Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse's possession of that rifle was legal?
Actually, it quite likely was.
There's not a single thing I've found which would support the idea that Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle he had.
Do you have a link to something which would explain how his possession of it was legal?
Scroll back and read my post where I cited the relevant section of the law, and provided links to it. If there "is not a single thing you found", you must not have been looking in this very thread.
Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.www.bucherlawgroup.com
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
If he was supervised by someone who wasn't a minor while in the act of hunting, perhaps the possession wasn't illegal.
That simply wasn't the case...
"It was illegal by THIS section of the law, which is the only section I read because it said what I wanted!"
Again, go back and reference the post where I cited the actual law and provided the links. It was pretty early in the thread. The more you keep asserting the opposite, the more I think you can't "find one single thing that says different" because you're very carefully avoiding finding one.
Are you suggesting that Rittenhouse's possession of that rifle was legal?
Actually, it quite likely was.
There's not a single thing I've found which would support the idea that Rittenhouse legally possessed the rifle he had.
Do you have a link to something which would explain how his possession of it was legal?
Scroll back and read my post where I cited the relevant section of the law, and provided links to it. If there "is not a single thing you found", you must not have been looking in this very thread.
I've got 40-some-odd pages of posts. I'm not about to go through them to find your post. How about a link?
Bottom line is that, in both Illinois or Wisconsin, it's illegal for a 17 year old to possess such a firearm unless he's being supervised by an adult and engaged in acts such as hunting or attending a course of instruction.
That's the law, and it's clear...
Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
How about, I already did it, and I see no reason to repeat myself for you? You have a search function. Go use it. Or just admit that you want to believe what you want to believe, fuck the facts.
You have some fucking gall, issuing demands that other people find the proof for you, and THEN airily dismissing the notion that you should read them and demanding that they should go find the proof for you AGAIN. Have you always been so spoiled and lazy?
All they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're an idiot if youth the thugs records won't come into play.LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're a moron if you think their past records will have any significance in this case. All that it will come down to are the events which took during the moments of the shootings. Nothing else is relevant. It's either self-defense or it's murder. No one's prior arrest record is a factor. Just like the video of Rittenhouse beating up on a girl, which is also not relevant to this case.
LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're a moron if you think their past records will have any significance in this case. All that it will come down to are the events which took during the moments of the shootings. Nothing else is relevant. It's either self-defense or it's murder. No one's prior arrest record is a factor. Just like the video of Rittenhouse beating up on a girl, which is also not relevant to this case.
Self-defense is based on absolutely nothing other than the events occurring during those moments leading up to and around the shooting. The victims' past are irrelevant as Rittenhouse had no knowledge of their pasts; just as Rittenhouse being too young to legally carry a gun is irrelevant towards the murder charges as no one there knew he was illegally carrying that gun.LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're a moron if you think their past records will have any significance in this case. All that it will come down to are the events which took during the moments of the shootings. Nothing else is relevant. It's either self-defense or it's murder. No one's prior arrest record is a factor. Just like the video of Rittenhouse beating up on a girl, which is also not relevant to this case.
The past records of the victims will of course come into play, because the Liberal Persecutors have to prove that it wasn't self defense.
Further, the accusing witnesses are all members of the Antifa/BLM/NAMBLA group that was rioting. They will have to testify as to why they were there in the first place. Their records are certainly relevant in impeaching their credibility.
Did you fall off the turnip truck?Self-defense is based on absolutely nothing other than the events occurring during those moments leading up to and around the shooting. The victims' past are irrelevant as Rittenhouse had no knowledge of their pasts; just as Rittenhouse being too young to legally carry a gun is irrelevant towards the murder charges as no one there knew he was illegally carrying that gun.LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're a moron if you think their past records will have any significance in this case. All that it will come down to are the events which took during the moments of the shootings. Nothing else is relevant. It's either self-defense or it's murder. No one's prior arrest record is a factor. Just like the video of Rittenhouse beating up on a girl, which is also not relevant to this case.
The past records of the victims will of course come into play, because the Liberal Persecutors have to prove that it wasn't self defense.
Further, the accusing witnesses are all members of the Antifa/BLM/NAMBLA group that was rioting. They will have to testify as to why they were there in the first place. Their records are certainly relevant in impeaching their credibility.
