Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Maximum Spin]

His last word was that he agreed that it was technically illegal due to carrying the gun against state lines "that he didn't know was illegal"

I don't know who told you this, but he didn't actually carry any gun across state lines. It turned out he obtained the gun in-state, borrowing it from someone else.

[Rolan7]

Yes, he picked the gun up from a friend of his.  Still illegally.
And?

[Maximum Spin]

Yes, he picked the gun up from a friend of his.  Still illegally.
And?

And... he didn't carry it across state lines? That's all.

Hey, if you ever come to New York, though, I'll let you borrow one of my guns. It would be entirely legal for both of us.

[hector13]

‘tis illegal for a minor to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

Also to shoot people, I guess.

[delphonso]

‘tis illegal for a minor to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

Also to shoot people, I guess.

"This isn't juggling, this is misdirection!"

Also, when I saw "Destiny stream" I assumed it was the game and was unfortunately unsurprised to hear that people were doing politically charged FPS streams.

[Maximum Spin]

‘tis illegal for a minor to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

Further research revealed that this doesn't apply to rifles. (Or shotguns.)

[voliol]

‘tis illegal for a minor to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

Further research revealed that this doesn't apply to rifles. (Or shotguns.)

I hope automatic rifles are a different category, what else is left otherwise? Revolvers? The legality of the weapon doesn’t really matter much though, as he went to a protest he was opposed to armed, which reeks of ill intent, and was then willfully ignored by the police after having shot three people. It’s all rotten.

But hey, maybe an intent to threaten people that you’ll shoot them is not the same as an intent to actually do it. /s

[Maximum Spin]

I hope automatic rifles are a different category, what else is left otherwise? Revolvers?

No, it isn't. But what is left would be "literally any handgun", which is what most gun laws were designed for in the first place. Long guns are virtually unregulated even where I live, in a state that does not like the second amendment.

[hector13]

‘tis illegal for a minor to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

Further research revealed that this doesn't apply to rifles. (Or shotguns.)

Only if the minor is hunting, though I will concede the legislation is not very clear on that point.

His defense team (and so many commentators) consider that important because if that law doesn’t apply, he was breaking the law and thus can’t say his actions were self-defense, all other things aside.

[delphonso]

"Your honor, Wisconsin state law clearly says that if a hunter, above the age of 12, is carrying a rifle for the reasons of hunting, it is within their rights to do so. So I ask you, what animal is more dangerous than the liberal? Clearly my client was hunting leftists."

[ShinQuickMan]

Is it wrong that I imagined that being said in an Elmer Fudd voice?

shitpost over

[hector13]

Is it wrong that I imagined that being said in an Elmer Fudd voice?

shitpost over

"Yowona, Wisconsin state waw cweawy says that if a hunta, above the age of twewve, is cawwying  a wifoh fo’ the weasons  of hunting, it is within theiw wights to do so. So I ask you, what cweachuh is mo’ dangerous than the wab- uh, wibewaws? Cweawy my cwient has the wight to expect othas to be vewy, vewy quiet whiwe he hunts weftists, hahaha."

Ftfy, I guess.

[da_nang]

‘tis illegal for a minor to openly carry a gun in Wisconsin.

Further research revealed that this doesn't apply to rifles. (Or shotguns.)

Only if the minor is hunting, though I will concede the legislation is not very clear on that point.

His defense team (and so many commentators) consider that important because if that law doesn’t apply, he was breaking the law and thus can’t say his actions were self-defense, all other things aside.

The law, 948.60(3)(c), only says that he must be in violation of the 941.28 short-barrel law (which he wasn't since it wasn't a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun), or non-compliant with 29.304 (only applies age 16 or younger) or non-compliant with 29.593, in order for him to be guilty of possession of a dangerous weapon by a minor.

29.593 requires one to have a certificate of accomplishment in order to obtain hunting approval. This more or less means 29.593 only applies when hunting.

So seeing as he wasn't in violation of the short-barrel law, nor can he be non-compliant with the other mentioned laws, then that means it was legal for him to possess the firearm.

Not that that has any bearing on his self-defense claim.

[Maximum Spin]

Yeah, the law doesn't actually say that it "only [applies] if the minor is hunting"; that's just something people have been making up.

Given that section (3)(c) only specifically says that it applies to the minor, the person who gave the gun to him could still be guilty of a class H felony under (2)(b) and (c), but the rule of lenity would clearly apply here.

[da_nang]

Yeah, the law doesn't actually say that it "only [applies] if the minor is hunting"; that's just something people have been making up.

Given that section (3)(c) only specifically says that it applies to the minor, the person who gave the gun to him could still be guilty of a class H felony under (2)(b) and (c), but the rule of lenity would clearly apply here.

The person who transferred the firearm is also covered by 948.60(3)(c). It's the next sentence:

"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."