As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
He couldn't legally purchase on in Illinois where he lives, so he used gun loopholes like most underage mass murderers do.
B-but they just said he DIDN’T illegally purchase it! In fact they got upset that we kept using the term ‘straw purchase’, when they said he didn’t.
It’s almost as if they are arguing about semantics.
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
As was testified to in the trial, Rittenhouse could not legally purchase it himself, although he could carry it legally. Black purchased it and maintained legal ownership and control of it, with the intent to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse on his 18th birthday.
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
As was testified to in the trial, Rittenhouse could not legally purchase it himself, although he could carry it legally. Black purchased it and maintained legal ownership and control of it, with the intent to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse on his 18th birthday.
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
As was testified to in the trial, Rittenhouse could not legally purchase it himself, although he could carry it legally. Black purchased it and maintained legal ownership and control of it, with the intent to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse on his 18th birthday.
That's the definition of a straw purchase genius.
Not under Wisconsin law.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
As was testified to in the trial, Rittenhouse could not legally purchase it himself, although he could carry it legally. Black purchased it and maintained legal ownership and control of it, with the intent to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse on his 18th birthday.
That's the definition of a straw purchase genius.
Not under Wisconsin law.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Actually, IL law doesn't apply at all, because the gun was never taken to IL.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
He probably brought the gun for the same reason Gaige Grosskreutz brought his gun. The only difference is that Kyle Rittenhouse's gun was lawful and Gaige Grosskreutz's gun was not.
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
If I leave my shit at a friends place, that doesn’t stop being my shit, especially if I paid for it
You can’t fucking rule lawyer your way out of this fucking shit
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
Did I mention Grosskreutz? No? Then find a different fucking argument.
Edit: actually, don't. You're here to rules lawyer about things because you wanted this outcome, starting from Kyle getting a gun in AT BEST a legally nebulous way so he can "put some fucking rounds" (his words) in some people.
Jesus fucking Christ, its not that hard to argue self defence without bringing the victim’s unknown history, is it?
Ideally we could example the situation in a vacuum, and laser focus on the shooting itself, but a person's previous history can show that they have a propensity for violence, or it could show a belligerent lack of self preservation (for example, the fact that Rosenbaum had recently tried on multiple occasions to commit suicide might have some bearing on his actions that night - notably loudly yelling "SHOOT ME!" multiple times to random people, and charging at a person who was carrying a gun).
I think its incredibly hypocritical to complain about bringing up the previous aspects of their lives in one breath while rambling on about how Rittenhouse "talked about how he wanted to kill people in the past" in the next, however.
I mean, purchasing a weapon illegally probably indicates you have a propensity to commit other illegal crimes.
You’re just being detrimental to your own argument to bring the criminal record into it at all.
For the umpteenth time, the gun was not purchased illegally. You guys keep repeating this non-fact like you think wishing it hard enough will make it true.
This is some weapons-grade delusional shit right here.
I'm open to hearing what law you think was broken when the gun was purchased. Got a statute you can link?
Kyle Rittenhouse, at 17, gave 19-year-old friend Dominick Black $1200 to buy a rifle for him that he himself was forbidden under Wisconsin law from buying.
that is a straw purchase
Not under Wisconsin law:
Section 941.2905 - Straw purchasing of firearms
(1) Whoever intentionally furnishes, purchases, or possesses a firearm for a person, knowing that the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm under s. 941.29(1m), is guilty of a Class G felony.
941.29(1m) A person who possesses a firearm is guilty of a Class G felony if any of the following applies:
(a) The person has been convicted of a felony in this state.
(b) The person has been convicted of a crime elsewhere that would be a felony if committed in this state.
(bm) The person has been adjudicated delinquent for an act committed on or after April 21, 1994, that if committed by an adult in this state would be a felony.
(c) The person has been found not guilty of a felony in this state by reason of mental disease or defect.
(d) The person has been found not guilty of or not responsible for a crime elsewhere that would be a felony in this state by reason of insanity or mental disease, defect or illness.
(e) The person has been committed for treatment under s. 51.20 (13) (a) and is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 2007 stats.
