This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Posted on 10/27/2021 4:55:32 AM PDT by marktwain
In the Kyle Rittenhouse self-defense case in Kenosha, Wisconsin, much has been written about prosecutors choosing to charge Kyle with “Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.” and the exemptions to the law which apply to Kyle.
The legislative history in Wisconsin and of the particular law, 948.60 are at the crux of the matter. Rifles and shotguns, which are not considered “concealable” in Wisconsin or federal law, have never been defined as “dangerous weapons” under Wisconsin law. The definition of “dangerous weapons” is very limited.
It is reasonable that rifles and shotguns were excluded from the list of “dangerous weapons”, because they are not “concealable” under the law. Wisconsin has a long history of differentiating between rifles and shotguns and concealable firearms. Rifles and shotguns are used in crime a tiny fraction of the amount concealable weapons are. Traditionally, firearms that cannot easily be concealed are considered less dangerous because other people can see them and avoid confrontations with the armed person. DA Binger makes that case, talking about Kyle carrying a rifle in a previous hearing:
.. it is designed to deter people. It is designed to threaten others; to let them know, don’t mess with me, look what I’ve got.
There have been age restrictions on the access to particular weapons in Wisconsin law for decades. The precursor to statute 948.60, Statute 941.22 prohibited the possession of a pistol by a person under the age of 18 in Wisconsin, in 1955. It includes an exception for a pistol given by a parent for supervised target shooting.
In 1955, the age of the majority was 21. The law was an age restriction, not a restriction of all minors. “Pistol” was defined as any firearm having a
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Rittenhouse never should have been indicted.
All of the video evidence supported his testimony of self defense.
This is a clear case of politically motivated prosecution.
They certainly have been considered such, and the exception for "rifles and shotguns" possessed by minors only apply when the minor is complying with state hunting statutes.
In other words, the legislative intent was that rifles and shotguns are only exempt when being used in the field for hunting purposes.
There are also other exemptions under the same law for minors under the direct supervision of a parent or instructor for purposes of firearms or martial arts training, but those clearly don't apply so those exemptions haven't received much ink in the press.
Admittedly the Wisconsin statute was awkwardly worded, but it is clear that they were attempting to create a hunting exemption to the minor in possession prohibition that required more than just the statement "I was hunting." The minor had to have had taken a hunter safety course (Kyle didn't,) and the minor had to have a valid hunting license (Kyle didn't.)
I hope after he is found innocent that he sues the state for malicious prosecution for millions
It is difficult to believe you read the article which has links to the historical and current acts.
That Would be great.
Hard case to win.
. . . politically motivated persecution, IMHO.
It cites all the statutes, their timing, and what they did.
Hunting and "possession and use" were always separated in the law.
The legislative intent was clear. The intended that people under the age of 18 not have concealable firearms, then other specific weapons were include. Firearms with barrels of less than 12 inches were initially specified, then it was changed to all firearms except rifles and shotguns which were not short barreled rifles and shotguns.
As difficult as it may be to believe, trust me, I did. I always read Dean Weingarten's articles because he is a very good source of information, and I usually agree with his opinions.
However, I disagree with his presumptions here, and his citations of definitions of what constitutes a dangerous weapon that are found in different areas of Wisconsin law that were intended to be definitions only for that particular section.
In the statute being argued by the Rittenhouse defense, the definition of a dangerous weapon for the purposes of the statute being argued, is given in 948.60 as "1) In this section, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;"
Dean argues that rifles and shotguns were never considered "dangerous weapons" under Wisconsin statute, yet here is a statute that states that any firearm, loaded or unloaded, is considered a dangerous weapon, blowing his entire article out of the water.
I am not going to reproduce all of my opinions, hyperlinks, and quotes here on this thread, but you can go to this prior thread and read all of my citations and arguments.
They are going to get him on something. I fully expect him to be acquitted due to self defense but they will go for manslaughter and weapons charges at the least. If he is convicted on either one of these they will give him the full max penalty as retribution.
But you fail to mention, 3(c) which exempt rifles and shotguns from the definition. They were always exempt.
You are arguing that you are not in compliance with laws when you are engaged in activity the law does not regulate. That is absurd.
If that were true, a police officer could issue you a failure to have a proper drivers license for walking down the street.
The law in question always separated out the "hunting" and "possession and use of firearms" in the law, as two separate activities.
The lesson learned here should be that if you own firearms and live in a Blue State, you should get out immediately. Nothing good will happen in a Blue State if you defend yourself with a firearm, no matter what age you are.
That is the crux of the defense's argument, and your article, but it doesn't apply. As I argued in the previous thread I linked, the legislative intent was to carve out rifles and shotguns only when used in the course of hunting, not carved out entirely for all purposes. Clearly, the definitions in 1) state any firearm loaded or unloaded, so the rifle or shotgun exemption could have been made right there, but was not.
3(c) states:
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28. (emphasis added for relevancy)
941.28 deals with short barreled shotguns and rifles, and doesn't apply here.
For the exemption to apply, the person under 18 must be in compliance with both 29.304 and 29.593.
29.304 deals with hunting for individuals under 16, so this does not apply to 17 year old Kyle, so he is in compliance with this statute.
29.593 deals with a requirement for taking a hunter safety course before a person can legally hunt. Does 17 year old Kyle possess a Wisconsin Hunter Safety certificate? No. Therefore he is in violation of 29.593 and cannot claim exemption to 948.60, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
So then it is your argument that a 17 year old can walk down a public street with a rifle and not be considered "in possession of a dangerous weapon," but if he is hunting in the field without having taken a hunter safety course, then he is guilty of "being in possession of a dangerous weapon?"
That, sir, makes no sense.
Kyle is guilty of a misdemeanor. I'm sorry, but I support Kyle, I think his is a clear cut case of self defense, and I have "put my money where my mouth is" and contributed to his defense fund. But on this one statute, he is guilty.
This Ping List is for all things pertaining to infringes upon or victories for the 2nd Amendment.
FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.
More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.
Unless you're discussing it from a policy perspective it doesn't matter. The jury can't criminalize something, especially not ex post facto. Even legislators can't do that and jurors aren't legislators anyway.
Leaving aside the statutes, an important feature of the Kenosha event was the behavior of the police that night.
The police saw Rittenhouse with the rifle, welcomed his participation, and gave him a water bottle. None of them challenged his possession of the rifle or expressed concern that he could very well end up going pew pew pew in the scrum.
Why do you claim this? It does not follow from the legislative history.
The age restriction scheme was created in 1984.
The Dangerous Weapons statute was created in 1987 as part of Act 332, applying only to concealable firearms.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a child. (1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or amanrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends
In 1991, the legislature awkwardly grafted on the hunting certificate requirement while hunting and the age restriction limitations while hunting or for possession and use of firearms. The age restriction only applies to people less than 16 years of age. The exception for firearms with a barrel longer then 12 inches was kept, but moved from the definition to an exception in 3(c).
29.593 deals with a requirement for taking a hunter safety course before a person can legally hunt. Does 17 year old Kyle possess a Wisconsin Hunter Safety certificate? No. Therefore he is in violation of 29.593 and cannot claim exemption to 948.60, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
Your argument appears to eliminate the possibility of being in compliance with a law when doing nothing.
It is to argue that everyone in Kenosha, who does not have a Hunter Safety Certificate, is in violation of 29.593. That does not make any sense.
Kyle was not hunting. He cannot be in violation of 29.593, as it only applies if he is hunting.
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.