Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Attorney John Pierce of the law firm of Pierce Bainbridge, who are representing Kyle Rittenhouse, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight and again stated that all of Kyle’s actions were in self-defense.
Mr Pierce also explained that Kyle:
1 - was in lawful possession of a long-barreled rifle according to Wisconsin gun laws;
2 - legally displayed his rifle as Wisconsin is an Open-Carry state; and
3 - lawfully discharged his weapon at only those people who were attacking him.
He also questioned the incongruity of the facts that Kyle was charged and arrested for 'non-crimes' while Gaige Grosskreutz, a convicted felon and thus illegally in possession of a firearm which he used in his unjustified assault on Kyle, was not charged with Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm By A Felon and Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill.
Attorney John Pierce of the law firm of Pierce Bainbridge, who are representing Kyle Rittenhouse, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight and again stated that all of Kyle’s actions were in self-defense.
Mr Pierce also explained that Kyle:
1 - was in lawful possession of a long-barreled rifle according to Wisconsin gun laws;
2 - legally displayed his rifle as Wisconsin is an Open-Carry state; and
3 - lawfully discharged his weapon at only those people who were attacking him.
He also questioned the incongruity of the facts that Kyle was charged and arrested for 'non-crimes' while Gaige Grosskreutz, a convicted felon and thus illegally in possession of a firearm which he used in his unjustified assault on Kyle, was not charged with Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm By A Felon and Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill.
All great questions for the State of Wisconsin.
The Kenosha Kidd is a political prisoner !!!
We are witness to this travesty of justice !!!
No justice no cheese !!!
In addition where are the arson charges for those who set fires !!!
Attorney John Pierce of the law firm of Pierce Bainbridge, who are representing Kyle Rittenhouse, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight and again stated that all of Kyle’s actions were in self-defense.
Mr Pierce also explained that Kyle:
1 - was in lawful possession of a long-barreled rifle according to Wisconsin gun laws;
2 - legally displayed his rifle as Wisconsin is an Open-Carry state; and
3 - lawfully discharged his weapon at only those people who were attacking him.
He also questioned the incongruity of the facts that Kyle was charged and arrested for 'non-crimes' while Gaige Grosskreutz, a convicted felon and thus illegally in possession of a firearm which he used in his unjustified assault on Kyle, was not charged with Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm By A Felon and Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill.
All great questions for the State of Wisconsin.
The prosecutor doesn’t know the gun laws in his state?
They were trying to detain him after he shot someone not attack someone that’s why they pointed him out to the police.
The prosecutor doesn’t know the gun laws in his state?
They were trying to detain him after he shot someone not attack someone that’s why they pointed him out to the police.
No the mob wanted to kill him. The fellow with the handgun pointed at him has made statements backing that.
Attorney John Pierce of the law firm of Pierce Bainbridge, who are representing Kyle Rittenhouse, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight and again stated that all of Kyle’s actions were in self-defense.
Mr Pierce also explained that Kyle:
1 - was in lawful possession of a long-barreled rifle according to Wisconsin gun laws;
2 - legally displayed his rifle as Wisconsin is an Open-Carry state; and
3 - lawfully discharged his weapon at only those people who were attacking him.
He also questioned the incongruity of the facts that Kyle was charged and arrested for 'non-crimes' while Gaige Grosskreutz, a convicted felon and thus illegally in possession of a firearm which he used in his unjustified assault on Kyle, was not charged with Unlawful Possession Of A Firearm By A Felon and Aggravated Assault With A Deadly Weapon With Intent To Kill.
All great questions for the State of Wisconsin.
He legally displayed and discharged his illegal rifle, got it.
After reading the guns laws of the State of Wisconsin, I would like to attempt to reconcile the restrictions and exceptions and apply it to Kyle's actions:
Quote:
Section 948.60. Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); ….
(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.
(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 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
It is a Class A Misdemeanor in Wisconsin for a person under 18 to possess a dangerous weapon if it is a short-barreled (less than 16") rifle per s. 941.28. But an AR-15's barrel is 16" so Kyle is NOT in Violation.
and he is NOT in Violation of ss 29.304 because he is 17, and not in the restricted category of '14 or older but under 16'.
Quote:
Wisconsin Code Chapter 29.304 Restrictions on Hunting and Use of Firearms
29.304(3)(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she...
And I would argue that Kyle was also NOT in Violation with regards to ss. 29.593 as he was NOT engaged in hunting that fateful night.
Quote:
Wisconsin Code Chapter 29.593 Requirement for Certificate of Accomplishment to Obtain Hunting Approval
So it is only a matter of the legality of Kyle's POSSESSION of a weapon as a 17 year old, and based on the above - I submit that he was LEGALLY IN POSSESSION.
After reading the guns laws of the State of Wisconsin, I would like to attempt to reconcile the restrictions and exceptions and apply it to Kyle's actions:
It is a Class A Misdemeanor in Wisconsin for a person under 18 to possess a dangerous weapon if it is a short-barreled (less than 16") rifle per s. 941.28. But an AR-15's barrel is 16" so Kyle is NOT in Violation.
and he is NOT in Violation of ss 29.304 because he is 17, and not in the restricted category of '14 or older but under 16'.
And I would argue that Kyle was also NOT in Violation with regards to ss. 29.593 as he was NOT engaged in hunting that fateful night.
So it is only a matter of the legality of Kyle's POSSESSION of a weapon as a 17 year old, and based on the above - I submit that he was LEGALLY IN POSSESSION.
Any thoughts?
That seems to be the case. And it is sounding like he was all the way from another state, 15 miles away, working , than after work went to do some community service, and got the gun from a friend. So no crossing state lines, and what you posted. Give the kid a ticket for breaking the curfew and send him home.
That seems to be the case. And it is sounding like he was all the way from another state, 15 miles away, working , than after work went to do some community service, and got the gun from a friend. So no crossing state lines, and what you posted. Give the kid a ticket for breaking the curfew and send him home.
I agree with passing on the curfew violations - because what about all the rioters?
I would also make the argument to pass on any requirements for proof of training, if he doesn't already have it, as Kyle clearly showed great proficiency with his weapon in many respects.
Dave you really need to come down out of the clouds from Mt Airy!
According to his anarchist comrade, Jacob Marshall, who visited Grosskreutz in the hospital and then posted on Twitter: "I just talked to Gaige Grosskreutz... his only regret was not killing the kid and emptying his entire magazine into him.”
I'm not running from you as you are implying, I don't live on this board.
I won't apologize for my position that I think it's wrong for a 17 year old kid to bring an AR 15 to a protest. Armed militia is not the answer, it only throws gas on the fire.
In the end if Little Johnny soldier boy fake policeman stayed home then he wouldn’t be in this mess and 2 people would not be dead. He drove a great distance, so it wasn’t his neighborhood, and he was violating curfew also. It was an opportunity to look like Joe tough guy and possibly shoot people they don’t like.
Last edited by DaveinMtAiry; 09-01-2020 at 07:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Possession of a Weapon by a Minor in Wisconsin