No, I was driving it when I rode over your bizarre, ignorant claims.Did you fall off the turnip truck?Self-defense is based on absolutely nothing other than the events occurring during those moments leading up to and around the shooting. The victims' past are irrelevant as Rittenhouse had no knowledge of their pasts; just as Rittenhouse being too young to legally carry a gun is irrelevant towards the murder charges as no one there knew he was illegally carrying that gun.LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're a moron if you think their past records will have any significance in this case. All that it will come down to are the events which took during the moments of the shootings. Nothing else is relevant. It's either self-defense or it's murder. No one's prior arrest record is a factor. Just like the video of Rittenhouse beating up on a girl, which is also not relevant to this case.
The past records of the victims will of course come into play, because the Liberal Persecutors have to prove that it wasn't self defense.
Further, the accusing witnesses are all members of the Antifa/BLM/NAMBLA group that was rioting. They will have to testify as to why they were there in the first place. Their records are certainly relevant in impeaching their credibility.
Not buying it. Even truck drivers aren't that stupid.No, I was driving it when I rode over your bizarre, ignorant claims.Did you fall off the turnip truck?Self-defense is based on absolutely nothing other than the events occurring during those moments leading up to and around the shooting. The victims' past are irrelevant as Rittenhouse had no knowledge of their pasts; just as Rittenhouse being too young to legally carry a gun is irrelevant towards the murder charges as no one there knew he was illegally carrying that gun.LOLAll they have to do is show the film and the thugs' arrest records. Slap on the wrist and he walks.Rittenhouse's own attorney said they were planning on defending their client on that charge on a federal law which allows 17 year old to be armed in accordance with militia's.
Well, he needs some basis on which to defend him. None of them are going to work, so it might as well be that...
If your 1st grade understanding of the Wisconsin law was accurate, and it's not, they wouldn't need to test the Constitution, they'd fight instead with Wisconsin law on their side. Suffice it to say, Wisconsin law is not on their side.
Exactly correct. The law is not on his side, because the law is clear that his possession of that firearm was unlawful...
Why do you think Muhammed Dowdified that Wisconsin law? It's because Wisconsin is going to be used to convict Kyle Rittenhouse of being illegally in possession of a firearm. It's not going to clear him.
Again,. exactly correct. He's going to be convicted, simply because he was in clear violation of a law with little ambiguity.
"Disqualification Based on Age - Under federal law, with certain exceptions, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing a handgun. [18 U.S.C. s. 922 (x) (2).] Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm. Also, as discussed below, a person must be 21 years of age or older to be eligible for a state license to carry a concealed weapon.[ss. 29.304 and 948.60, Stats.]"
It will be interesting to see how Rittenhouse's attorneys plan to spin that into their client legally possessing an illegally obtained firearm...
You're a moron if you think their past records will have any significance in this case. All that it will come down to are the events which took during the moments of the shootings. Nothing else is relevant. It's either self-defense or it's murder. No one's prior arrest record is a factor. Just like the video of Rittenhouse beating up on a girl, which is also not relevant to this case.
The past records of the victims will of course come into play, because the Liberal Persecutors have to prove that it wasn't self defense.
Further, the accusing witnesses are all members of the Antifa/BLM/NAMBLA group that was rioting. They will have to testify as to why they were there in the first place. Their records are certainly relevant in impeaching their credibility.
You certainly do like to assume you know what other people are thinking, don’t you?Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
It is not required, if you read the entire law, including the other sections of the law referenced in it, rather than just stopping reading as soon as you think you've found what you wanted to see.
You certainly do like to assume you know what other people are thinking, don’t you?Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
It is not required, if you read the entire law, including the other sections of the law referenced in it, rather than just stopping reading as soon as you think you've found what you wanted to see.
Running off to another state to shoot people is IN NO WAY fucking "self-defense".
Do you have evidence that this is what Rittenhouse went to Kenosha to do? You might find his carrying of the rifle to be misguided, or stupid, as well as illegal, but it doesn't mean he went there with the intent of shooting anyone. People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone.
Your arguments here all seem to follow the assumption that Rittenhouse intended to shoot people, but I haven't seen anything as of yet to lead to that conclusion.
Of course ,if it's really necessary to state the obvioius.
1) the kid lives in Illinois.2) he intentionally leaves Illinois and goes to Wisconsin;3) before he does that he prepares by (illegally) acquiring an assault rifle;4) assault rifles are used for shooting people;5) once in Wisconsin, he intentionally goes, with above assault weapon, right to the site of a civil unrest event.
He's not there to buy ice cream. Again it's exactly the same MO as James Fields in Charlottesville, the difference being there are things besides running over people that you can do with a car and Fields probably didn't premeditate it.
My counterquestion would be, where is there any evidence that he went there for some other purpose?
