Witnesses come out to say Kyle Rittenhouse pointed his gun at them

a reply to: JAGStorm

No its still under investigation when he was arrested he apparently had two Smith and Wesson M&P 15 Rifles. Considering he couldnt legally purchase them means someone bought them for him. And if that person lives in another state they have him. You also have to wonder if he took the rifle home im thinking he may have because his friend didnt go straight to the police with the rifle. If you letsomeone borrow a rifle and you know it as used in a crime you need to go to the nearest police department and turn it in.

Will see when the trial starts but I have a feeling alot of things we were not aware of will come out.

a reply to: JAGStorm
Prove it with video. Seriously what do you think blm supporters are going to say. There lots of video with his gun behind him

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JAGStorm

No its still under investigation when he was arrested he apparently had two Smith and Wesson M&P 15 Rifles. Considering he couldnt legally purchase them means someone bought them for him. And if that person lives in another state they have him. You also have to wonder if he took the rifle home im thinking he may have because his friend didnt go straight to the police with the rifle. If you letsomeone borrow a rifle and you know it as used in a crime you need to go to the nearest police department and turn it in.

Will see when the trial starts but I have a feeling alot of things we were not aware of will come out.

Umm no the rifle he used stayed in Wisconsin and the one who lent it gave it to the police when requested. He was GIVEN those rifles prolly as gifts in his home state. I am sure he knew he cannot bring a weapon from out of state to where he went.

originally posted by: JAGStorm
OHHHHHHHHH so self defense is OK for one side but not the other...?
How quickly the narrative changes...

OHHHHHHHH so what about the clowns in Kentucky who were muzzle sweeping everybody until one of the idiots had an "accidental discharge" and wounded three people.

One other thing. If some clown points a laser at me, I'm sending a round back at him.

actualy it is agains the law for a 17 years old to walk the city streets with an ar15...
can even by beer for an other 4 years...

a reply to: yuppa

It doesn't, which is why I said the gun law for age was unconstitutional.

Either way, age is not a disqualification for the WI self defense law. It doesn't matter how old you are or what weapon you use or how you obtained the weapon. Self defense is self defense. God forbid a 12 year old somehow wrestles a stolen gun from a felon and uses it in self defense. Some people here would call for the 12 year old to be charged for illegally possessing a gun and stolen property.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: yuppa

It doesn't, which is why I said the gun law for age was unconstitutional.

Either way, age is not a disqualification for the WI self defense law. It doesn't matter how old you are or what weapon you use or how you obtained the weapon. Self defense is self defense. God forbid a 12 year old somehow wrestles a stolen gun from a felon and uses it in self defense. Some people here would call for the 12 year old to be charged for illegally possessing a gun and stolen property.

Two totally different situations. How you could even compare the two is laughable at best.

a reply to: JAGStorm

What is laughable is your understanding of the law. According to the WI 939.48 there are no disqualifications for the type of weapon, legal status of the weapon, nor how you obtained the weapon. So in the eyes of the law both scenarios are identical because the only thing that matters is that one's life was in immediate danger.

Try again.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: JAGStorm

What is laughable is your understanding of the law. According to the WI 939.48 there are no disqualifications for the type of weapon, legal status of the weapon, nor how you obtained the weapon. So in the eyes of the law both scenarios are identical because the only thing that matters is that one's life was in immediate danger.

Try again.

Back that train up,
So it's legal to just go around carrying a weapon in Wisconsin under the age of 18?
You are the one that doesn't understand the law.

PS. I live here.

a reply to: JAGStorm

Yes lets back up even further since you seem to be slow to understand.

An AR-15 is considered a long gun (rifle) when the barrel is 16 inches or longer (which is standard for AR-15s). Wisconsin allows persons age 16 and above to open carry long guns as long as they are in compliance with WI 941.28 which prohibits short barreled rifles (less than 16 inches).

So, yes, it is legal for Kyle to open carry an AR-15 at age 17.

en.wikipedia.org...
"Open carry of loaded handguns and long guns and knives is permitted without a license for adults over 18, or for minors 16 or older when carrying a long gun that doesn't violate WS 941.28"

Try again.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1


Good thing your not a lawyer your poor clients would be in trouble.

Now there are a couple of laws that apply here.


"No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate, threaten or terrify another person", unless on your own property or business, or that of another person with their consent."
WI statute 941.296

Now 948.60 is very specific on when minors meaning under 18 are allowed to carry. but lets talk about him being loaned the gun this is illegal under state law.

(2) 
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

So this is fairly eaasy to understand he commited a class A misdeameanor and a class H felony.So lets look at the exceptions you believe exist.

a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Ok so in A we see target practice under adult supervision well we know he wasnt doing target practice so this is out.

So lets move to B This is if he is a member of the national guard he can carry a rifle he isnt so this didnt apply either.

Now c tells us when an adult can transfer a firearm to a child under 2 conditions Hunting if over 16 or they completed a hunting course they dont need an adult present. So he wasnt hunting well not for animals any way so this does not apply.

So we see he was in violation he did not have the right to be carrying a rifle and had no business being there and if i was his friend i would be very worried its likely he will get a felony charge over giving him the rifle.

