National Protest and 'disband the cops' discussion (and now ICE)

[Blizzard]

a bad point for the kid is, Wisconsin law doesn’t allow him to possess/carry a firearm at 17 years of age, think there is a hunting defense...but that doesn’t help him here. Should be an interesting case tho.

There are some modifiers to WI statute 948.60 , which defines firearm restrictions for those under 18, that make it allowable for those over 16 yo. Section 3c is the pertinent section here. The complete 948.60 is really long but it states:

Spoiler: Full text of WI Statute 948.60

"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); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998)."

The exceptions/modifiers in 3c above are important and what potentially changes the age to 16. We'll see what applies for this kid but not quite as cut and dry as it may appear.

 

[racing_kitty]

Sure, you have to comply with the laws of the states you travel to but I've never heard of any law that prohibits "crossing state lines" or similar, especially for long guns.

New Jersey and especially New York both have ridiculously stringent state laws regarding traveling through with firearms. In fact, according to the NRA-ILA's guide to interstate transportation of firearms, if you are stopping in New York on a layover, your safest bet is to ship your firearm to your arrival destination. A quick Google search will turn up quite a few news articles from the last few years telling of airline passengers who had a layover or were otherwise redirected to JFK/LaGuardia with a firearm in their checked baggage without the proper state licensure regarding the possession of same, and were promptly hauled out of the airport and incarcerated for possession of said firearms, FOPA be damned.

 

[Blizzard]

New Jersey and especially New York both have ridiculously stringent state laws regarding traveling through with firearms. In fact, according to the NRA-ILA's guide to interstate transportation of firearms, if you are stopping in New York on a layover, your safest bet is to ship your firearm to your arrival destination. A quick Google search will turn up quite a few news articles from the last few years telling of airline passengers who had a layover or were otherwise redirected to JFK/LaGuardia with a firearm in their checked baggage without the proper state licensure regarding the possession of same, and were promptly hauled out of the airport and incarcerated for possession of said firearms, FOPA be damned.

I've never travelled to NY/NJ or CA with firearms and know they have some goofy laws. I always check the states before travelling. But I'm still not aware of any that simply prohibit crossing a state line with a firearm. I don't think it exists, especially as it pertains to this case from IL to WI.

I'm totally willing to proven wrong and just want to know what those making these claims are possibly referring to; seems like a bunch of made up nonsense from someone that watches too many movies.

 

[racing_kitty]

I've never travelled to NY/NJ or CA with firearms and know they have some goofy laws. I always check the states before travelling. But I'm still not aware of any that simply prohibit crossing a state line with a firearm. I don't think it exists, especially as it pertains to this case from IL to WI.

I'm totally willing to proven wrong and just want to know what those making these claims are possibly referring to; seems like a bunch of made up nonsense from someone that watches too many movies.

The FOPA is supposed to offer protection against laws that would interfere with crossing state lines. I was just offering up NY as an example of a state that does penalize for simply crossing a state line with a firearm that they haven't otherwise licensed, even if it's a redirected flight that would have otherwise never have touched down on NY state soil. I also acknowledge that WI most likely doesn't have a law that strict. Stupid laws are out there, and those damned New Yorkers just can't seem to keep their stupidity contained to just New York.

My line of thought regarding those who think that he violated laws with regards to interstate transport are either of the opinion that it should be illegal, and couldn't be pissed to actually research to see if it is, or they see what New York's law is, and believe that such ridiculousness is more widespread (or federally mandated). The fact that the kid is 17 does complicate things a bit.

 

[Kraut783]

There are some modifiers to WI statute 948.60 , which defines firearm restrictions for those under 18, that make it allowable for those over 16 yo. Section 3c is the pertinent section here. The complete 948.60 is really long but it states:

Spoiler: Full text of WI Statute 948.60

"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); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(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.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) 
(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.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998)."

The exceptions/modifiers in 3c above are important and what potentially changes the age to 16. We'll see what applies for this kid but not quite as cut and dry as it may appear.

Don;t think the hunting or sporting (target practice) exceptions or Certificate will help him here.

 

[Locksteady]

I've never travelled to NY/NJ or CA with firearms and know they have some goofy laws. I always check the states before travelling. But I'm still not aware of any that simply prohibit crossing a state line with a firearm. I don't think it exists, especially as it pertains to this case from IL to WI.

I'm totally willing to proven wrong and just want to know what those making these claims are possibly referring to; seems like a bunch of made up nonsense from someone that watches too many movies.

That is understandable, especially since the fact that interstate travel with a legally registered firearm in one's name is not considered a federal crime.

However, the fact that Rittenhouse's lawyer is taking it seriously enough to assert that his client did not transport the gun across state lines should be a clear indicator that it may not actually be movie-derived nonsense.

If it is established he transported the firearm between states, he is then open to being charged on at least three different accounts related to his age, ownership status, and the condition of the firearm while in transit.

