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.
and illegally carrying a firearm.He was responding to the violence on the leftWhy was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?
Both of these boys/ young men give me a sense of hope for the future. They are both good kids-------attacked by the insanity of the communist dems.He did a great job in fucking the hateful Left Fake News that tried to screw Nick so hopefully he will get justice for Kyle.
The attorney who is representing Covington Catholic teen Nick Sandmann has offered to represent the Kenosha gunman Kyle Rittenhouse pro bono.Sandmann Lawyer L. Lin Wood Offers to Represent 17-Year-Old Kenosha Shooter Pro Bono - American Greatness
Not for those under 18, Fruitcake....The fact is it was this kid's flagrant violation of the law that put him in jeopardy.
Actually, the decision made by looters and domestic terrorists to show up and attempt to destroy someone's business forced the owner and others to have to defend their property. The looters / terrorists created the situation, not the one defending public / private property from them.
Attempting to blame those defending their property from domestic terrorists is like blaming a cop for having to shoot some SOB who was coming at him with a machete.
It doesn't matter.
This kid was breaking the law the second he carried a gun in public. And the property was not his.
What he was doing was illegally playing soldier
He was not defending his family's property so the castle doctrine does not apply.
False, Wisconsin is an open carry state.
He broke no laws.
But, murder?Why were the looters trying illegally murder the kid "illegally" carrying a rifle?irrelevantThis whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.
You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.
Circular reasoning.
This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.
That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.
By equivocating you are defending them, you slimy gutless SJW poseur twat.
I am not equivocating.
I do not support anyone who breaks the law. Period.
By defending the illegal actions of this Rittenhouse kid you are supporting a person who breaks the law
The law wasn't being enforced against actual criminals. When that happens law abiding people aren't beholden to procedural gun laws.
And you are equivocating you gutless sissy mary.
The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires
Don't know.
And I'll say it again, I am not excusing the people who were rioting, looting or setting fires. They were breaking the law.
But so was Rittenhouse.
So this is criminal on criminal crime
Oh good grief, I don't know what is worse that you don't understand what SELF DEFENSE is or that you don't understand that GOOD GUYS do have the right to be good guys to defend others.The fact is it was this kid's flagrant violation of the law that put him in jeopardy.
Actually, the decision made by looters and domestic terrorists to show up and attempt to destroy someone's business forced the owner and others to have to defend their property. The looters / terrorists created the situation, not the one defending public / private property from them.
Attempting to blame those defending their property from domestic terrorists is like blaming a cop for having to shoot some SOB who was coming at him with a machete.
It doesn't matter.
This kid was breaking the law the second he carried a gun in public. And the property was not his.
What he was doing was illegally playing soldier
He was not defending his family's property so the castle doctrine does not apply.
YOu actually do have the right to stop criminals from attacking others....geebus----where is your sense of morals?
But what they don't have is the right to carry a firearm illegally.
You don't commit MURDER in self defense.And illegally
and illegally carrying a firearm.He was responding to the violence on the leftWhy was Rittenhouse running down the street with an AR-15?
You don't respond to crime by committing crime
why are you sticking up for a kid who broke state and federal gun laws?
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At
Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One
Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon
CONTENDER FOR 'DARWIN AWARDS'
Attacker with a skateboard versus someone carrying an AR-15?
- Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!
'It may be the last thing the skateboard carrier ever did. It appears this man was shot right after attacking the young Rittenhouse with a skateboard. After that he fell to the ground and didn’t move.'
No sympathy here for the violent attackers / terrorists who chose the wrong victim to attack, one carrying an AR-15.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
On Tuesday night two people were killed in the continued violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears they were killed by the same shooter, a 17-year-old by the name of Kyle Rittenhouse. Another individual shot by Rittenhouse appears to have been carrying a handgun.www.thegatewaypundit.com
Of course your sympathies are with the murderer and not the victims. That's what you 1000 post a month posters do. Side with hate and division, every single time. You even sided with Dylan Rooff when he shot up the black church.
Why are you sticking up for the guys that attacked him?
But, murder?Why were the looters trying illegally murder the kid "illegally" carrying a rifle?irrelevantThis whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.
You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.
Circular reasoning.
This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.
That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.
By equivocating you are defending them, you slimy gutless SJW poseur twat.
I am not equivocating.
