Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Great ANALyses of the Kenosha Fiasco
LebamDawg
Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 8,551
in Tug Tavern
https://www.bullshido.net/anatomy-of-a-catastrophe/
puts the blame on everyone. which is true methinks
and if this was poasted earlier - well excuse me
puts the blame on everyone. which is true methinks
and if this was poasted earlier - well excuse me
Comments
A significant number of states in the US allow for minors in possession of long guns... they typically ban the sale and/or only prohibit handguns or NFA items to minors or <21.
Just cite the law because I’m not so sure it even exists....
The laws about minors and firearm use in Wisconsin apply to <16 years old.
IMO this seems a lot like the repeat a lie until it’s truth thing... just like pretending crossing state lines is at all relevant.
Watch for yourself. Or don't. I'm not digging in WI firearms law. His bit on it was enough for me.
Here is Wisconsin Law 948.60
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60#:~:text=(c), any person who,years of age under par.
Below is the entire law but I put in bold the important part.
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.
Wisconsin Law 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 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593.
S.941.28 is about "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle." (not in possession of a SBS or SBR)
ss. 29.304 is about "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age." (not under 16 years of age)
29.593 is about "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval." (not applying for a hunting license)
@GrundleStiltzkin Noir is wrong, he misstates what the law says... these aren't exceptions from the law... These are situations in which this specific law ONLY applies IF "X" specific conditions are met. None of those conditions were met by Rittenhouse.
Just think about it logically for a second, do you really think that the law is meant to exempt application if you are a minor open carrying a short barreled rifle or shotgun? Thats absurd.
I dont see how Rittenhouse could possibly be in violation of this law...
29.304 is about Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. Its breaks down different rules for <12, 12-14, and 14-16. Obviously, if you are over 16 then this law wouldnt apply to you. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304
That is what needs to be addressed. Was is justifiable? nothing more or less.
We are trying to pick the fly shit out of the pepper.
Not a big deal if he had legal possession or not.
Or maybe there was a huge yakuza problem there that we don't know about?
Im just pointing out that the widely repeated "state lines" and "minor in possession" stuff is factually wrong.
People are retarded, and, If you can convince someone that a suspect violated a lessor charge its a lot easier to get them on the greater charge.
Catch a husband lying on a tax form and its suddenly a lot easier to convict him of murdering his wife.
If the video speaks clearly no one would ever argue. People see different things in video, just like people hear different things.
The second guy to me was obvious, but the first guy who got shot is not as clear.
The guy who wrote the article sees things some viewers will agree with and some won't -
Nothing is clear.