# The guy who bought Kyle Rittenhouse's rifle......likely walking without felonies, and only 2 citations and a 2,000 dollar fine, anti-gunners weep.



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

And the judge may even throw out several of these things since it was found at trial that Kyle did not break the law when he had that rifle........

*The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.
-----------

On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger filed a proposed plea agreement. It suggested Black would plead no contest to a pair of citations, and pay a $2,000 fine, and the felony counts would be dismissed.*

*A hearing is scheduled Monday morning. Schroeder could reject the deal, or dismiss the original felony counts based on his ruling about the minors-with-firearms law in the Rittenhouse case.*









						Man Who Straw Purchased Rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse Takes a Plea Deal, Avoids Jail - The Truth About Guns
					

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ From the Associated Press . . . The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been...




					www.thetruthaboutguns.com


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 9, 2022)

It opens him up to civil suits.

If he has anything worth money.

Or wages they can attach for the rest of his life.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It opens him up to civil suits.
> 
> If he has anything worth money.




Maybe...but then the juries will hear about the child rapist and the other felons ......


----------



## 1srelluc (Jan 9, 2022)

LOL at the dem toadies that think the scum that was put down/injured are going to win a wrongful death/injury civil suit in a Kenosha court.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

1srelluc said:


> LOL at the dem toadies that think the scum that was put down/injured are going to win a wrongful death/injury civil suit in a Kenosha court.




I'm not sure how they get there..........if Kyle had the rifle legally, then this guy is removed from the actually shootings..........they can take him to court....I hope they lose.


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jan 9, 2022)

There will be no civil suits,  there is no basis for a civil suit.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 9, 2022)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There will be no civil suits,  there is no basis for a civil suit.



Care to elaborate?

Why do you think that?

People get sued for mistakes all the time. This guy knew he was giving a gun to a minor. It wasn't even a mistake.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> Why do you think that?
> 
> People get sued for mistakes all the time. This guy knew he was giving a gun to a minor. It wasn't even a mistake.




If Kyle possessing the rifle wasn't a crime, buying it for him may not be a crime either........considering they aren't charging him for that particular felony as well....


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> Why do you think that?


There is just no basis for any kind of civil suit.  What do you think was the negligent or wrongful action that would give rise to a civil suit?    All the charges should have been tossed as soon as the wrong statute was used.


----------



## AMart (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It opens him up to civil suits.
> 
> If he has anything worth money.
> 
> Or wages they can attach for the rest of his life.


Who is going sue him? The families of the dead perps that tried to kill Rittenhouse? If anything the lack of felony charges lessens the thought of filing a lawsuit.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Jan 9, 2022)

Tipsycatlover said:


> There is just no basis for any kind of civil suit.  What do you think was the negligent or wrongful action that would give rise to a civil suit?    All the charges should have been tossed as soon as the wrong statute was used.



Giving a gun to a minor.

He's already plead guilty. You don't even need to prove he did it. He's admitted it.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Giving a gun to a minor.



He didn't plea to that....please keep up. 

The actual felonies seem to have been dropped, he is likely going to plea to two citations and pay a fine.......


----------



## EvilCat Breath (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Giving a gun to a minor.
> 
> He's already plead guilty. You don't even need to prove he did it. He's admitted it.


Soo this is what he was convicted of?  The particular firearm he gave to the minor is one that the minor could have.   

This is like all those lawsuits against Kenosha and the police department.  It's just not happening.


----------



## 1srelluc (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Giving a gun to a minor.
> 
> He's already plead guilty. You don't even need to prove he did it. He's admitted it.


*No contest* is not a guilty plea though it may be considered as such by the court that a person pleads no contest in when it comes to sentencing.

You like to split hairs, you should know this.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> The guy who bought Kyle Rittenhouse's rifle......likely walking without felonies, and only 2 citations and a 2,000 dollar fine…



  He shouldn't even accept a conviction for that much.

  The entire basis of all the charges agai8nst him is that by providing Mr. Rittenhouse with a rifle, he was an accomplish to crimes committed by Mr. Rittenhouse using that rifle.

  Now that it is established as a legal fact that Mr. Rittenhouse did not commit any crimes using that rifle, the basis for these charges simply does not exist.