And I disagree with the premise, "People carry guns around the country every day without any intention of shooting someone". If you're carrying a gun, that's what it's for. If you don't intend to shoot it, there's no point in carrying it.
I've always found you to be fairly reasonable, but this argument is pretty silly. There is a difference between being prepared to do something and intending to do something. If everyone who carries a gun is intending to shoot it, why aren't there millions of shootings every day?
I'll put it another way. Someone with a severe allergy might carry an epinephrine shot with them. That doesn't mean they intend to inject themselves with it, it means they are prepared to inject themselves with it if necessary. If anything, the person likely would hope to never have to use it. As far as I know the vast majority of people who carry a gun at some point never shoot at anyone. I hope that most never want to shoot at someone. They carry the gun in case they ever need to shoot at someone.
1) I agree
2) I agree
3) According to this report, the gun was actually bought the summer before the shooting and was kept in Wisconsin: Friend who bought rifle Kyle Rittenhouse used in Kenosha shooting charged
Still illegal for him to possess it, perhaps, but not following the chain of events you describe
4) While true, assault rifles (or just rifles, as assault rifle is often a somewhat ambiguous term) can be used to shoot all manner or things, not just people
5) I agree
None of what you listed shows that Rittenhouse intended to shoot anyone. He could have intended it, but he could merely have been prepared for it. As you pointed out, he went into the site of civil unrest. As such, it's reasonable to think a person would want some way to defend themself against any potential danger. It may have been a stupid choice, but it does not show an intent to shoot someone.
Unless you are going to argue that anything a person carries, that person must intend to use wherever they go, your argument of intent seems entirely based on assumptions with little or no evidence. Having a gun =\= planning to use that gun.
C'mon man.
You go get an assault gun --- which you don't have to do.
You take it, on purpose, to a site of civil unrest --- which again, is a place you didn't have to go.
I mean do the friggin' math. If I don a baseball cap and glove and walk toward the stadium an hour before game time, is it not a logical assumption that I'm going to the game? This kid went to another state. With an illegal gun. To a place known to be in chaos -- which serves as opportunity to get away with it. As I said it's far more credible to suggest that James Fields did not go to Charlottesville with the specific intent of running people down in the street.
I don't know anything about epinephrine (sp?) but again firearms have one and only one purpose. What would be the point of walking around with one without that purpose in mind? It would be extra baggage. Extra weight too. Let alone an illegal one.
I carry for instance my wallet everywhere, not just to have the documentation to drive but because I know I'll use it in myriad ways. On the other hand I rarely carry my phone unless I'm specifically going to need to call somebody.
I had no idea that Rittenhouse had lost his right to interstate movement and that he's only allowed places that he HAS to go.
You certainly do like to assume you know what other people are thinking, don’t you?Did Rittenhouss have a hunting certification, or was it not required? That is the point in the law that made me think he was guilty of the illegal possession charge.Blog | Bucher Law Group, LLC
Professional and personalized legal assitance. Call [[phone]] to speak with one of our experienced attorneys or schedule a consultation.
Wisconsin Gun Laws
The state of Wisconsin is an open carry state, meaning you are legally permitted to carry a loaded weapon in public. Open carry does not require a permit or license to legally do so. A person is considered to be openly carrying a gun if the gun is in plain view while you are in public. If the gun is hidden from ordinary view, then it is considered to be concealed and you must have a permit to legally carry the firearm. You must also be at least 18 years old to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.
He breaking WI gun laws.
So why don't you think he should be severely punished?
No, that's wrong. Wisconsin has an explicit exception for 16-17 year olds (Kyle was) openly carrying (he was) a long gun (he was). Note that the exact wording is extremely confusing and requires jumping to half a dozen different sections of the criminal code. (I only know about it because a lawyer-licensed and practicing in Wisconsin-explained it.)
It is not required, if you read the entire law, including the other sections of the law referenced in it, rather than just stopping reading as soon as you think you've found what you wanted to see.
You certainly do like to ASSume you're some big mystery, despite the fact that you're posting your thoughts and opinions right here on the board FOR ME TO READ.
Don't blame me if your thoughts aren't as impressive to other people as they are to you.
I think it ran over him.Did you fall off the turnip truck?
There is no guarantee that they "will be fine" if they give the loser anything. And the police are usually not able to get their stuff back, even if they would catch the perp. If the perp is a POC , the police aren't even interested in arresting him and risk being a victim of BLM mobs.
The safer move is to tell the robber to "fuck off loser, take a hike"
Now, more than ever, citizens need to be armed to protect themselves and their families against the violent mobs that your leftist masters adore and refuse to control.
