Posted on 11/17/2021 12:52:19 PM PST by MrRelevant
I know he was legally allowed to have a gun that evening but is there still controversy surrounding it’s purchase and sale?
It was stated way up front that the gun stayed in Wisconsin. Kyle picked it up in Wisconsin, from Dominick Black’s house and took it to the riot with Dominick Black.
I am not beating anything. Just repeating what the prosecutor told the judge and jury in court. He said the purchaser of the gun has been charged and is being prosecuted in January. I didnt start this thread. I didnt say anyone was guilty. It probably will be a ‘fail’ as you say. But the threat of prosecution of good people when so far not one of the rioters has been charged or tried is frustrating.
I was asking for just such truth. Thank you.
THIS is why people need to shut up and not talk to police / FBI / any LEOs because there’s a version of that which would have been legal.
He convicted himself by being ‘helpful’ which happens to normies a lot.
Prosecutors want high conviction %s and Binger wants to run for DA. So he saw this as an opportunity to get a ton of press. Well, he got it.
I believe it was established at the trial a 17-year-old could carry this weapon in Wisconsin. However, they cannot purchase so an adult MUST provide the weapon. Therefore Dominick Black would not have illegally provided to a minor.
However, the Federal Straw purchase issue is different.
If Dominick told authorities he purchased the gun for Kyle he may be in legal trouble. If he stated he purchased it for himself with the intent to eventually “gift” it to Kyle for his 18th birthday the water gets murky.....
I know he was legally allowed to have a gun that evening but is there still controversy surrounding it’s purchase and sale?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What controversy?
The judge dismissed the weapons charge.
I believe it was legal because the judge threw the gun charge out. But this case is not about the gun, it’s about self defense. He could have had a knife, he could be a martial arts expert and killed them, it doesn’t matter how they were killed, what matters is if it was self defense or not and to me it’s obvious as hell it was self defense.
This case never should have went to trial but once again the Marxists get their way and if he’s acquitted once again they’re going to act like babies and destroy private property and possibly kill someone who hesitates to defend themselves after seeing what happened with Kyle.
It could go either way...
The purchase was questionable. Kyle, who was not able to legally buy the gun, gave money to a friend who purchased it for him. If that were it, it would be an open and shut case. “Straw purchases” are illegal.
BUT. In this case, the legal purchaser maintained possession of the weapon at his house in Wisconsin. It was claimed that he and Kyle had an agreement to turn the gun over to Kyle when he turned 18.
I think Kyle paying for the gun is going to be problematic and it will be considered a straw purchase.
Update: There is a Wisconsin law 941.2905 against straw purchases.
941.2905:
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.
941.29 (1m):
(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a). (f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).
I don't believe that Kyle met any of those requirements to be a prohibited person, and notice that age is not one of the criteria, for Dominick Black to be charged under state law of a Straw Purchase. Which leads back to a federal perjury charge for lying on the 4473.
But, seeing as Dominick Black never transferred the firearm to Kyle, but instead stored it for Kyle until he had his Illinois FOID card and turned 18, there may not be a straw purchase after all.
Yes, I think it was.
It was not a straw purchase because he never took ownership of it. The rifle was legally in the name of Dominick Black and was secured in Wisconsin, out of Rittenhouse’s access. Rittenhouse could only get access to it through Black, and at that he did not take permanent possession of it.
It’s like a 14-year old asking his Dad to buy a car he wants, with the agreement that he will not take legal ownership of it until he is 16, and can legally do it: Kid gives Dad the money for the car; Dad buys the car, but it is legally in Dad’s name (title and registration); Dad transfers ownership to Kid when he turns 16.
Why are people so fixated on "crossing state lines"? There is nothing intrinsically illegal about taking a rifle across state lines, although states may have different laws.
Apparently Kyle Rittenhouse never took the rifle across state lines until he had to do so when the Kenosha police refused to allow him to turn himself in to them. At that point he went to his home and then to the Antioch police.
The gun was owned by and in the control of an adult resident of Wisconsin prior to Kyle's use of the rifle to defend himself.
The amount of media misinformation in this case is very large.
I’m sure this kid also pulls the tags off pillows and mattresses.
Hang him.
Meanwhile, the illegal alien who killed the girl on the San Francisco pier walks around free with thousands of Biden dollars in his pockets.
“Anything about crossing state lines with gun?”
He didn’t (the gun was already in Wisconsin). And, when Rittenhouse returned to Illinois later that night (or early morning), it was in Dominick Black’s car and Black was driving.
I agree with your reasoning. I also believe the prosecutor will still go after Dominick Black. I also think the Feds might try to as well. You know its being discussed in the Oval Office and Psaki will probably even comment on it.
BINGO !
There was a similar gun case in our town. An old man shot two home intruders dead. They were armed and the old man’s grandchildren were in the house.
He was not charged with murder. However he did have a burglary conviction from way back in the 60’s or 70’s, so he was charged as a felon in possession of a gun. They gave him a light sentence.
No problem. I wasnt taking it as a personal attack. I agree it should die. I know those trying to persecute Kyle and the good citizens he represents wont let it go.
I don't think that legal conclusion is necessarily true. There is no law against buying a firearm and then later giving it to someone. That's not a straw purchase, because the intent of the purchase is not to evade the law.
Is a parent buying a rifle for their 13 year old son or daughter to use a straw purchase. No, its not.
If the parent made the kid save up $500 from doing chores around the farm before they bought the rifle is it a straw purchase? No, its not.
The media have been reporting since last year that Dominick Black has been charged with “two counts of providing a firearm to a minor, leading to death”. Sadly, no sources that I’ve found provide the Wisconsin code section that has actually been charged.
Initial report is below:
Other reports state that he has pled not guilty, but his trial has been postponed until after the Rittenhouse verdict.
He might well have a good defense, especially if Kyle is acquitted (as he should be). There is very little reporting on this case, and what does exist is incomplete, which isn’t exactly novel.
The other problem that Dominick might have is his answer to question 11a on the federal 4473 form. But, to the best of my knowledge, the feds have not taken an interest in him, at least yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.