  It was an act of malfeasance and corruption to pursue these charges, once Mr. Rittenhouse was acquitted.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And the judge may even throw out several of these things since it was found at trial that Kyle did not break the law when he had that rifle........
> 
> *The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.
> -----------
> ...


Kind of shows what a fraud you are.

"We should just enforce the gun laws we have"

Well, know we know THAT's a lie.


----------



## Polishprince (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Giving a gun to a minor.
> 
> He's already plead guilty. You don't even need to prove he did it. He's admitted it.




You'd still have to prove damages.     Chomo Joseph Rosenbaum is better off  dead, his estate would be entitled to nominal damages at best.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Kind of shows what a fraud you are.
> 
> "We should just enforce the gun laws we have"
> 
> Well, know we know THAT's a lie.


Rittenhouse's prosecutor didn't even know Kyle was legally allowed to have the rifle.


----------



## AMart (Jan 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Kind of shows what a fraud you are.
> 
> "We should just enforce the gun laws we have"
> 
> Well, know we know THAT's a lie.


It was enforced. The guy was charged and is working on a plea deal dummy. Grosskrues whatever the fuck his name is was illegally carrying a firearm. Why has he not been charged? And he should have been charged with attempted murder.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And the judge may even throw out several of these things since it was found at trial that Kyle did not break the law when he had that rifle........
> 
> *The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.
> -----------
> ...


I have no problem with this.  The goal of laws, trials and punishment is to keep people from breaking the law again and stand as a message to others that might break that law.  Fine.  So he walks on the felonies, pays a $2,000 dollar fine, is still open to civil lawsuit.  Good solution.  Does anybody think you could make a profit, selling a $700.00 weapon (at best, from what I saw) illegally to an out of state under aged kid, paying for the weapon and then paying the state another $2,000 dollar?  This doesn't take into account lost time, going to jail, posting bond, attorney fees, negative impact on what used to be his good name?  It is unlikely he will be the out-of-state straw buyer for Illinois kids again.  If this deal is acceptable to the prosecutors and judges that have to buy off on it, I'm good. I expect his lesson is learned and he will not repeat.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Kind of shows what a fraud you are.
> 
> "We should just enforce the gun laws we have"
> 
> Well, know we know THAT's a lie.




Which law did he break?


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Which law did he break?


Keep in my Indy supports Red Flag laws which deny people their rights without due process.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Which law did he break?


Delivering a firearm to someone not entitled under state law to have one, resulting in death. The got him on two counts.  The law does not specify, the gun be used maliciously, only that it results in death.  They had him dead to right.  They are just sending a message. Are you thinking the state was wrong to cut the kid a break?  I suspect this kid will never be a straw buyer of another under aged kid as long as his lives.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Delivering a firearm to someone not entitled under state law to have one, resulting in death. The got him on two counts.  The law does not specify, the gun be used maliciously, only that it results in death.  They had him dead to right.  They are just sending a message. Are you thinking the state was wrong to cut the kid a break?  I suspect this kid will never be a straw buyer of another under aged kid as long as his lives.




Nope......they should never have brought charges against him......Kyle wasn't a felon, so buying him the rifle shouldn't be a crime, especially a felony.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Nope......they should never have brought charges against him......Kyle wasn't a felon, so buying him the rifle shouldn't be a crime, especially a felony.


Take that up with the state.  It was their state legislature that made the law.  He can count himself lucky as there are similar Federal laws that that Federal prosecutors could have charged him with and that he would equally be guilty of.  These laws are written to keep weapons out of the hands of those, state and federal government know should not be in possession of weapons.
Have you written the kid to tell him he should not have taken the deal, as you would like to see it used as a test case to fight the laws themselves on constitutional grounds?  No.  You figure he got as good a deal as he could possibly get, just as I did.  Justice has been served.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Delivering a firearm to someone not entitled under state law to have one...


Rittenhouse was legally entitled to own that weapon.  His defense schooled the prosecutor on the details, and the judge dropped the charge.

EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?​


> Hours before closing arguments began on Monday, Judge Bruce Schroeder granted a defense motion to toss out the weapons charge. Rittenhouse attorneys Mark Richards and Corey Chirafisi pointed to an exception in the law that they said allows minors to possess shotguns and rifles as long as they’re not short-barreled.
> 
> Assistant District Attorney James Kraus argued that the exception renders the state’s prohibition on minors possessing dangerous weapons meaningless. But when he acknowledged that Rittenhouse’s rifle’s barrel was longer than 16 inches, the minimum barrel length allowed under state law, Schroeder dismissed the charge.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> Rittenhouse was legally entitled to own that weapon.  His defense schooled the prosecutor on the details, and the judge dropped the charge.
> 
> EXPLAINER: Why did judge drop Rittenhouse gun charge?​


He agreed to drop it.  He didn't find him not guilty.  There is a difference.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> He agreed to drop it.  He didn't find him not guilty.  There is a difference.


  Rittenhouse did not break that law.  Period.  End of story.  The incompetent prosecutor fucked up.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> Rittenhouse did not break that law.  Period.  End of story.  The incompetent prosecutor fucked up.


Dave, you missed it.  The thread isn't about Rittenhouse.  It is about the guy that illegally sold him his weaponry.  In case you missed it. Rittenhouse was found innocent, months ago.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Dave, you missed it.  The thread isn't about Rittenhouse.  It is about the guy that illegally sold him his weaponry.  In case you missed it. Rittenhouse was found innocent, months ago.


Yeah, no shit.  But you said, "Delivering a firearm to someone not entitled under state law to have one..."

Which was false, as I've more than adequately demonstrated.

So how can delivering a firearm to someone who is not legally prohibited from having it be a crime?

Take your time.  I can tell you haven't given this much thought.  At all.


----------



## Flash (Jan 9, 2022)

What delinquency?

Kyle committed no crime.

However, Domenic Black may go ahead and take the stupid plea just to make it all go away.


----------



## Flash (Jan 9, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> Care to elaborate?
> 
> Why do you think that?
> 
> People get sued for mistakes all the time. This guy knew he was giving a gun to a minor. It wasn't even a mistake.




You are confused.

Under Wisconsin law it is legal for a 17 year old to have a rifle providing it meets certain length criteria and is not a pistol.

Under the law a 17 year old with an AR-15 longer than 26 inches and a barrel longer than 16 inches is just as legal as anyone 45 years old.  A 17 year old is not considered a "minor" for that law.

That is why the gun charges was thrown out in court by the Judge.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> Yeah, no shit.  But you said, "Delivering a firearm to someone not entitled under state law to have one..."
> 
> Which was false, as I've more than adequately demonstrated.
> 
> ...


What?  You are saying it is legal to be a straw buyer for out of state juveniles or that nobody died, or just that the judge dropped the felony charge, and he took the plea deal? We are supposed to be impressed?  Take your time.  I can tell you haven't given this much thought.  At all.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> What?  You are saying it is legal to be a straw buyer for out of state juveniles or that nobody died, or just that the judge dropped the felony charge, and he took the plea deal? We are supposed to be impressed?  Take your time.  I can tell you haven't given this much thought.  At all.


I'm saying it wasn't illegal for Kyle to have the weapon, despite what you said.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 9, 2022)

Flash said:


> What delinquency?
> 
> Kyle committed no crime.
> 
> However, Domenic Black may go ahead and take the stupid plea just to make it all go away.




Yep...defending against felony charges can go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars....


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> I'm saying it wasn't illegal for Kyle to have the weapon, despite what you said.


There is a difference between not being prosecuted and being found innocent.  The guy that was 19 when he bought the gun from the hardware store with Kyles money got off easy.  Say, if it's all good, how did he contribute to the delinquency of a minor?
You figure OJ never killed anybody, too or was he just innocent?


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> There is a difference between not being prosecuted and being found innocent.  The guy that was 19 when he bought the gun from the hardware store with Kyles money got off easy.  Say, if it's all good, how did he contribute to the delinquency of a minor?
> You figure OJ never killed anybody, too or was he just innocent?


Look, I know you're angry that I proved you wrong.

But perhaps you shouldn't make false claims to begin with, huh?


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> Look, I know you're angry that I proved you wrong.
> 
> But perhaps you shouldn't make false claims to begin with, huh?


I'm not angry.  I'm not even wrong.  You are confusing guilt and innocence in a court of law with being right or wrong.  I still know the difference.  I doubt you do.  Take it up with the judge.  You haven't heard me complain about either verdict.