 

[Blizzard]

Don;t think the hunting or sporting (target practice) exceptions or Certificate will help him here.

It's broader than that but we'll see. If it holds up, that charge would be a Class A misdemeanor (gross misdemeanor).

 

[Blizzard]

However, the fact that Rittenhouse's lawyer is taking it seriously enough to assert that his client did not transport the gun across state lines should be a clear indicator that it may not actually be movie-derived nonsense.

Agreed, that this would seem to be the case but that's not in the list of charges I've actually seen. That's why it's confusing to me and the reason for my question. Why is this being made an issue?

 

[Kraut783]

it's just a sound bite and sounds bad.

 

[compforce]

Agreed, that this would seem to be the case but that's not in the list of charges I've actually seen. That's why it's confusing to me and the reason for my question. Why is this being made an issue?

Pre-emptive to kill the noise on social media about "illegally crossing state lines" before that is ingrained in the jury narrative. It also takes it away as proof of intent for the 1st degree murder charge, weakening the case.

 

[Marauder06]

This is a very interesting case. I think the shootings were justified, but the series of events leading up to it might not have been (i.e. 17 year old with a gun).

With my very limited understanding of self-defense laws, you can't create the situation and then claim self-defense when it goes sideways. IFAIK he had a right to be where he was, and to do what he did (to a point), but I don't think he had a right to do it with a gun.

I think the video of him at the beginning of the evening will be detrimental to his defense more than it will be helpful.

I also think that whoever gave him the gun is going to catch a felony charge that is going to stick.

 

[Ooh-Rah]

With my very limited understanding of self-defense laws, you can't create the situation and then claim self-defense when it goes sideways

20+ years of CCW and tactical pistol classes agree with you.

If shit happens, you deal with it.

If you go back and get your gun and begin looking for shit? Well you sir are a prosecutor’s resume notch.

 

[compforce]

With my very limited understanding of self-defense laws, you can't create the situation and then claim self-defense when it goes sideways. IFAIK he had a right to be where he was, and to do what he did (to a point), but I don't think he had a right to do it with a gun.

Wisconsin law is pretty clear that if you disengage in a way that shows the other person you are no longer aggressive and the other person chases and corners you, you have a renewed right of self defense. Even if whatever caused the first person to chase him was antagonized by KR, at the point he ran away and the first guy chased him into close quarters, it "probably" became self-defense again. (I'm not a lawyer so I have to caveat that based on my readings of the written law)

A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence (sic) against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defence (sic), but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defence." (Wisconsin Updated Statutes 2019 939.48(2))

If my reading is correct, then his running down the street before being attacked by the other 3 falls in the same category.

 

[Raksasa Kotor]

Wisconsin law is pretty clear that if you disengage in a way that shows the other person you are no longer aggressive and the other person chases and corners you, you have a renewed right of self defense. Even if whatever caused the first person to chase him was antagonized by KR, at the point he ran away and the first guy chased him into close quarters, it "probably" became self-defense again. (I'm not a lawyer so I have to caveat that based on my readings of the written law)



If my reading is correct, then his running down the street before being attacked by the other 3 falls in the same category.

Beat me to it.

Essentially, if you start shit, "stand your ground" becomes "duty to retreat". If retreat doesn't work, stand your ground comes back into play.

 

[Kraut783]

The end of the Colin Nior video on the last page talks about the self defense angle...its a good video and break down.

 

[ThunderHorse]

So for as disgustingly liberal the statehouse in Sacramento is, Sacramento is actually a fairly conservative city. The Mayor, The Sheriff, and the DA ain't dealing with shit. Expect to get prosecuted and go to prison.

Officials Blame Sacramento Antifa For Vandalism After Jacob Blake Protest, Call In National Guard

 

[Hungry_Dog]

So for as disgustingly liberal the statehouse in Sacramento is, Sacramento is actually a fairly conservative city. The Mayor, The Sheriff, and the DA ain't dealing with shit. Expect to get prosecuted and go to prison.

Officials Blame Sacramento Antifa For Vandalism After Jacob Blake Protest, Call In National Guard

I'm sure they don't want the same problem as NY where their middle and upper crust are reading the writing on the wall and bouncing to greener pastures.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Person who was killed in the "clash" between Trump Supporters and the Black Bloc in Portland was a Trump Supporter per reports.

Patriot Prayer founder: Dead man in Portland was a supporter

 

[GOTWA]

I figured this would be the appropriate spot considering the need usefulness opportunity. I didn't listen, but "Erik Prince announced he is officially bringing back the private military company Blackwater USA."

Erik Prince Addresses His Role With "We Build The Wall" & The Arrest Of Steve Bannon

ETA: @ThunderHorse saw your post in the other thread.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Bringing this back, the people with means will hire private "police" forces to fill the gap left by the government.