(em) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 51.20 (13) (cv) 1., 51.45 (13) (i) 1., 54.10 (3) (f) 1., or 55.12 (10) (a).
(f) The person is subject to an injunction issued under s. 813.12 or 813.122 or under a tribal injunction, as defined in s. 813.12 (1) (e), issued by a court established by any federally recognized Wisconsin Indian tribe or band, except the Menominee Indian tribe of Wisconsin, that includes notice to the respondent that he or she is subject to the requirements and penalties under this section and that has been filed under s. 813.128 (3g).
(g) The person is subject to an order not to possess a firearm under s. 813.123 (5m) or 813.125 (4m).
Rittenhouse does not fall into any of those descriptions. The purchase was not an illegal "straw purchase," under Wisconsin law, which is why no one has been charged with it. Repeating the phrase "illegal straw purchase" over and over without actually knowing the facts does not make it true.
Title 18 U.S. Code §922(a)(6)
for any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or misrepresented identification, intended or likely to deceive such importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector with respect to any fact material to the lawfulness of the sale or other disposition of such firearm or ammunition under the provisions of this chapter;
Black lied on his form 4473, and Rittenhouse paid him to lie, which makes him a co-conspirator.
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
Did I mention Grosskreutz? No? Then find a different fucking argument.
Grosskreutz is pretty fucking relevant when the argument is "Rittenhouse was carrying a gun illegally", especially when you consider that
1.) He wasn't, and
2.) Grosskreutz was
The logic that "carrying a gun illegally means you had planned on using it to commit crimes", but having that only apply to Rittenhouse and not Grosskreutz, is literally insane.
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
Except by his own admission Kyle says that it was purchased with his own money, and would be gifted to him on his 18th birthday.
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it? (And should be. It’s OK for multiple people to have committed crimes)
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is proper until Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
Did I mention Grosskreutz? No? Then find a different fucking argument.
Grosskreutz is pretty fucking relevant when the argument is "Rittenhouse was carrying a gun illegally", especially when you consider that
1.) He wasn't, and
2.) Grosskreutz was
The logic that "carrying a gun illegally means you had planned on using it to commit crimes", but having that only apply to Rittenhouse and not Grosskreutz, is literally insane.
Good strawman, but Kyle's state of mind that wasn't allowed in the trial of him saying he wished he had his AR so he could put rounds in people is why I think he wanted to, I dunno, put rounds in people.
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
As was testified to in the trial, Rittenhouse could not legally purchase it himself, although he could carry it legally. Black purchased it and maintained legal ownership and control of it, with the intent to transfer ownership to Rittenhouse on his 18th birthday.
That's the definition of a straw purchase genius.
Not under Wisconsin law.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Actually, IL law doesn't apply at all, because the gun was never taken to IL.
One, you're dodging Federal again, two, Rittenhouse is an IL resident.
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
It was purchased with Rittenhouse's money and was acknowledged as his gun and available for his use. Try again. "I'm not touching you" is not a great defense.
0
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it?
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is proper until Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Uh what? Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until after he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it?
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is proper until Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Uh what? Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until after he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
Read the bolded again. By the time Grosskreutz got to that point two people were dead or dying.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Federal and State laws conflicting is a major problem with the American Justice System, yes.
But if you choose to believe that Federal law overrides State law when it comes to firearms, than you need to be uniform in your support whenever other situations arise when Federal and State law may disagree, such as immigration, marijuana, or abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which entity's laws are in effect based on who they are affecting.
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Why have someone buy it for him then? I mean, he has the money, and it wasn’t because he was hiding the purchase from his parents… I’m not sure why he would do that, seems awkward and risky.
He couldn't legally purchase on in Illinois where he lives, so he used gun loopholes like most underage mass murderers do.
B-but they just said he DIDN’T illegally purchase it! In fact they got upset that we kept using the term ‘straw purchase’, when they said he didn’t.
It’s almost as if they are arguing about semantics.
It's almost as if we know the law and you don't.