----------



## daveman (Jan 9, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I'm not angry.  I'm not even wrong.  You are confusing guilt and innocence in a court of law with being right or wrong.  I still know the difference.  I doubt you do.  Take it up with the judge.  You haven't heard me complain about either verdict.


You bet, Slappy.


----------



## Flash (Jan 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Yep...defending against felony charges can go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars....


Plus all it takes is one stupid hateful Moon Bat on the jury to prevent justice.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 9, 2022)

daveman said:


> You bet, Slappy.


Thanks, honey.  Glad I could help.


----------



## Opie (Jan 9, 2022)

This should not even be a thing


----------



## Flash (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> What?  You are saying it is legal to be a straw buyer for out of state juveniles or that nobody died, or just that the judge dropped the felony charge, and he took the plea deal? We are supposed to be impressed?  Take your time.  I can tell you haven't given this much thought.  At all.


Dominic under the law is not a "straw buyer" since he kept the rifle at his home.  The agreement was the rifle would transfer possession when Kyle was 18.

Letting Kyle use the rifle (which was legal to do since Kyle was 17) to shoot on his property and the night of the shootings did not make it a straw purchase.

By the way, that is a Federal law and the Feds didn't bring charges against Dominic.

The state did not bring straw purchase charges against Dominic because it did not apply and I don't know but may not even be a state law.  It is not a state law here in Florida.  Only if you buy a firearm for someone who is prohibited from a criminal standpoint.

Dominic did nothing Illegal.  He is just as innocent as Kyle.

He make take the plea agreement just to make everything go away but he committed no crime.


----------



## Captain Caveman (Jan 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> And the judge may even throw out several of these things since it was found at trial that Kyle did not break the law when he had that rifle........
> 
> *The man who bought Kyle Rittenhouse an assault-style rifle when he was only 17 has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he’d been facing.
> -----------
> ...


----------



## White 6 (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> Dominic under the law is not a "straw buyer" since he kept the rifle at his home.  The agreement was the rifle would transfer possession when Kyle was 18.
> 
> Letting Kyle use the rifle (which was legal to do since Kyle was 17) to shoot on his property and the night of the shootings did not make it a straw purchase.
> 
> ...


Gee, maybe he should go into the business of supplying guns to out of state juveniles for a living.  If the Dems push another pandemic relief bill, there might be money in it.  That's where Kyle said he got the money for it.


----------



## Flash (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Gee, maybe he should go into the business of supplying guns to out of state juveniles for a living.  If the Dems push another pandemic relief bill, there might be money in it.  That's where Kyle said he got the money for it.




No, you are confused.  Dominic Black is not an arms dealer.

A friend ask him to buy a gun for him and he did.  Dominic was doing the legal thing and keeping the gun at his place, in his possession, until Kyle was was to turn 18.  Perfectly legal to do that.

Letting Kyle shoot the gun at Dominic's family property was legal.  Letting Kyle use the gun on the night of the shootings was legal.

Dominic sure as hell did not "contribute to the delinquency of a minor" because the minor was never convicted of any delinquency.

No crimes were committed.

Dominic is a political prisoner made so by an out of control Democrat Prosecutor.  We see a lot of that shit, don't we?  The Democrats go after the innocent but let the thugs that cause all the rioting, looting and destruction go free.  Why hasn't GG been charged with illegally carrying a pistol?  Why aren't hundreds of Negroes and the pathetic confused White pukes that helped them charged with the destruction they did in Kenosha?

Neither Dominic Black or Kyle Rittenhouse should have ever been charged with anything.


----------



## 2aguy (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Gee, maybe he should go into the business of supplying guns to out of state juveniles for a living.  If the Dems push another pandemic relief bill, there might be money in it.  That's where Kyle said he got the money for it.




and here....

