Posted on 01/08/2022 7:29:15 PM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Agreed.
WHERE does it say that?
All I see is a guilty plea to a non-criminal charge, which does not mean any loss of 2A rights.
Thanks for the additional detail. I didn’t know them. That is probably why the charges were so low. It might have been harder to get a conviction but I gather the friend still did buy the gun.
10-yard penalty for piling on. See post 19. After all of the other postings.
Yes, the friend did buy the gun, the fact was never hidden.
I don’t know why his mom or dad didn’t buy it for him. Even an older sister.
If you suffered with an internet connection as slow as mine you would also respond immediately instead of waiting until I had read the entire thread.
We would be up to 300 posts before I could type anything...
Understandable mistake. Thousands of men have unknowingly surrendered their 2A rights by signing an agreement to avoid court when accused of domestic violence. Only later do learn how the Lautenberg Amendment unconstitutionally strips their rights without even having a conviction, and sometimes not even being arrested or charged. In some "May Issue" states, this plea deal would be a problem, but Wisconsin is "Shall Issue".
I think that he trusted his friends knowledge of where to get the best rifle for the price.
Exactly. The charge against KR that relates to this was dropped because the defense proved conclusively that no law was violated by Rittenhouse's possession and carrying of the rifle. It was a big loss and embarrassment for Binger in the Rittenhouse trial.
Black wins here because he retains his 2A rights, voting rights and doesn't do any jail time. But he loses for being convicted of a crime he didn't really commit, paying a nominal fine, a big lawyer's fee and the pain and suffering of going through this trial.
Bottom line, it's the best Black could expect being the subject of another of Binger's political show trials and it's another loss for Binger because he had to concede the extreme weakness of his case. Again.
Nah, this has the legal force of an expensive speeding ticket.
And an automatic first down.
Now back to the commercials.
“The man who allegedly purchased the assault rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used... [initial Hill article]
Not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are select-fire. Most gun enthusiasts know this, but rarely challenge the media (it occurs almost as often in gun-friendly media, who ought to know better).
“Defense rifle” or “modern sporting rifle” are more suitable terms, but at the end of the day both the select-fire version and its civilian-legal semi-only counterpart are merely rifles.
The true weapon is the the shooter himself. And these days, women can be just as consequential. No gender discrimination here, folks.
Folks, this is LIKE A PARKING TICKET. It is not criminal. It has no affect relating to loss of any constitutional rights. The plea of no contest is not an admission of quilt of anything and he avoids a felony trial, (notice this is not even a misdemeanor but a civil charge), which would have conviction risk and definitely cost many thousands of dollars. Smart move in my opinion.
A jury ruled it was a self defense rifle, not an assault rifle.
You are not only bipolar but you are totally ignorant of any gun laws.
There is no jurisdiction in the country that can take away your guns rights for a NON-CRIMINAL CITATION.
“AND lose his Second Amendment Rights for the rest of his life.”
It’s a non-criminal misdemeanor.
L
You are only about the fourteenth person to weigh in on this. Move on.
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.