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

[Ark]

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.

They set it at like $2 million cash and every single platform for raising money banned him. Tech and finance declared war on a 17-year-old's ability to fund his legal defense and Illinois and Wisconsin both have moved heaven and earth to keep him in jail.

 

[ultra...good]

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.

They set it at like $2 million cash and every single platform for raising money banned him. Tech and finance declared war on a 17-year-old's ability to fund his legal defense and Illinois and Wisconsin both have moved heaven and earth to keep him in jail.

I know that go fund me would not let a fund raiser for him go, but I thought there was another site that did take it up.
Brief internet search and there was a site that did. Surprising that they were not able to come up with enough to bail out though.

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/29...for-alleged-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse/

As far as him spending a lot of time in an Illinois jail, that was because his lawyers were fighting him being extradited to Wisconsin. If I remember correctly, he turned himself in to Illinois authorities and the only reason they had to hold him was a warrant from Wisconsin. No charges have been filed against him in Illinois for the shooting incident.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Jurisdictionally, (is that a word? It is now!) IL authorities can't get him for anything if everything he did was in WI. Federal authorities might. WI has, but he's committed no crime while subject to any other state's law, other than WI, as noted(and debatable there)

I know that go fund me would not let a fund raiser for him go, but I thought there was another site that did take it up.
Brief internet search and there was a site that did. Surprising that they were not able to come up with enough to bail out though.

https://religionnews.com/2020/08/29...for-alleged-kenosha-shooter-kyle-rittenhouse/

As far as him spending a lot of time in an Illinois jail, that was because his lawyers were fighting him being extradited to Wisconsin. If I remember correctly, he turned himself in to Illinois authorities and the only reason they had to hold him was a warrant from Wisconsin. No charges have been filed against him in Illinois for the shooting incident.

 

[chipbennett]

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.

Purple implied?

 

[chipbennett]

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

I've been going over this in my head, because things aren't falling neatly into place for me. I'll try another approach to articulate why I don't think this is a straw purchase. Going back to Form 4473: "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."

Ultimately, Black was the actual transferee. The sale/transfer from the FLL never involved transferring the firearm from Black to Rittenhouse. This is key. This is what makes the difference. Even if Black bought the firearm with Rittenhouse's money, Black retained ownership and possession of the firearm. There is speculation, but simply no evidence, that Black transferred ownership of the firearm to Rittenhouse. More importantly, there is no evidence that Black unlawfully transferred possession of the firearm to Rittenhouse.

The counter-argument for a straw purchase would ostensibly need to prove that Black conducted a straw purchase on May 1st for the purpose of unlawfully transferring the firearm to Rittenhouse on August 27th. Absent that, Black answered truthfully on the Form 4473, because at the time of purchase/FFL transfer, Black was the actual transferee/buyer. Whatever transpired 4 months later has no bearing on the truthfulness of the original transfer. When Black purchased the firearm, he had no intent to transfer it to Rittenhouse (as evidenced by Black keeping the firearm at Black's stepfather's house.)

This could be a useful challenge to the scope of certain gun control laws, including straw purchases. Based on this thread's interpretation of straw purchase laws, it would be a straw purchase for me to purchase a firearm that I one day intend to give to one of my children (when they are old enough legally to possess it) - even though, until that age, I maintain ownership and possession of said firearm. The scenario holds true if one of said children decides to give me her own money to purchase said firearm. Holding something in trust constitutes ownership and possession. The one for whom that trust is held does not have ownership until that trust is transferred. The interpretation that such a scenario is an unlawful "straw" purchase is both absurd and, IMHO, unconstitutional.

What Black and Rittenhouse did is, at worst, no different. Rittenhouse provided the money for the purchase, and Black became the purchaser/transferee, holding (ownership/possession) of the firearm until it could legally be transferred to Rittenhouse. As the trustee, Black maintained ownership of the firearm. Thus, he did not lie on his form 4473 and did not commit a "straw" purchase.

 

[T.Lex]

I've been going over this in my head, because things aren't falling neatly into place for me. I'll try another approach to articulate why I don't think this is a straw purchase. Going back to Form 4473: "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."

Ultimately, Black was the actual transferee.

This is where your interpretation starts to break down. As reported, the intent of all the parties (except the FFL) was for R to own the gun. That's why they all referred to it as keeping R's gun with the stepdad.

The sale/transfer from the FLL never involved transferring the firearm from Black to Rittenhouse. This is key.

Your formulation there may be key, but it is ambiguous.

The day after B bought it, if you'd asked them, "Hey, who's AR is that?" Do you think they would've responded that it was B's or R's gun?