*After Rittenhouse, who was then 17-years old, gave Black the money to purchase the rifle, Black maintained possession of the gun at his home. The idea was that he would keep ahold of the rifle at his home in Kenosha until Rittenhouse turned 18 and could take legal possession. On August 25th of last year, however, Rittenhouse did take the rifle with him as he and Black went to stand guard over a local car dealership. As we learned at trial, though, Rittenhouse didn’t commit a crime by doing so, and if Rittenhouse hadn’t been forced to act in self-defense it’s almost certain that at the end of the evening he would have once again left the AR-15 at Black’s home when he headed back to his own house in northern Illinois.*

*This was never a standard “straw buy”, in other words, and there’s no guarantee that Binger would have been able to convince a jury that the purchase of the rifle should result in a felony conviction and a prison sentence. In that regard, the deal makes sense not only for Dominick Black, but for the prosecution, who now get to avoid the prospect of another embarrassing defeat in open court.*









						Rittenhouse straw purchase case collapses, friend offered plea deal
					

Dominick Black was facing felony charges for purchasing a rifle for Kyle Rittenhouse, but he could walk away with a fine.




					bearingarms.com


----------



## daveman (Jan 10, 2022)

There sure are a lot of people pissed off that a pedo, a serial wife beater, and a career criminal were shot that night.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Jan 10, 2022)

This could all have been easily avoided
KR loans his friend $ to buy a gun.
The guy buys the gun, lets KR use it now and again.
KR wants the $ back, the guy doesn't have it, he gives him the rife in trade.
All 100% legal.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> No, you are confused.  Dominic Black is not an arms dealer.
> 
> A friend ask him to buy a gun for him and he did.  Dominic was doing the legal thing and keeping the gun at his place, in his possession, until Kyle was was to turn 18.  Perfectly legal to do that.
> 
> ...


I don't the young Mr. Black wants any more and will not repeat.  Do you really think, Black should have turned down the deal, stated his belief that buying weapons in his own name and supplying them to juveniles, too young to buy from another state and gone for the glory to prove your theory, or do you, like I figure he should correctly take the deal, pay the 2 grand and put this behind him?


Flash said:


> destruction go free.  Why hasn't GG been charged with illegally carrying a pistol?  Why aren't hundreds of Negroes and the pathetic confused White pukes that helped them charged with the destruction they did in Kenosha?
> 
> Neither Dominic Black or Kyle Rittenhouse should have ever been charged with anything.


----------



## Flash (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I don't the young Mr. Black wants any more and will not repeat.  Do you really think, Black should have turned down the deal, stated his belief that buying weapons in his own name and supplying them to juveniles, too young to buy from another state and gone for the glory to prove your theory, or do you, like I figure he should correctly take the deal, pay the 2 grand and put this behind him?




He is innocent of any crime.

However, he is agreeing to a County level fine.  Not even a misdemeanor.   Essentially like a traffic fine.

Any lawyer would tell him to jump at it and not look back.

It would cost him tens of thousands of dollars if not a hundred grand to fight it.

You are confused.  Dominic Black was not buying weapons and supplying them to juveniles.   He bought a gun for a friend with the stipulation that he maintain possession of the gun until Kyle became 18.  Perfectly legal even with the fact that Kyle gave him the money to buy the weapon.    Not even considered a straw purchase under the State or Federal law.

I have a Nephew that wanted an AR-15 so I built one for him when he was 16.   I did it with the stipulation that his dad keep it for him until he was 18.  During those two years he shot it several times.  When he became 18 the rifle was his.  Everything was legal and it was not me supplying weapons to juveniles.


----------



## JohnDB (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> Dominic under the law is not a "straw buyer" since he kept the rifle at his home.  The agreement was the rifle would transfer possession when Kyle was 18.
> 
> Letting Kyle use the rifle (which was legal to do since Kyle was 17) to shoot on his property and the night of the shootings did not make it a straw purchase.
> 
> ...


It sounds like he made a plea deal that went south when Kyle was found NOT GUILTY...

And now he's being hung out to dry.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> He is innocent of any crime.
> 
> However, he is agreeing to a County level fine.  Not even a misdemeanor.   Essentially like a traffic fine.
> 
> ...


He bought that one and supplied it.  That law says nothing about whether doing in once or for a living.  It is painfully obvious he did not keep it in his possession until Kyle was 18.  Definitely considered a straw purchase under Federal law.


----------



## Flash (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> He bought that one and supplied it.  That law says nothing about whether doing in once or for a living.  It is painfully obvious he did not keep it in his possession until Kyle was 18.  Definitely considered a straw purchase under Federal law.




Yes there is the difference.

A "straw purchase" usually requires an immediate change of hands and a profit to the buyer.  Dominic was not charged with conducting a straw purchase either under Federal or State law because he did not meet the definition for the crime.