Multiple people have posted evidence that would push back against this notion of yours. Perhaps you should read it in good faith instead of passionately defending whatever it is you believe the law to be in your own head.
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it?
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is proper until Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Uh what? Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until after he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
Pointing your weapon at someone actively shooting people is not menacing.
Grosskruetz was not shot first. Because Grosskruetz did not menace Rittenhouse
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Federal and State laws conflicting is a major problem with the American Justice System, yes.
But if you choose to believe that Federal law overrides State law when it comes to firearms, than you need to be uniform in your support whenever other situations arise when Federal and State law may disagree, such as immigration, marijuana, or abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which entity's laws are in effect based on who they are affecting.
You choose based on a strictness doctrine. Like. This shit isn’t unknown. Federal law has supremacy
+9
Options
WhiteZinfandelYour insidesLet me show you themRegistered Userregular
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it?
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is properuntil Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Uh what? Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until after he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
Read the bolded again. By the time Grosskreutz got to that point two people were dead or dying.
Read the salmoned. Yes, Grosskreutz didn't menace Rittenhouse with his gun until after Rittenhouse had shot two other people, fled toward the police, and verbally told Grosskreutz he was turning himself over to the police. But at that point, he did point his gun at Rittenhouse, at which point Rittenhouse shot him. You know, because of the menacing.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Federal and State laws conflicting is a major problem with the American Justice System, yes.
But if you choose to believe that Federal law overrides State law when it comes to firearms, than you need to be uniform in your support whenever other situations arise when Federal and State law may disagree, such as immigration, marijuana, or abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which entity's laws are in effect based on who they are affecting.
More than one law applying at once isn't conflict. Federal, state, local and hell sometimes county laws can all apply at once; the only tension comes when one requires do when the other requires do not or when specific preemption is brought in. Which isn't the default.
Also half the shit you're trying to strawman with doesn't involve federal law decisions at all.
And this is really rich coming from you, who decides what's OK with weapons based on who's wielding them.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Federal and State laws conflicting is a major problem with the American Justice System, yes.
But if you choose to believe that Federal law overrides State law when it comes to firearms, than you need to be uniform in your support whenever other situations arise when Federal and State law may disagree, such as immigration, marijuana, or abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which entity's laws are in effect based on who they are affecting.
Federal law historically takes preeminence over state, what the hell are you on about.
That’s part of the reason why marajuana decriminalization is such a sticky issue, because while the state may say you’re cool, the feds can go “ahaha, no, fuck you pothead.”
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
Except by his own admission Kyle says that it was purchased with his own money, and would be gifted to him on his 18th birthday.
Which would be legal, provided a Federal Firearms Transfer was filed.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
Federal and State laws conflicting is a major problem with the American Justice System, yes.
But if you choose to believe that Federal law overrides State law when it comes to firearms, than you need to be uniform in your support whenever other situations arise when Federal and State law may disagree, such as immigration, marijuana, or abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which entity's laws are in effect based on who they are affecting.
Federal law historically takes preeminence over state, what the hell are you on about.
That’s part of the reason why marajuana decriminalization is such a sticky issue, because while the state may say you’re cool, the feds can go “ahaha, no, fuck you pothead.”
Right; the federal government could crackdown hard if they want. They don't wanna, because it's messy.
Also, pot doesn't have to be illegal on a state level! The states are perfectly within their rights to say "No, this isn't illegal in our courts, and our officers won't prosecute it." That is fine (incidentally this is all immigration "sanctuary cities" do, in general). The regulation of selling it could cause major legal problems for state officials but again see don't wanna. Also practically I doubt the federal courts & law enforcement have the manpower to do it.
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
Except by his own admission Kyle says that it was purchased with his own money, and would be gifted to him on his 18th birthday.
Which would be legal, provided a Federal Firearms Transfer was filed.
Yes things that are done illegally would indeed be legal if they were done legally.
But things that are not done legally are indeed illegal….
Do people really believe the child rapist and felons that got shot were so about looking out for the public good by going after an active shooter unarmed (or not in the 3rd case) even before he was an active shooter and then when he was running away?
