Posted on 11/15/2021 4:41:00 PM PST by grundle
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — On the surface, it looked like prosecutors’ easiest task at Kyle Rittenhouse’s murder trial would be convicting him of a much less significant charge — being a minor in possession of a firearm.
Rittenhouse was 17 when he shot three people, killing two, with a semi-automatic rifle on the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a protest against police brutality last year. Prosecutors brought multiple charges against him, including first-degree intentional homicide, attempted homicide, reckless endangerment and the firearm possession count.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
That is incorrect.
While the wording could have been better, they were not creating an exception.
They were simply continuing an exception which had existed for decades.
The age restrictions on possession of anything outside of firearms with a barrel less than 12 inches was the new law.
The way the law is written, a 16 or 17 year old can walk through downtown with a rifle, but is guilty of being armed with a deadly weapon if they are hunting without a hunter safety certificate.
Did Alec Baldwin check out that gun first to make sure it was cold?
Marktwain, we have been through this before. The way exception 3(c) is written, a 16 or 17 year old is guilty of possession of a deadly weapon if they are hunting without a hunter safety certificate.
No, that is incorrect again.
The way the law is worded, if they have a hunters safety certificate, and they are older than 14, they can hunt and walk around with rifles.
If they are 16 or 17, they can walk around with rifles. They do not need a hunter safety certificate to walk around with a rifle or shotgun.
Remember the "and" in (3)(c). They have to be not complying with 29.304 and 29.593. Not either one or both, only both will do.
Prosecutor: “You lose the right to self-defense when you’re the one who brought the gun.”
Yes, he actually said that. Yes, he actually has a license to practice law.
Last time I did not mention the "and" in (3)(c). It is there. It is clear. I half-way hinted at it when I mentioned the short-barreled statute and the or that connects it to the chapter 29 statutes.
The uses of "and" and "or" are very important when reading the law.
It actually makes the law more reasonable, because it does away with the quandary which you mention.
Absolutely! My grandfather had a loaded gun sitting in a breeze way. It was for varmints around the chicken coup. By age 5, I knew never touch Grandpa’s gun. It was not a request. When a little older, Grandpa showed me what that gun could do and why I needed to be careful around it. We grew up that way and have respect, fascination and a healthy fear of guns. My daughter shoots better than most Marines. Her coach was a former Marine Corps shooting team coach. She only shoots occasionally and loves archery, but I have no doubts about what she can do with my M4.
1: He’s a moron
2: He’s looking for a mistrial
3: He’s hoping for a “Perry Mason” moment to show... something
4: He’s... Nope, I’m back to moron
The AR-15 in Kyle’s possession had a barrel length that qualifies as “long gun”. It is legal for a 17 year old to be in possession of a “long gun” in Wisconsin. The charge was invalid, thus dropped.
Suppose is properly understood in the context when used “supposed to”. You supposed to do this or that. You supposed to shoot the gun when you point it at sonme is bullsh*t. Supposed-to is two-fer.
Ok,so what’s it called when you point a rifle at someone to intimidate?
The uses of "and" and "or" are very important when reading the law.
It actually makes the law more reasonable, because it does away with the quandary which you mention.
Thank you for the light bulb moment. I now get your point.
I still think that the legislature intended to make the exception apply only to hunting, but the proper reading of 3(c) by including the "and" as you have pointed out does make the statute more consistent, and permits 16 and 17 year olds to arm themselves with a rifle or shotgun.
The part that was confusing was that it said it ‘pertained to those under 18, except that actually only applied if you were committing certain crimes while under 16.’ That said, the end meaning is perfectly clear and easily derivable.
The way the law is written, a 16 or 17 year old can walk through downtown with a rifle, but is guilty of being armed with a deadly weapon if they are hunting without a hunter safety certificate.
Ok,so what’s it called when you point a rifle at someone to intimidate?
———-
Answer: Brandishing
I think “brandishing” is more lifting up one’s coat or shirt to show a gun. In my state it can even be a legally open carried pistol but if some “Karen” is uncomfortable with it you might get visited by an officer.
Pointing a gun like that is legally considered assault.
From the interwebs:
“What is legally defined as assault?
Definition. The definition of assault varies by jurisdiction, but is generally defined as intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Physical injury is not required.”
**********************
Hence the term “Assault AND battery”. With the “battery” being the actual physical harm.
I suspect the poorly written law was the result of the ongoing political tension between those legislators representing rural areas and those representing urban centers.
It probably wasn't an accident the officers in northern Wisconsin told Kyle that teens carrying rifles and shotguns wasn't a problem.
You can also see ADA Binger's absolute unfamiliarity with firearms and his incredulous statement that the idea a 17 year old could legally carry an AR15, but not a pistol.
When the law was passed, I suspect both groups thought they were getting what they wanted.
I would have hit the deck if he pointed that at me.
That would have made for great optics with the jury.
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.