Even if Black bought the firearm with Rittenhouse's money, Black retained ownership and possession of the firearm.

You are combining 2 things that are different, without explanation: ownership and possession.

This could be a useful challenge to the scope of certain gun control laws, including straw purchases.

No it can't. At least, not after Abramski. (Probably even long before that.) Your interpretation has been rejected.

Based on this thread's interpretation of straw purchase laws, it would be a straw purchase for me to purchase a firearm that I one day intend to give to one of my children (when they are old enough legally to possess it) - even though, until that age, I maintain ownership and possession of said firearm.

No. First, I'm trying to present to you what the current state of the law is, not just this "thread's" interpretation. The more you know....

Second, that's not a straw purchase. You bought and own something (and possess it, which isn't required) you intend to gift it to someone later.

The scenario holds true if one of said children decides to give me her own money to purchase said firearm.

That would be a straw purchase.

Holding something in trust constitutes ownership and possession. The one for whom that trust is held does not have ownership until that trust is transferred.

Where do you get that idea?

The whole point of holding it in trust is that someone ELSE owns it and you are possessing it. (Or they hold a contingent future right to possession of it.)

When a bank holds money in trust, they do not "own" the money. The beneficiaries do, but they can only receive it under certain circumstances. The bank/trustee can only distribute it based on whatever the trust says. The beneficiaries possess the money, and can spend it on whatever they want, only after it is distributed (or the trust is dissolved.)

Going back to the daughter giving you money for a gun. When you do that, can you decide to give the gun to me instead of your daughter? Or sell it to me and keep the money? If you can't do that, you do not own the gun.

I think I see what you're getting hung up on - the notion that B had several guns and let R have one for their LARPing. When we go hunting, I have a gun that my father in law really likes. I bought it. I own it. When we go hunting I give it to him to possess and use. It sounds like your opinion of R and B is that it is something like that.

I also have a gun in my safe that belongs to my FIL because he doesn't have a gun safe. He bought it when he was 18 and it holds sentimental value. He bought it. He owns it. I possess it. He wants my son to have it when he turns 18. (My son, not my FIL.) I can't give it or sell it to anyone else. I'm holding it in trust until it becomes a lawful gift to my son.

Now, let's say there's a good deal in the classifieds on a rifle that my FIL wants. (And assuming I have 50 quality posts.) If my FIL gives me money for the gun and I buy it for him, it is a straw purchase. Full stop. It doesn't matter if I keep it in my gun safe (possession). It is his gun. I can't re-sell it or give it to anyone else. If I do, I'm either stealing the gun from him or stole his money so I could get a gun.

ETA:
Hey chip - if you're having trouble with insomnia, do some reading on bailments. Those are concepts related to what we're talking about. But, it is pretty dry stuff.

 

[jamil]

if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person == true because the way it was stated made it obvious that there was an agreement between the two that it belonged to Rittenhouse, but that Black would keep it at his house until Rittenhouse was of age. That IS a straw purchase. You seem to be arguing a point, which if it were true, would basically make nothing a straw purchase. In every straw purchase the sale/transfer from the FFL never involves the person the transferree is buying the gun for. That's precisely the reason for the law, to stop people from purchasing guns on behalf of people who cannot legally purchase firearms on their own. It doesn't matter if black intended to give possession to Rittenhouse on Aug 27th. It matters, as the lawyers here have said, who owned the gun.

But it may not be that things really happened that way it was reported. The way it was reported, Rittenhouse and Black had an agreement where it was, "hey, here's some money for the AR, you buy it for me since I'm under age, you store my gun for me until I'm legal." I think it would muddy things up if the agreement were, "hey, I'll give you to the money to buy this gun. It's yours, you own it. But you agree to gift it to me when I'm of age." That's not really a whole lot different from a dad buying his son a rifle, but the dad owns the rifle until the son is of age. I think if the ATF becomes involved, they could charge him with a straw purchase as it was reported.

 

[KG1]

Rittenhouse apparently did'nt give money to Black to go out and buy an AR as a gift to himself. It was apparently designed as a purchase by Black on Rittenhouse's behalf because he could not make the purchase on his own at the time of purchase. All that matters is who made the purchase on the 4473 and if they can establish that the purchase was made by Black on Rittenhouse's behalf at the time. Does'nt matter who actually possessed the rifle after purchase.

The only relevant question should be. Did Black purchase the rifle on Rittenhouse's behalf when he was still not legally able to purchase the firearm on his own at the time of purchase?

 

[foszoe]

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.

This probably pisses me off more than labeling tweets

 

[actaeon277]

Purple implied?

He's probably just pointing out that some have called Kyle that. Even though race was not involved.