I do not support anyone who breaks the law. Period.
By defending the illegal actions of this Rittenhouse kid you are supporting a person who breaks the law
The law wasn't being enforced against actual criminals. When that happens law abiding people aren't beholden to procedural gun laws.
And you are equivocating you gutless sissy mary.
The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires
Don't know.
And I'll say it again, I am not excusing the people who were rioting, looting or setting fires. They were breaking the law.
But so was Rittenhouse.
So this is criminal on criminal crime
I can see a charge for illegally carrying a rifle in public (which should be shot down by the SCOTUS immediately) but MURDER???
Good.If more RWNJs start showing up armed you're gonna see protestors with arms as well.You liberals should be happy. If more vigilantes step in like this to stop the BLM crazies, then Trump won't need to send in federal law enforcement.Wrong. He left his mom's basement with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
Oh good grief, I don't know what is worse that you don't understand what SELF DEFENSE is or that you don't understand that GOOD GUYS do have the right to be good guys to defend others.The fact is it was this kid's flagrant violation of the law that put him in jeopardy.
Actually, the decision made by looters and domestic terrorists to show up and attempt to destroy someone's business forced the owner and others to have to defend their property. The looters / terrorists created the situation, not the one defending public / private property from them.
Attempting to blame those defending their property from domestic terrorists is like blaming a cop for having to shoot some SOB who was coming at him with a machete.
It doesn't matter.
This kid was breaking the law the second he carried a gun in public. And the property was not his.
What he was doing was illegally playing soldier
He was not defending his family's property so the castle doctrine does not apply.
YOu actually do have the right to stop criminals from attacking others....geebus----where is your sense of morals?
But what they don't have is the right to carry a firearm illegally.
Or to cross state lines with a weapon, with the intention of causing trouble at a legal protest. This is what happens when your President tells his cult that protestors are lawless criminals who must be called to account.
That's irrelevant to the point, which is that these laws will become less relevant to the people involved as their survival becomes more paramount and it becomes more apparent that the police are not going to intervene and save lives. You can be obsessed with him breaking laws all you want, but in this case, there are plenty of broken laws to go around. It's illegal, for example, to burn things and break them in riots. It's illegal to assault people. We can get very outraged that this kid broke some laws, but that's NOT going to bring back the dead, nor is it going to stop the next shooting. The plain truth is that this is only the beginning, not the end, because the riots are continuing and continuing to increase in violence, and as long as it's obvious the police will not protect citizens or their property, the citizens will fight back, and will not care about laws that are supposed to prevent them from doing so. People are fed up with being victims and will push back.There will be more of this and there will be more death until the riots stop being so violent and the police are allowed to break them up. I said early on that they would eventually assault someone who could and would fight back, and no number of gun control laws will stop it. That's the brutal truth.Dead looters were ILLEGALLY trying to murder Rittenhouse.I'm not missing the point.You're missing the point, which is that the violence of the protests has been escalating and has reached the point where other citizens no longer are going to allow themselves to be helpless victims. When the power structure prevents those who are charged with keeping the peace from doing that, the citizens will do it themselves. It only gets bloodier from here until either the protests become less violent (and the protesters actively discourage the violence) or the police are allowed to break them up before they become riots. People are going to die is the ultimate point.This whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.
You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.
Circular reasoning.
This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.
That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.
Rittenhouse was ILEGALLY carrying a firearm in public.
That is a fact and not up for debate.
FACT
So that makes carrying a firearm illegally OK?
Tell me would he have been attacked if he wasn't illegally carrying a firearm ?
Nothing better than blaming the victim, you gutless coward.
FOAD.
He is a criminal.
Do you moan over other criminals who get assaulted while committing a crime?
He is guilty of nothing more than violating gun control ordinances, that are nothing more than procedural in nature.
The rioters are guilty of universally recognized crimes, and they were assaulting him.
Your tired attempt at equivocation is just that, tired and also pathetic.
Illegally carrying a firearm is a federal crime. or didn't you know that.
A criminal is a criminal why do you want to encourage the breaking of federal and state laws?
so it doesn't matter to you that this kid was breaking state and federal laws?
Good.If more RWNJs start showing up armed you're gonna see protestors with arms as well.You liberals should be happy. If more vigilantes step in like this to stop the BLM crazies, then Trump won't need to send in federal law enforcement.Wrong. He left his mom's basement with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
Let's get the shooting part of this war started so it can be over. I am ready to rid the world of communist fucktards.
