy it, keep it, because I can't legally possess it" reflects the dichotomy. Your point about "never took ownership of the gun" conflates the 2. He didn't take possession until later, when he went up there. But, possession is not required for ownership.

Let's pretend the 4473 doesn't exist (like it used to not exist). R and B walk into the gun store and R puts the money down and the clerk tries to give him the gun. He says to give it to B because R can't possess it. Ok. There's no doubt that he owns it - he paid for it. But, as owner, he can allow possession by someone else.

Does that make sense? (And please don't think I'm talking down to you with that - I'm just not doing as good a job as my property law professor in explaining it.)

 

[chipbennett]

Yeah, that gets back to the ownership v. possession paradigm that I'm struggling to explain.

The 2 things can exist separately.

Your idea of "when you buy it, keep it, because I can't legally possess it" reflects the dichotomy. Your point about "never took ownership of the gun" conflates the 2. He didn't take possession until later, when he went up there. But, possession is not required for ownership.

Let's pretend the 4473 doesn't exist (like it used to not exist). R and B walk into the gun store and R puts the money down and the clerk tries to give him the gun. He says to give it to B because R can't possess it. Ok. There's no doubt that he owns it - he paid for it. But, as owner, he can allow possession by someone else.

Does that make sense? (And please don't think I'm talking down to you with that - I'm just not doing as good a job as my property law professor in explaining it.)

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.)

 

[chipbennett]

Um...possession is possession, not ownership.

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

 

[BugI02]

'Tis the post-electoral season for hypertechnicality here at INGO?

You've heard of the prohibition on false statements to purchase firearms, but not how those false statements support federal charges describing straw purchases?

Got it.

Welcome back to me.

I thought both of you made bank arguing microtechnicalities of the law

 

[T.Lex]

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?

Basically, yes.

That would require an... inaccurate answer on the questionnaire.

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".

Ownership and possession are separate.

If B had an "extra" AR and allowed R to possess it... that's not a problem.

For straw purchase purposes, it really comes down to where the money came from with the express intent of buying the firearm.

If B and the stepdad had used their own money to buy ARs, then when the stuff happened in Kenosha, B let R use the stepdad's, then that's not a problem. (Well, it is a different set of problems.)

The intervening 4 months before direct possession makes no difference. He owned it for the duration. (I think there are even pics of him in possession of it in the intervening 4 months, but I could be wrong about that.) The purchase by which he acquired ownership used B as a straw purchaser.

 

[jamil]

It is not a straw purchase to give someone money to purchase a gun that the purchaser owns/possesses. It is only a straw purchase for a purchaser to use a third party's money to purchase a gun that the purchaser transfers to the third party for ownership/possession.

Please define "ownership" as you use it when you say that "Rittenhouse owned it". This isn't a garden-variety "constructive possession" issue. Black lived in WI, and possessed/kept the gun in WI. Rittenhouse lives in IL.

You should probably tell the prosecutors that they're doing it wrong.