Keeping it your possession does not mean you can't let somebody else shoot it.

I let other people shoot my firearms all the time and they are sure as hell in my possession under the law. 

Since you are confused about this I will provide a lawyer to explain it to you.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> Yes there is the difference.
> 
> A "straw purchase" usually requires an immediate change of hands and a profit to the buyer.  Dominic was not charged with conducting a straw purchase either under Federal or State law because he did not meet the definition for the crime.
> 
> ...


Does not require a profit.  It is not about restraint of trade or taking bad business practice into account.  It is about keep gun from going into the hands of people that cannot buy them legally.  They are not in your possession if you are not with them.  I have no idea what the laws are in your state.  You are criminally liable in Minnesota, by the reading of the statute they charged him with.  Not sure why you guys can't just be glad they didn't prosecute the kid to the extent of the law.  I bet he is not a really bad young guy.  He got a good plea deal. Has no state felony record and just a $2,000 fine.  Heck, send the kid some money, if you like.


----------



## Flash (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> Does not require a profit.  It is not about restraint of trade or taking bad business practice into account.  It is about keep gun from going into the hands of people that cannot buy them legally.  They are not in your possession if you are not with them.  I have no idea what the laws are in your state.  You are criminally liable in Minnesota, by the reading of the statute they charged him with.  Not sure why you guys can't just be glad they didn't prosecute the kid to the extent of the law.  I bet he is not a really bad young guy.  He got a good plea deal. Has no state felony record and just a $2,000 fine.  Heck, send the kid some money, if you like.


First of all did you watch the video that I assigned to you?

Here in Florida, like in Wisconsin, there are different laws when it comes to buying a firearm and being able to shoot it.

A 17 year old cannot buy a firearm in WI but he can carry it and he can shoot it.  It is not a crime to let a 17 year shoot a firearm.  A 17 year old has the same right to carry and shoot an AR meeting the length requirements as any adult.

There is no law that says you can't let a 17 shoot an AR.  There is no law that says you can't buy a firearm for a 17 year old and then keep it at your house and let him shoot it from time to time.

There was no straw purchase crime here.

If you think there is and have the proof then you should contact Littlefinger and let him know before he lets Dominic plea to a minor County level fine that has nothing to do with a straw purchase law.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> First of all did you watch the video that I assigned to you?
> 
> Here in Florida, like in Wisconsin, there are different laws when it comes to buying a firearm and being able to shoot it.
> 
> ...


No.  I don't accept assignments anymore.  In the state he was in, it requires adult supervision.  Yes it was a straw purchase crime, though never prosecuted by the Feds.  I don't know if there is a straw purchase statute in that state.  It wasn't the statute he was charged with.  Does that make it right, just because the Feds didn't take over those cases and prosecute?  Some people wanted it taken out of the hands of the state by the Feds.  Are you one of those?  I have no problem with what the plea deal offer.  Why do you?


----------



## Flash (Jan 10, 2022)

White 6 said:


> No.  I don't accept assignments anymore.  In the state he was in, it requires adult supervision.  Yes it was a straw purchase crime, though never prosecuted by the Feds.  I don't know if there is a straw purchase statute in that state.  It wasn't the statute he was charged with.  Does that make it right, just because the Feds didn't take over those cases and prosecute?  Some people wanted it taken out of the hands of the state by the Feds.  Are you one of those?  I have no problem with what the plea deal offer.  Why do you?




If you don't want to listen to what the lawyer has to say then that explains why you are a dumbass.

You are as confused about Dominic Black as you were about Kyle Rittenhouse.

I provided you with an expert that explained it very well but typical of a stupid uneducated Moon Bat you chose to keep your head up your ass rather than understand reality.

I can't help you if you are unwilling to help yourself.

Then you wonder why we ridicule you stupid uneducated Moon Bats so much of the time.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 10, 2022)

Flash said:


> If you don't want to listen to what the lawyer has to say then that explains why you are a dumbass.
> 
> You are as confused about Dominic Black as you were about Kyle Rittenhouse.
> 
> ...


