Kyle Rittenhouse, Kenosha, Wisconsin update thread.

[Gun]

I'm curious, how is this illegal? Someone bought gun for use by a minor under supervision for the purpose of hunting and stored it securely in a safe (maintaining possession for storage demonstrates ownership) . The only potentially illegal action is lending the gun to a person 17 years old for a purpose other than hunting, but I would like to see someone cite the actual statute that makes this illegal, and the statute that make it lawful for a minor to hunt with a firearm. Under the Wisconsin law, there is no restriction that I can see for a 17 year old to carry a rifle in public.

So it comes down the the ATF form and the non-defined "definition" of ownership. I'd the gun is stored at the purchaser's house, is in the purchaser's name, and was in possession of the purchaser after the event, then this should demonstrate ownership. If were saying the kid was the actual owner, then how do we count for kids doing chores and hunting? If a parent grounds a kid for not doing chores and doesn't allow the kid to go hunting on the basis that the kid did not perform those services, wouldn't that violate the ATF form?

Not saying it's smart, but simply want sources for the claims that it's illegal.

Black purchased the rifle at Ladysmith Ace Home Center using Rittenhouse's money in May, and the two agreed to store it in Black's stepfather's house in Kenosha, according to a criminal complaint from the Kenosha County district attorney.

Straw purchase.

[giant_g2]

Straw purchase.

It would be if ownership was transferred, which it doesn't appear to have been. Based on the facts showing that Rittenhouse never maintained independent possession (it had been locked up, only had possession when lent out by the purchaser, and was returned to the purchaser even after this event).

How would that be much different for kids and hunting (which was the reason this gun was purchased)? If a minor isn't allowed to own a firearm, then they aren't able to accept it as a gift. So you have an adult (usually a parent, but not always) buying a gun for the minor. You also have situations where the parent won't let the kid hunt if they don't get good enough grades or do their chores - shouldn't this violate the bona fides gift language on the back of the ATF form?

I guess this is a moot point since he's being charged by the state and not the feds. That's part of why I keep asking... what is the actual statute he broke? It does no good to use colloquial language like "straw purchase" or just saying it's illegal when we need to see the definitions and restrictions in the laws to see if the definitions fit and if the restrictions were broken.

[GunLawyer001]

It would be if ownership was transferred, which it doesn't appear to have been. Based on the facts showing that Rittenhouse never maintained independent possession (it had been locked up, only had possession when lent out by the purchaser, and was returned to the purchaser even after this event).

How would that be much different for kids and hunting (which was the reason this gun was purchased)? If a minor isn't allowed to own a firearm, then they aren't able to accept it as a gift. So you have an adult (usually a parent, but not always) buying a gun for the minor. You also have situations where the parent won't let the kid hunt if they don't get good enough grades or do their chores - shouldn't this violate the bona fides gift language on the back of the ATF form?

I guess this is a moot point since he's being charged by the state and not the feds. That's part of why I keep asking... what is the actual statute he broke? It does no good to use colloquial language like "straw purchase" or just saying it's illegal when we need to see the definitions and restrictions in the laws to see if the definitions fit and if the restrictions were broken.

Whose money was used?

[giant_g2]

Whose money was used?

Doesn't matter. Like I said in that quote, it's a moot point since the charges are state charges and not federal charges. But since you brought it up again, the point I'm asking is why then is it legal for a parent to buy a gun for a child and then require the child to perform services, such as chores, to be allowed to use the gun (services are also called out in 4473 21.a)? We might also ask, why is it legal for a person to purchase firearms on behalf of a law enforcement department? A real person must put their name on the form and would be paying with someone else's money for someone else to use the firearms. Yet there is no exception listed on the form for that purpose...

Getting back to the matter at hand. Since nobody else here knew or mentioned the laws that I was asking about, I looked them up myself. Rittenhouse's friend is being charged under Wisconsin 948.60(2)(c). This law also states under 948.60(3)(c) that Rittenhouse must be in violation of the three statutes listed there in order for the friend to be guilty. One of these is for SBSs and SBRs, another for hunting permission and certification, and the third only applies to persons 16 and younger. None of these apply. Thus he did nothing illegal under Wisconsin law and this charge is malicious prosecution, gross incompetence by the DA, or possibly official misconduct by the DA or the warrant's affiant.

I hope he sues the state and wins. I have dealt with a similar situation in regards to incompetence and borderline official oppression. It's really disheartening to realize that some of the people involved in the "justice" system don't even have a basic understanding of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and elements of an offense.

[spartakis252]

Whose money was used?

Who can prove whose money was used?

Sounds like someone was talking without consulting a lawyer and said enough to let themselves be talked into being charged with a straw purchase.

[GunLawyer001]

Doesn't matter. Like I said in that quote, it's a moot point since the charges are state charges and not federal charges. But since you brought it up again, the point I'm asking is why then is it legal for a parent to buy a gun for a child and then require the child to perform services, such as chores, to be allowed to use the gun (services are also called out in 4473 21.a)? We might also ask, why is it legal for a person to purchase firearms on behalf of a law enforcement department? A real person must put their name on the form and would be paying with someone else's money for someone else to use the firearms. Yet there is no exception listed on the form for that purpose...

Getting back to the matter at hand. Since nobody else here knew or mentioned the laws that I was asking about, I looked them up myself. Rittenhouse's friend is being charged under Wisconsin 948.60(2)(c). This law also states under 948.60(3)(c) that Rittenhouse must be in violation of the three statutes listed there in order for the friend to be guilty. One of these is for SBSs and SBRs, another for hunting permission and certification, and the third only applies to persons 16 and younger. None of these apply. Thus he did nothing illegal under Wisconsin law and this charge is malicious prosecution, gross incompetence by the DA, or possibly official misconduct by the DA or the warrant's affiant.