Felony Murder?But, murder?Why were the looters trying illegally murder the kid "illegally" carrying a rifle?irrelevantThis whole thing was so predictable from the beginning. The left has for decades been accustomed to holding violent protests, burning things, assaulting people, damaging property, etc, with little or no repercussions. In fact, they have a sympathetic media that focuses more on their cause than their actions. This level of on-going and increasing violence, however, has finally caused a counter reaction. Property owners and innocent bystanders have realized that the official power structure is not going to protect them and they are starting to fight back. I said that it wouldn't be long before these thugs went after somebody that was armed and willing to defend himself, and people would die, and now it has. This won't stop here, either, because the violent protesters have no intention of stopping their violence and will only increase it because they still believe there are a lot of soft targets that won't fight back. The counter reaction will only increase, as it becomes ever more apparent that protection is not to be found. This only stops when the protesters stop being violent.
You can argue that this kid broke the law himself, that he should not have been on the streets with a rifle, but when the police are pulled back, who is going to enforce the laws that the kid broke? The flip side of the argument, of course, is that without the violent protesters in the streets, the kid would never have been walking around carrying an AR-15. Think of how foolish it is for the protesters to, on the one hand, scream that the police need to be defunded and disbanded, while on the other, want those same police to protect them from the inevitable results of their actions.
Circular reasoning.
This kid took it upon himself to illegally arm himself and protect the property of other people.
That does not excuse rioters, looters or arsonists from their crimes.
By equivocating you are defending them, you slimy gutless SJW poseur twat.
I am not equivocating.
I do not support anyone who breaks the law. Period.
By defending the illegal actions of this Rittenhouse kid you are supporting a person who breaks the law
The law wasn't being enforced against actual criminals. When that happens law abiding people aren't beholden to procedural gun laws.
And you are equivocating you gutless sissy mary.
The minor who illegally carried a gun was still breaking the law just as much as the people rioting, looting and setting fires
Don't know.
And I'll say it again, I am not excusing the people who were rioting, looting or setting fires. They were breaking the law.
But so was Rittenhouse.
So this is criminal on criminal crime
I can see a charge for illegally carrying a rifle in public (which should be shot down by the SCOTUS immediately) but MURDER???
He crossed state lines with an illegal weapon and killed two people with it. It you kill someone in the commission of another crime, you are guilty of murder.
Oh good grief, I don't know what is worse that you don't understand what SELF DEFENSE is or that you don't understand that GOOD GUYS do have the right to be good guys to defend others.The fact is it was this kid's flagrant violation of the law that put him in jeopardy.
Actually, the decision made by looters and domestic terrorists to show up and attempt to destroy someone's business forced the owner and others to have to defend their property. The looters / terrorists created the situation, not the one defending public / private property from them.
Attempting to blame those defending their property from domestic terrorists is like blaming a cop for having to shoot some SOB who was coming at him with a machete.
It doesn't matter.
This kid was breaking the law the second he carried a gun in public. And the property was not his.
What he was doing was illegally playing soldier
He was not defending his family's property so the castle doctrine does not apply.
YOu actually do have the right to stop criminals from attacking others....geebus----where is your sense of morals?
But what they don't have is the right to carry a firearm illegally.
Or to cross state lines with a weapon, with the intention of causing trouble at a legal protest. This is what happens when your President tells his cult that protestors are lawless criminals who must be called to account.
No he's dread becvause he made a series of badA 17 year old is dead because we have all gone bat shit crazy, hate rules, common sense has left the building.
Rittenhouse is not a victim.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At
Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One
Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon
CONTENDER FOR 'DARWIN AWARDS'
Attacker with a skateboard versus someone carrying an AR-15?
- Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!
'It may be the last thing the skateboard carrier ever did. It appears this man was shot right after attacking the young Rittenhouse with a skateboard. After that he fell to the ground and didn’t move.'
No sympathy here for the violent attackers / terrorists who chose the wrong victim to attack, one carrying an AR-15.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
On Tuesday night two people were killed in the continued violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears they were killed by the same shooter, a 17-year-old by the name of Kyle Rittenhouse. Another individual shot by Rittenhouse appears to have been carrying a handgun.