Such faith in humanity.
Are you just gonna swing in every 10 pages ND disparage a dead person like it changes the case even though it doesn't? You took the punisher logo
He brought the gun to keep them from taking his gun?
No, he brought the gun to keep them from taking his life.
He brought a gun to as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz to carry a gun to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it?
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is proper until Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Uh what? Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until after he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
Pointing your weapon at someone actively shooting people is not menacing.
Rittenhouse was not an active shooter when he was knocked down by Huber's skateboard to the head -- he was in full retreat toward the police at the time. Grosskreutz inserted himself into that conflict by pointing the gun at Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse was being attacked. That is absolutely menacing.
As described above, a straw purchaser buys a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer on behalf of another person. Straw purchases are illegal because federal law criminalizes the making of false statements to a dealer about a material fact on ATF Form 4473, which must be filled out when a firearm is purchased from a licensed dealer.25 Form 4473 asks the purchaser to confirm that he or she is the “actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s)” and states, “You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person.”26 A straw purchaser therefore commits a federal crime by falsely stating that he or she is the actual gun buyer. In a successful straw purchase, the actual buyer has also committed a federal crime by aiding and abetting the straw purchaser or causing the making of the false statements.27 In the 2013 case of Abramski v. US, the US Supreme Court again affirmed that these federal laws prohibit straw purchases.28
Gifford Law Center again
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
Except by his own admission Kyle says that it was purchased with his own money, and would be gifted to him on his 18th birthday.
Which would be legal, provided a Federal Firearms Transfer was filed.
not when it’s Rittenhouse’s own money
You are trying to argue that if a person ineligible to purchase gives money to someone who can the money to buy a firearm, that does not constitute a straw purchase so long as the straw buyer then files a transfer document after the fact. You are literally suggesting there’s a secret fucking code to circumvent federal restrictions on Strawpurchases
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
Gifford Law Center again
It's almost as if we know the law and you don't.
Not under Wisconsin law.
Just federal law.
This is where you get to learn that by keeping the gun at his residence, Dominick Black maintained legal ownership of the firearm, and that owning a firearm and possessing a firearm are separate things. If they weren't, everyone who takes his kid hunting would be in violation of Federal law.
You're persistently ignoring both IL and federal law, both of which apply.
He brought a gun as a counter protester because he was afraid for his life. That's your statement?
Actually, IL law doesn't apply at all, because the gun was never taken to IL.
He probably brought the gun for the same reason Gaige Grosskreutz brought his gun. The only difference is that Kyle Rittenhouse's gun was lawful and Gaige Grosskreutz's gun was not.
So moving on,
How is this judge a judge? Surely there have been complaints long before now?
Still trying to understand why it's okay for Grosskreutz and Ziminski to carry guns to a protest but not Rittenhouse.
If I leave my shit at a friends place, that doesn’t stop being my shit, especially if I paid for it
You can’t fucking rule lawyer your way out of this fucking shit
Did I mention Grosskreutz? No? Then find a different fucking argument.
Edit: actually, don't. You're here to rules lawyer about things because you wanted this outcome, starting from Kyle getting a gun in AT BEST a legally nebulous way so he can "put some fucking rounds" (his words) in some people.
Title 18 U.S. Code §922(a)(6)
Black lied on his form 4473, and Rittenhouse paid him to lie, which makes him a co-conspirator.
- John Stuart Mill
Grosskreutz is pretty fucking relevant when the argument is "Rittenhouse was carrying a gun illegally", especially when you consider that
1.) He wasn't, and
2.) Grosskreutz was
The logic that "carrying a gun illegally means you had planned on using it to commit crimes", but having that only apply to Rittenhouse and not Grosskreutz, is literally insane.
Except by his own admission Kyle says that it was purchased with his own money, and would be gifted to him on his 18th birthday.
So moving on,
How is this judge a judge? Surely there have been complaints long before now?[/quote]
Elected judge I believe
He doesn’t. And iirc was charged for it? (And should be. It’s OK for multiple people to have committed crimes)
But Rittenhouse did not shoot Grosskruetz as a result of Grosskruetz menacing Rittenhouse with a firearm. Because Grosskruetz did not do that and had his firearm holstered as is proper until Rittenhouse started pointing his weapon at people.