I hope he sues the state and wins. I have dealt with a similar situation in regards to incompetence and borderline official oppression. It's really disheartening to realize that some of the people involved in the "justice" system don't even have a basic understanding of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and elements of an offense.

That's not what the statute says.

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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)*
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.

Dominick Black is 19 years old, so disregard anything with the defendant being under 18.

Kyle wasn't hunting, so disregard the parts about 29.304 ans 29.593, because Kyle wasn't in compliance with those. Could you make an argument that the statute seems to distinguish between "in violation of" and "not in compliance with" the same statute? Possibly, but I don't see how you are in compliance with a hunting statute if you're not hunting, which is a shame because he was clearly not "in violation of" the hunting statute.

The statute will most likely NOT be interpreted to mean that it's a felony to give a gun to a kid for hunting, but not if he killed people. Read the words in (2)(c) again. It's a Class I felony to transfer a dangerous weapon, bumped up to a Class H felony if the recipient kills someone with it.

There may possibly be a defense because of the straw purchase (although the feds would then step in). It could be argued that a straw purchase means that Kyle was the "actual buyer", meaning that Black didn't "sell, loan or give" the rifle to Kyle because it was already Kyle's, and it doesn't say "transfer". Is that a great argument? Nope. What else you got? Necessity/justification? Maybe. Jury nullification? Not likely in a city that elected the kinds of leftie woke folk that rule that town and told the cops to stand down.

[pa350z]

After reading Phil Kline's review of the situation, Rittenhouse and those who owned the rifle are jammed up or will be jammed up, hard. I guess they will all have to ask themselves... "was it worth being prosecuted over?" "is it worth going to prison and being a convicted felon when released, if released?" Not trying to be a Debby Downer for the cause, but we all need to learn from this situation. Willfully traveling to and inserting one's self while open or conceal carrying in a hostile environment with agitators on the opposite could have tragic results. Rittenhouse and others are prime examples of this tragedy. I already have people not familiar with any firearms/gun statutes or 2nd Amendment culture immediately saying why did he go there looking for trouble? No matter how you explain, try to reason, they still can't get over why he went there in the first place with a so called loaded assault rifle? They claim he is guilty of something without even hearing all the facts. A jury will not be his friend.

[giant_g2]

That's not what the statute says.

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.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)*
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(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.

Dominick Black is 19 years old, so disregard anything with the defendant being under 18.

Kyle wasn't hunting, so disregard the parts about 29.304 ans 29.593, because Kyle wasn't in compliance with those. Could you make an argument that the statute seems to distinguish between "in violation of" and "not in compliance with" the same statute? Possibly, but I don't see how you are in compliance with a hunting statute if you're not hunting, which is a shame because he was clearly not "in violation of" the hunting statute.

The statute will most likely NOT be interpreted to mean that it's a felony to give a gun to a kid for hunting, but not if he killed people. Read the words in (2)(c) again. It's a Class I felony to transfer a dangerous weapon, bumped up to a Class H felony if the recipient kills someone with it.

There may possibly be a defense because of the straw purchase (although the feds would then step in). It could be argued that a straw purchase means that Kyle was the "actual buyer", meaning that Black didn't "sell, loan or give" the rifle to Kyle because it was already Kyle's, and it doesn't say "transfer". Is that a great argument? Nope. What else you got? Necessity/justification? Maybe. Jury nullification? Not likely in a city that elected the kinds of leftie woke folk that rule that town and told the cops to stand down.

Ah, I only saw the violation part, not the differentiation of the other two statutes to be "in compliance".

The interesting part is, that you don't need to be hunting to be in compliance with 29.593 as this never mentions that a person be engaged in the activity, only that one achieve the certification. The 29.304 part sets forth restrictions for people who are hunting, but only for those 16 and younger. Now if we are really being strict about the "in compliance" language, then all 17 year olds would not be in compliance with that statute and would be breaking the law when hunting because it doesn't provide any language pertaining to 17 year olds, right? If they aren't mentioned, then how could they be in "lawful" compliance? Now the law never stated that one be in lawful compliance, just compliance. The state isn't locking up all the 17 year old hunters, so we could take this to mean that as long as the action isn't forbidden in that section, then you would be in compliance.

I'm making the assumption that Rittenhouse has a certification for hunting as that was the stated purpose for the purchase of the firearm, but if he doesn't then he would not be in compliance.

[Gun]

I'm making the assumption that Rittenhouse has a certification for hunting as that was the stated purpose for the purchase of the firearm, but if he doesn't then he would not be in compliance.

Even if Rittenhouse was certified to hunt, the purchase of the firearm was still a straw purchase, which was the point of my original quote.

If the other guy offered this information, then it would be leverage to get Rittenhouse to take a manslaughter charge.

[giant_g2]

Even if Rittenhouse was certified to hunt, the purchase of the firearm was still a straw purchase, which was the point of my original quote.

If the other guy offered this information, then it would be leverage to get Rittenhouse to take a manslaughter charge.

It's only a straw purchase if he takes possession/ownership. The gun being locked up by the purchaser, lent by the purchaser, and even being returned to the purchaser after the incident contradict that. If this would count as a straw purchase, then so would a scholastic shooting club or law enforcement department buying firearms for their members to use since a real person must put their name on the form, are using someone else's money, and the gun would be used by someone else. So would a parent restricting their kid's use of a gun based on them not doing chores (the services part of 4473 21.a, not to mention the kid wouldn't be eligible to own a firearm due to age, thus invalidating the gift exception).