Posted on 08/26/2020 10:28:22 AM PDT by Drew68
Just buy ammonia.
No mixing required.
The Department of Redundancy Department is looking into this.
Illinois prohibits any person under age 18 from possessing a handgun.1 State law also prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a handgun to any person under age 18.2
However, Illinois also prohibits individuals from possessing firearms if they do not hold a FOID card,3 and prohibits any person from knowingly transferring a firearm to a person who does not hold a FOID card.4
To obtain a FOID card, an individual must be over 21 years of age or have the written consent of his or her parent or legal guardian to possess and acquire any firearms and ammunition.5 Further, the parent or legal guardian must not be prohibited from obtaining a FOID card.6 Even with parental consent, persons under age 21 do not qualify for a FOID card if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor (other than a traffic offense) or adjudged delinquent.
Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1
The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2
These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3
Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6
Skateboard guy: I need a TUMS.
Taking a knee; for loss of an elbow.
Ok... One more time for the slow...
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Clear?
Has anyone identified what the spray can in his backpack contains??
Even AT&T says to reach out and touch someone.
I've been here long enough to have seen all this before. Some truly believe their cowardice is the right path, some will be sh*t-posters just trying to create controversy for their own needs, and a couple will even be Socialist trolls sent there to to purposefully create discord.
And... It works. We fall for it every time...
And they got Capone on tax evasion.
Voire dire has become Latin for "jury tampering". Juries these days are given very specific instructions and are told flat out that they are not to judge the law, but only the testimony and evidence given right then and there.
And that is assuming you get competent representation that isn't just playing the game to play the game... There is a very good reason there are so many lawyer jokes around.
This kid was prepped. Was attacked. Removed his attackers from the treat equation. And made it out with his skin intact.
At what point was he a threat to others on his side? At what point did his self defense actions fail?
Second thought, don't bother to reply. You have nothing to add.
See # 524
I was happy to learn that Lin Wood was interested in helping, pro bono.
Thanks. I think that one has been taken down. There is another one listed for him, but I am unsure of the legitimacy of it.
Not conclusive but it looks like wasp spray to me, it sure wasn't an air freshener.
It worked for Hillary, and a host of other coup plotters including Obama.
A big problem many of us have with this outrageous overcharge is the fact that there has been incredible leniency toward the rioters that created this situation to begin with, in every state — but a young man suddenly is in jeopardy for every technicality of the law when, in the heat of the moment, in every instance he clearly acted in self defense.
It’s to the point now that BLM thugs are forcing public restaurant patrons to raise their fists and chant in support of BLM en masse. Those that refuse are shouted down and harassed, at a minimum.
Most go along with it, sacrificing their dignity to avoid confrontation. Full submission is a good way to describe it.
Ok... One more time for the slow...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Clear?
One time, for the pitifully slow, or willfully ignorant.
The right to keep and bear arms is not defined in the 2nd Amendment. It was a pre-existing common law right that was and is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It was not a right granted by the 2nd Amendment, but a right that existed in the colonies, was brought forth into the states upon independence, and recognized and protected by the Constitution.
U.S. Supreme Court, Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 86, 108-09 (1925)
The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose. It does not mean that today.
District of Columbia v Heller, S. Ct. 554 US 570 (2008)
Heller at 620:
We described the right protected by the Second Amendment as “ ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’ ”
Heller at 626:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).
https://law.justia.com/codes/wisconsin/2013/chapter-948/section-948.60/
2013 Wisconsin Statutes & Annotations948. Crimes against children.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
Universal Citation: WI Stat § 948.60 (2013 through Act 380)
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); 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 a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
[...]
939.48 Self-defense and defense of others.
(1) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.(1m)
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates. (ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
He will be judged in a court of law in a jurisdiction where the police have been stood down and the rioters have been allowed to riot.
I would find for self-defense. However, I would not bet my life that a court in that jurisdiction would so find. They may find that the act was provoking and I cannot plead self-defense.
As for the Second Amendment, it does nothing in this case. If Rittenhouse could not lawfully possess the firearm in Wisconsin, then it is likely he unlawfully transported it across state lines, invoking Federal jurisdiction. It also means that Rittenhouse was committing a crime when the shooting occurred. His case goes from simple self-defense to more complicated.
Your misapprehension of the Second Amendment is of the right that is protected. What is protected is the common law right to keep and bear arms. That is the right that shall not be infringed. That is right to keep and bear arms that may be lawfully possessed.
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.