Of course your sympathies are with the murderer and not the victims. That's what you 1000 post a month posters do. Side with hate and division, every single time. You even sided with Dylan Rooff when he shot up the black church.
He was committing state and federal gun crimes and he crossed state lines in order to do so.
He doesn't give up the right ot self defense when he's jaywalking...
Doesn't when he's got cocaine in his pocket
Not that complex
He has the right to defend himself but what he doesn't have is the right to break state and federal gun laws Not that complex.
This kid was a criminal just like any other piece of shit that breaks the law.
So he's guilty of a class a misdemeanor
Again he broke no federal laws*
Minors can have guns under federal law
It's not a controlled substance you can bring a gun across state lines
www.usconcealedcarry.com
I will say what I want, when I want, and you will sit there and LIKE it, bitch.Good.If more RWNJs start showing up armed you're gonna see protestors with arms as well.You liberals should be happy. If more vigilantes step in like this to stop the BLM crazies, then Trump won't need to send in federal law enforcement.Wrong. He left his mom's basement with a rifle looking for someone to shoot.
Let's get the shooting part of this war started so it can be over. I am ready to rid the world of communist fucktards.
Oh yea the globalist libertarian is gonna save us
Hahahahah
Shut the fuck up you simple monkey
No one wants what you're selling
The second he openly carried that rifle in public he was breaking the law.From your link, he was defending a property from rioters with the consent of the Owner:Open carry is legal anywhere concealed carry is legal. It is legal for all adults who are 18 years of age or older unless they are prohibited from possession of firearms. A license is not required unless in a taxpayer-owned building or within 1000 feet of school property and not on private property.[8]What WI gun laws? Link please.I guess it doesn't matter to you that a 17 year old who is carrying a long gun in public is in violation of WI gun laws
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At
Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One
Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon
CONTENDER FOR 'DARWIN AWARDS'
Attacker with a skateboard versus someone carrying an AR-15?
- Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!
'It may be the last thing the skateboard carrier ever did. It appears this man was shot right after attacking the young Rittenhouse with a skateboard. After that he fell to the ground and didn’t move.'
No sympathy here for the violent attackers / terrorists who chose the wrong victim to attack, one carrying an AR-15.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
On Tuesday night two people were killed in the continued violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears they were killed by the same shooter, a 17-year-old by the name of Kyle Rittenhouse. Another individual shot by Rittenhouse appears to have been carrying a handgun.
Castle Doctrine
On December 7, 2011, Governor Scott Walker signed a bill passing a Castle Doctrine for Wisconsin. The bill provides criminal immunity (WI statute 939.48(1m)[13]) and protection from civil suits (WI statute 895.62 [14]) for homeowners or business owners who use a gun in self-defense while on their property, with the presumption that any action is justified. The law is a "stand your ground" law, which does not contain a duty to retreat. This applies at the user's private vehicle, business, and at their home. Protection extends to improvements only (driveway, sidewalk, patio, fence, garage, house...), not bare ground. Also, the criminal must have forcibly entered, or be in the process of attempting to forcibly enter, and the defender must be present in the home, car, or business. The Washington County DA ruled that opening a door counts as forcible entry.[15]
The business was not his property so the castle doctrine is not applicable. The owner of the business did not hire him to be armed security and could not have legally done so in the first place.
Castile doctrine also applies to motor vehicles..where is the kids car btw?
Not that it matters, he shot in self defense when the police were refusing to police thanks to the dem government.
No he's dread becvause he made a series of badA 17 year old is dead because we have all gone bat shit crazy, hate rules, common sense has left the building.
Rittenhouse is not a victim.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At
Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One
Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon
CONTENDER FOR 'DARWIN AWARDS'
Attacker with a skateboard versus someone carrying an AR-15?
- Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!
'It may be the last thing the skateboard carrier ever did. It appears this man was shot right after attacking the young Rittenhouse with a skateboard. After that he fell to the ground and didn’t move.'
No sympathy here for the violent attackers / terrorists who chose the wrong victim to attack, one carrying an AR-15.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
On Tuesday night two people were killed in the continued violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears they were killed by the same shooter, a 17-year-old by the name of Kyle Rittenhouse. Another individual shot by Rittenhouse appears to have been carrying a handgun.
