Posted on 11/10/2020 7:34:34 AM PST by PROCON
Pardon for Rittenhouse
I don’t know the answer to this: but did Rittenhouse have the legal standing to possess a firearm in WI?
I know that I cannot “allow” a minor from Il. without proper certification to use my long rifle in MA.
They would have to have completed a MA firearms course and possess an FID card.
***********************************************************************************
I read several opinions from lawyers, and it seems that Wisconsin law has several conflicting provisions. So the answer to whether he could have a gun is maybe or maybe not.
IIRC, correctly, Kyle had some sort of training that might have allowed him to legally have a gun. Also, as long as an adult is with him, he can legally carry the weapon. Since he walked around with it all day(police could have taken it if he was not supposed to have it), and at several interviews I saw an adult give him directions to go do something, who knows?
Honestly I think they would use that as some sort of Federal charge to hit him with a fed felony. That would prevent him from gun ownership—no matter what happens in a trial.
IF that is the case, plead it out and get pardoned by Trump. Then he just deals with local/state laws.
No sense ruining the kids life. I imagine his job applications will be troublesome for the remainder of his life.
I would hire him, if I had a job for him. And likely there are business people in the area that know him and would. However, there is no doubt that he's in serious jeopardy.
Kyle has a good lawyer.
I do not know of other case law where this point has been contested.
However, the unequal treatment of the law in urban v. rural areas is worth mentioning.
Wisconsin has a strong preemption law. Urban areas are not allowed to make streets and sidewalks unarmed victim zones.
I am not a lawyer, but I have taught firearms law and self defense law for many years,and have extensively studied the same for several decades.
You might not recall, but up until a few years ago open carry, perfectly legal, would get you an arrest for disturbing the peace, mostly in urban areas. Milwaukee particularly. Even after the Attorney General barred filing charges about 10 years ago, it persisted. Then the legislature banned the practice. Don't know if it still goes on. Personally I avoid situations like that, being right and bearing the expense of an attorney to get a vindictive case thrown out isn't worth it. Besides, I prefer concealed, why advertise myself as a target.
He’s being hit with state charges for the straw purchase of a firearm, not Federal. It’s a felony. Hopefully he can plead to something. I wouldn’t be shocked if they’re angling for testimony against Kyle, but that’s pure speculation on my part. Still it’s a very serious charge, like assault, some sex crimes, multiple owi and some manslaughters. Potentially up to 10 years, a serious problem for anyone, but particularly at the beginning of one’s life.
That is part of the law. But in the same section (948.60) are the exceptions to that part of that part of the law, in (3). (3)(c) gives this exception, as you so nicely copied it:
(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.
So, the section (948.60) only applies to people under the age of 18 if they are in violation of section 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.593. It grants exception from the section to everyone under the age of 18 if they are not in violation of the sections mentioned.
Section 941.28 is all about short barreled rifles and shotguns. The rifle Kyle had is not a short barreled rifle under the law. s
Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.
How about statute 29.539?
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.
Laws are not written in a unitary fashion, because they are passed sequentially. Some attempt is usually made to knit them together to make them not contradictory.
You have to read the law and the exceptions to the end of the citations to understand the law in question.
Finally, there is the principle of Lenity. Any ambiguity in the law is to be ruled in favor of the defendant.
The prosecution, because it is a political prosecution, will likely argue the exception does not apply. It is hard to see how they will win that argument.
If you bought it to give to someone as a gift you don't have to wait very long at all. I have given firearms as gifts and in all cases I had no worries about it being a straw purchase.
But. it was always to a person I knew was not prohibited and on an occasion when a gift was appropriate -- Christmas, birthday, graduation, etc.
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.