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov...

originally posted by: dragonridr
"No person may carry or display a facsimile firearm in a manner that could reasonably be expected to alarm, intimidate, threaten or terrify another person", unless on your own property or business, or that of another person with their consent."
WI statute 941.296

LOL... Do you know what a "facsimile" firearm is? A fake gun.

The law you are citing is actually 941.2965 (2) and its regarding fake, toy, or replica guns as defined by 941.2965 (1). It does not include real guns.

In this section, “facsimile firearm" means any replica, toy, starter pistol or other object that bears a reasonable resemblance to or that reasonably can be perceived to be an actual firearm. “Facsimile firearm" does not include any actual firearm.

docs.legis.wisconsin.gov...

I will comment on the rest of your bad reply in another post to keep this clean.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

I was actually going to make another srgument with that one but forgot i didnt remove it from the post. Still doesnt change the fact that he was not allowed to have a gun being under 18 period. There are exceptions but they do not apply to him. Unles you want to argue he was hunting which well that would be contrary to his self defense argument and probably get him the chair.


More to the point the guy who gave him the gun will go to jail as well even if the rifle stayed in the state and in my opinion they deserve it. You dont give a gun to a minor without supervision

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now 948.60 is very specific on when minors meaning under 18 are allowed to carry. but lets talk about him being loaned the gun this is illegal under state law.

So this is fairly eaasy to understand he commited a class A misdeameanor and a class H felony.So lets look at the exceptions you believe exist.

Wrong. WI 948.60 (3)(c) makes it clear that none of 948.60 applies to Kyle.

948.60 (3)(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28

Kyle was not in violation of 941.28 (short-barreled rifle law) so 948.60 does not apply to him.

There is an OR clause not an AND clause in 948.60 (3)(c) that states:

or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.

This doesn't apply to Kyle either because its regarding hunting under the age of 16 and having a proper certificate of accomplishment which is required to obtain a hunting license. Kyle was not hunting and is age 17.

There is an additional condition in 948.60 (3)(c) that states:

This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Kyle is not an adult and didn't transfer a firearm to another person. So this doesn't apply to him.

Try again.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1


re read it once again your misunderstanding what you read. That section discusses hunting regulations you cant say c applies to the rest of the law. section 3 tells you when the law does not apply so 3c is the hunting exception.

a reply to: dragonridr

No, your lack of knowledge of law is the problem here. The "section" we are discussing is WI 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. The (1) (2) and (3) are "subsections".

Section 948.60 Subsection (3)(c) clarifies who the entire section applies to. It only applies to:

#1: Persons in violation of 941.28 (short-barreled rifle law).
OR
#2: Persons in violation of 29.304 (hunting under age 16) and 29.593 (certificate of accomplishment requirement)
OR
#3: Adults who transfer a firearm to a person under 18 years of age that is also in violation of #1 or #2.

Kyle is not in violation of 1, 2, nor 3.

originally posted by: More1ThanAny1
a reply to: dragonridr

No, your lack of knowledge of law is the problem here. The "section" we are discussing is WI 948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. The (1) (2) and (3) are "subsections".

Section 948.60 Subsection (3)(c) clarifies who the entire section applies to. It only applies to:

#1: Persons in violation of 941.28 (short-barreled rifle law).
OR
#2: Persons in violation of 29.304 (hunting under age 16) and 29.593 (certificate of accomplishment requirement)
OR
#3: Adults who transfer a firearm to a person under 18 years of age that is also in violation of #1 or #2.

Kyle is not in violation of 1, 2, nor 3.

Your reading this the wrong way these are the exceptions to when someone under 18 can posses a rifle. Your missing the point entirely and yes your right none of these apply to him. So therefore being under age he didnt meet the exceptions for carrying.

a reply to: dragonridr

No. You are reading this wrong. Section 948.60 is a law and subsection (3) of that law outlines the conditions for who the law applies to and who it does not apply to.

I think your confusion stems from the special treatment that shotguns and long gun rifles get. You only have to be age 18 to buy one because they are considered less dangerous than a handgun which you need to be age 21 to buy. Shotguns and rifles become more dangerous when they have short barrels because they can be concealed easier, and you can handle and maneuver through buildings easier, and other reasons similar to handguns. So there are special laws making it illegal to possess short barreled shotguns and rifles (WI 941.28).

948.60 (3)(c) makes it very clear that the law doesn't apply to shotguns or rifles unless they are short barrel.

This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28

Let me reword it so you can understand:

This law does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun unless the person is in violation of s. 941.28

It's clear a minor age 16 or older is allowed to open carry a long gun in WI as long as the gun doesn't violate short barrel law 941.28. The summary table in Wiki covers this very neatly.

full size
en.wikipedia.org...

He is still allowed to defend himself, with the gun..even if he is not supposed to have it.

a reply to: More1ThanAny1

Kyle is not an adult and didn't transfer a firearm to another person. So this doesn't apply to him.

Try again.

You try again, clearly you don't understand.
You think all these high profile layers would be trying to go for some cockamamie excuses like being part of a militia if it was indeed legal for Kyle to have a gun in Wisconsin. No, that's why they are doing it.

BTW the militia thing probably won't work either.