Good strawman, but Kyle's state of mind that wasn't allowed in the trial of him saying he wished he had his AR so he could put rounds in people is why I think he wanted to, I dunno, put rounds in people.
One, you're dodging Federal again, two, Rittenhouse is an IL resident.
It was purchased with Rittenhouse's money and was acknowledged as his gun and available for his use. Try again. "I'm not touching you" is not a great defense.
Uh what? Grosskreutz testified that Rittenhouse didn't shoot him until after he pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse.
Read the bolded again. By the time Grosskreutz got to that point two people were dead or dying.
He was elected and honestly nothing he did seems all that outside the usual for a lot of judges anyway. Not good, mind you, just not unusual.
Federal and State laws conflicting is a major problem with the American Justice System, yes.
But if you choose to believe that Federal law overrides State law when it comes to firearms, than you need to be uniform in your support whenever other situations arise when Federal and State law may disagree, such as immigration, marijuana, or abortion. You don't get to pick and choose which entity's laws are in effect based on who they are affecting.
Multiple people have posted evidence that would push back against this notion of yours. Perhaps you should read it in good faith instead of passionately defending whatever it is you believe the law to be in your own head.
Pointing your weapon at someone actively shooting people is not menacing.
Grosskruetz was not shot first. Because Grosskruetz did not menace Rittenhouse
You choose based on a strictness doctrine. Like. This shit isn’t unknown. Federal law has supremacy
Read the salmoned. Yes, Grosskreutz didn't menace Rittenhouse with his gun until after Rittenhouse had shot two other people, fled toward the police, and verbally told Grosskreutz he was turning himself over to the police. But at that point, he did point his gun at Rittenhouse, at which point Rittenhouse shot him. You know, because of the menacing.
More than one law applying at once isn't conflict. Federal, state, local and hell sometimes county laws can all apply at once; the only tension comes when one requires do when the other requires do not or when specific preemption is brought in. Which isn't the default.
Also half the shit you're trying to strawman with doesn't involve federal law decisions at all.
And this is really rich coming from you, who decides what's OK with weapons based on who's wielding them.
For two days every time I drop in I see it is just a shitshow that is just sad gun control proxy battles, fash trolling, and who the fuck knows what.
Nothing on the verdict or aftermath, protests, what is going on that actually matters, just the same stupid gun control circle jerks.
Federal law historically takes preeminence over state, what the hell are you on about.
That’s part of the reason why marajuana decriminalization is such a sticky issue, because while the state may say you’re cool, the feds can go “ahaha, no, fuck you pothead.”
Which would be legal, provided a Federal Firearms Transfer was filed.
ahhhh, it's really sad this reminds me of Facebook. I guess if shitposting had to happen on this forum, it'd be here.
Right; the federal government could crackdown hard if they want. They don't wanna, because it's messy.
Also, pot doesn't have to be illegal on a state level! The states are perfectly within their rights to say "No, this isn't illegal in our courts, and our officers won't prosecute it." That is fine (incidentally this is all immigration "sanctuary cities" do, in general). The regulation of selling it could cause major legal problems for state officials but again see don't wanna. Also practically I doubt the federal courts & law enforcement have the manpower to do it.
Yes things that are done illegally would indeed be legal if they were done legally.
But things that are not done legally are indeed illegal….
Rittenhouse was not an active shooter when he was knocked down by Huber's skateboard to the head -- he was in full retreat toward the police at the time. Grosskreutz inserted himself into that conflict by pointing the gun at Rittenhouse while Rittenhouse was being attacked. That is absolutely menacing.
not when it’s Rittenhouse’s own money
You are trying to argue that if a person ineligible to purchase gives money to someone who can the money to buy a firearm, that does not constitute a straw purchase so long as the straw buyer then files a transfer document after the fact. You are literally suggesting there’s a secret fucking code to circumvent federal restrictions on Strawpurchases