Of course your sympathies are with the murderer and not the victims. That's what you 1000 post a month posters do. Side with hate and division, every single time. You even sided with Dylan Rooff when he shot up the black church.
He was committing state and federal gun crimes and he crossed state lines in order to do so.
He doesn't give up the right ot self defense when he's jaywalking...
Doesn't when he's got cocaine in his pocket
Not that complex
He has the right to defend himself but what he doesn't have is the right to break state and federal gun laws Not that complex.
This kid was a criminal just like any other piece of shit that breaks the law.
So he's guilty of a class a misdemeanor
Again he broke no federal laws*
Minors can have guns under federal law
It's not a controlled substance you can bring a gun across state lines
Wrong
He transported a gun across state lines
He was a minor and not allowed to carry a gun in public
Federal Firearms Laws
www.justice.gov
C. AND, the firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line atany time. (Defendant need not have transported the firearm or known of itstransportation across state lines.)
Federal Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Handguns | USCCA
Federal laws regarding the minimum age for the purchase and possession of handguns, including temporary transfers.
FEDERAL MINIMUM AGE TO PURCHASE AND POSSESS HANDGUNS
Minimum Age for Possession of Handguns
Subject to limited exceptions, federal law prohibits the possession (unlawful for a person to sell, deliver or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile) of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18
No he's dread becvause he made a series of badA 17 year old is dead because we have all gone bat shit crazy, hate rules, common sense has left the building.
Rittenhouse is not a victim.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At
Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One
Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon
CONTENDER FOR 'DARWIN AWARDS'
Attacker with a skateboard versus someone carrying an AR-15?
- Never bring a skateboard to a gun fight!
'It may be the last thing the skateboard carrier ever did. It appears this man was shot right after attacking the young Rittenhouse with a skateboard. After that he fell to the ground and didn’t move.'
No sympathy here for the violent attackers / terrorists who chose the wrong victim to attack, one carrying an AR-15.
Pictures Show Young Rittenhouse Shot At Least Two BLM Rioters in Self Defense, One Rioter Was Carrying a Gun and Is a Convicted Felon | The Gateway Pundit | by Joe Hoft
On Tuesday night two people were killed in the continued violence in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It appears they were killed by the same shooter, a 17-year-old by the name of Kyle Rittenhouse. Another individual shot by Rittenhouse appears to have been carrying a handgun.
Of course your sympathies are with the murderer and not the victims. That's what you 1000 post a month posters do. Side with hate and division, every single time. You even sided with Dylan Rooff when he shot up the black church.
He was committing state and federal gun crimes and he crossed state lines in order to do so.
He doesn't give up the right ot self defense when he's jaywalking...
Doesn't when he's got cocaine in his pocket
Not that complex
He has the right to defend himself but what he doesn't have is the right to break state and federal gun laws Not that complex.
This kid was a criminal just like any other piece of shit that breaks the law.
So he's guilty of a class a misdemeanor
Again he broke no federal laws*
Minors can have guns under federal law
It's not a controlled substance you can bring a gun across state lines
Wrong
He transported a gun across state lines
He was a minor and not allowed to carry a gun in public
Federal Firearms Laws
C. AND, the firearm or ammunition was transported across a state line atany time. (Defendant need not have transported the firearm or known of itstransportation across state lines.)
Federal Minimum Age to Purchase and Possess Handguns | USCCA
Federal laws regarding the minimum age for the purchase and possession of handguns, including temporary transfers.
FEDERAL MINIMUM AGE TO PURCHASE AND POSSESS HANDGUNS
Minimum Age for Possession of Handguns
Subject to limited exceptions, federal law prohibits the possession (unlawful for a person to sell, deliver or otherwise transfer to a person who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe is a juvenile) of a handgun or handgun ammunition by any person under the age of 18
good to know you are in favor of breaking federal and state laws.He will if this is the beginning of the Right giving it back to communist domestic terrorists Antifa and BLMSo you support people breaking federal and state gun laws?I'm glad there will be more people like him fighting back against Antifa and BLM.I wouldn't be so sure of that.The Jury will find him innocent of this ridiculous charge and he'll be treated like the hero that he is by most of the peopleAntifa BLM
He was carrying a gun illegally after all.
I have cad a CCW permit since I was 21 and I personally think anyone who breaks state and federal gun laws should serve jail timeIt wouldn't be a bad thing to see those Communist scum shot down in the streets