I cheated and read the state law instead, days ago.  It does not refer to hunting statutes as defense argued.  No reading of the statute can be construed to make the case, it is only about criminal injury.  Dominic's step father testified, the gun was being kept at his house, until Rittenhouse turned 18, but on the day of the riot, Dominic and Rittenhouse went to his house and took the gun while he was not home.  It does not say Dominic went to his home and picked up the Rifle.  Dominic was wrong by state law, the judge just didn't want to was the tail if dog was free to go.  Damn sensible of him, due to the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial. 
_The Assistant DA : “I believe that does serve as a form of punishment and a deterrence to anyone going forward into the future,” Mr. Binger said. “I do want to close by saying that I do believe that it is a serious offense to purchase a firearm for someone who is not legally able to do so. Our office will continue to vigorously prosecute those offenses. And it is still our office’s position that 17-year-olds should not go armed with firearms."  _
But you think, there was nothing wrong_.  _I guess you never heard of a plea deal before. If it wasn't wrong, just what do you think the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge was about? Did he give lil Kyle a beer or something? NO. Maybe you think this trial changed the law, just because it was pled away under these circumstance. It sounds like in the same circumstance you would become a repeat offender, probably resulting in facing the whole charge and hard time. You have no sense of right and wrong, if it interferes with what you choose to do, legal or illegal, by state law, federal law or anybody else's law. You are just not too bright.
You are the type we consistently ridicule for your stupidity on this board.


----------



## Flash (Jan 11, 2022)

White 6 said:


> I cheated and read the state law instead, days ago.  It does not refer to hunting statutes as defense argued.  No reading of the statute can be construed to make the case, it is only about criminal injury.  Dominic's step father testified, the gun was being kept at his house, until Rittenhouse turned 18, but on the day of the riot, Dominic and Rittenhouse went to his house and took the gun while he was not home.  It does not say Dominic went to his home and picked up the Rifle.  Dominic was wrong by state law, the judge just didn't want to was the tail if dog was free to go.  Damn sensible of him, due to the outcome of the Rittenhouse trial.
> _The Assistant DA : “I believe that does serve as a form of punishment and a deterrence to anyone going forward into the future,” Mr. Binger said. “I do want to close by saying that I do believe that it is a serious offense to purchase a firearm for someone who is not legally able to do so. Our office will continue to vigorously prosecute those offenses. And it is still our office’s position that 17-year-olds should not go armed with firearms."  _
> But you think, there was nothing wrong_.  _I guess you never heard of a plea deal before. If it wasn't wrong, just what do you think the contributing to the delinquency of a minor charge was about? Did he give lil Kyle a beer or something? NO. Maybe you think this trial changed the law, just because it was pled away under these circumstance. It sounds like in the same circumstance you would become a repeat offender, probably resulting in facing the whole charge and hard time. You have no sense of right and wrong, if it interferes with what you choose to do, legal or illegal, by state law, federal law or anybody else's law. You are just not too bright.
> You are the type we consistently ridicule for your stupidity on this board.




You didn't watch the analysis in the video by a Wisconsin Lawyer because because you have your head up your ass and you don't want to know the real facts.

Typical Moon Bat denial and stupidity.


----------



## White 6 (Jan 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> You didn't watch the analysis in the video by a Wisconsin Lawyer because because you have your head up your ass and you don't want to know the real facts.
> 
> Typical Moon Bat denial and stupidity.


You didn't read the law, preferring to have a video, as you do not read and comprehend at normal levels, or trust yourself to read the law itself, preferring to be spoon-fed something that makes you happy.  I read the law, what the judge and prosecutor said and my experience with law from College, and in courtrooms, instead.  Like I said earlier, you have little sense of right and wrong left to begin with (probably due to raising) along with a steady diet of unexamined dogma/propaganda.  Nobody could expect you to understand judgement, plea deals, and complicated realities, preferring simplifications as necessary to remain in your comfort zone.  Good luck on your future endeavors.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jan 12, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> It opens him up to civil suits.
> 
> If he has anything worth money.
> 
> Or wages they can attach for the rest of his life.


Move to Texas.

Wages are not subject to collection under Texas law.

Only Federal Income Tax debts can be levied against wages in Texas.


----------



## whitehall (Jan 19, 2022)

A guy can join the U.S. Military under certain conditions and they will teach him to shoot something a lot more potent than a semi-automatic rifle. Should the government be liable for contributing to the delinquency of a minor?


----------