 

[ultra...good]

Jurisdictionally, (is that a word? It is now!) IL authorities can't get him for anything if everything he did was in WI. Federal authorities might. WI has, but he's committed no crime while subject to any other state's law, other than WI, as noted(and debatable there)

Illinois has nothing on him. That is where he turned himself in to deal with the Wisconsin warrants. The strategy behind that, I do not know. The only way that federal authorities would have anything to charge him with is if he brought that rifle back and or forth over the state lines. But then Illinois would have means to charge Rittenhouse because he did not have a FOID card.

Rittenhouse would have been much smarter to disappear somewhere for a few months and let all the heat die down. Not that he would not have to eventually face charges, but the garbage they are putting him through now is sickening.

 

[Thor]

Rittenhouse would have been much smarter to disappear somewhere for a few months and let all the heat die down.

That would have been one highly publicized manhunt. The usual crop of 'investigative journalists' would have been all over that until he was hunted down and 'justifiably' shot. He would have been labeled the armed and dangerous right wing white supremacist lunatic who will kill you on sight.

 

[KG1]

That would have been one highly publicized manhunt. The usual crop of 'investigative journalists' would have been all over that until he was hunted down and 'justifiably' shot. He would have been labeled the armed and dangerous right wing white supremacist lunatic who will kill you on sight.

Yeah I don't think that would've been such a good idea. I can kinda understand him leaving the immediate area at the time under the circumstances in which the angry mob wanted to kill him back to a place where he felt more secure before he turned himself in.

 

[T.Lex]

People in jail (or potentially going to jail) need to STFU.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/n...-gun/507-383a3b00-7097-44f2-bc39-1cc0d074a7f7

“I got my $1,200 from the coronavirus Illinois unemployment because I was on furlough from YMCA,” he [Rittenhouse]told the Post. “And I got my first unemployment check so I was like, ‘Oh, I’ll use this to buy it.’”


Rittenhouse was 17 and couldn’t legally buy the gun, so his friend, Dominick Black, bought it for him. The weapon was stored at Black’s stepfather’s house in Kenosha, Wisconsin, until Black and Rittenhouse each took rifles downtown on Aug. 25, according to police records. Late that night, police said Rittenhouse fatally shot Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounded Gaige Grosskreutz.

 

[KLB]

People in jail (or potentially going to jail) need to STFU.

https://www.wthr.com/article/news/n...-gun/507-383a3b00-7097-44f2-bc39-1cc0d074a7f7

No kidding. WTH was his lawayer?

 

[jamil]

No kidding. WTH was his lawayer?

I don't think he got the best representation. It was probably foolish for them to waste the clock cycles to fight extradition to Wisconsin. Bond wasn't happening for him in Illinois, so they should have just let it happen ASAP so he could bond out. Well, so he was transferred to Kenosha two or three weeks ago. And now he's bonded out. So yeah, I don't think the legal team is all that great.

 

[HoughMade]

I don't think he got the best representation. It was probably foolish for them to waste the clock cycles to fight extradition to Wisconsin. Bond wasn't happening for him in Illinois, so they should have just let it happen ASAP so he could bond out. Well, so he was transferred to Kenosha two or three weeks ago. And now he's bonded out. So yeah, I don't think the legal team is all that great.

There are those who have the mentality that you fight everything all the time. Some situations call for that...not all. Fighting extradition is often (almost always) simply a money soak. However, keeping this story in the news every day has been good for fundraising. Now, there will probably not be much news until it gets closer to trial, a motion to dismiss or something else (like a plea or other motion) happens.

 

[JCSR]

I think I may buy a pillow.

BREAKING: Kyle Rittenhouse FINALLY Released on $2 Million Cash Bond

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...enhouse-finally-released-2-million-cash-bond/

Special thanks to Actor Ricky Schroder @rickyshroder1 & Mike Lindell @realMikeLindell for putting us over the top.
Kyle is SAFE.
Thanks to ALL who helped this boy.

Lin Wood (@LLinWood) November 20, 2020

 

[KG1]

I think I may buy a pillow.

BREAKING: Kyle Rittenhouse FINALLY Released on $2 Million Cash Bond

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...enhouse-finally-released-2-million-cash-bond/

Special thanks to Actor Ricky Schroder @rickyshroder1 & Mike Lindell @realMikeLindell for putting us over the top.
Kyle is SAFE.
Thanks to ALL who helped this boy.

Lin Wood (@LLinWood) November 20, 2020

I bet Ricky Schroder will never work in Hollywood again....Oh wait.

 

[Ark]

No kidding. WTH was his lawayer?

For real, and talking to WaPo of all places. Get your client to shut the hell up!!!