Posted on 11/13/2021 9:18:27 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Edited on 11/14/2021 8:33:37 AM PST by Jim Robinson. [history]
Hurrah!
“unless the state proved the teen’s AR-15-style rifle had an unlawfully ‘SHORT BARREL’, he can’t be convicted of being a minor in possession of a firearm.”
It was a standard common AR-15, the gun charge will be thrown out.
Makes sense to me!
Below is a link to the laws of Wisconsin. Lots of good active links to help navigate all of the exceptions to the rules, etc.
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/55
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.
****************************
The law seems pretty clear to me that a “dangerous weapon” means any firearm. (I find it interesting that is so plainly worded, while with the other weapons they go into so much detail!)
But then later on in the exceptions they talk about target shooting with an adult, hunting, in the National Guard, etc. And then one of the exceptions is:
(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.
****************************
The first subsection (941.28) is about the short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The other ones (29.304 and .593) pertain to hunting.
So - I would submit that the wording of the law is a bit unclear as at first they state that a dangerous weapon is ANY firearm, but then in 941.38 they state that under 18 one is only prohibited to carry a short-barreled firearm.
Perhaps they added that section - but they should have change the original(?) law to clarify short-barreled weapons.
And by the way - of course any firearm is a dangerous weapon.
That statute language you posted was recently revised as follows:
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); any firearm handed to, or in the possession of, Alec Baldwin.
......... A 17 year old male, volunteers to defend his country and takes out two of the enemy ... we give medals for that !
You just do not get it.
The entire purpose of this trial is to say that you cannot use self defense against selected rioters and looters.
This would set the precedent that citizens cannot use deadly force when communists riot.
I just had a guy show off his large revolver (he was spooked by a black bear at our site). He swung it right through me!
“Hey - watch your muzzle!”
(I guess I should have added “Who do you think you are!? Alec Baldwin!?”)
BTW - I never like or trust anyone that shows off their weapons.
Same judge excluded the curfew charge on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Did that after the prosecution closed its case. “prosecutors failed to present evidence that a curfew was in place on the night of the shooting incident.”
The state has the gun. It is in evidence. Understood that the barrel can be changed out, but as far as I know, the state has not alleged the firearm is illegal.
Weird ruling by the judge. Maybe a cynical move to get a lesser charge to the jury, and if the jury does convict, judge can reverse on motion post-verdict.
Only when facts are in dispute. Judges can and always take judicial notice, and sometimes assert their own fact findings.
One objective of the system is to distill the case to the relevant disputed facts. Otherwise there could be arguments about whatever either side figures would use the most time. How dark? Lets get natural and artifical light experts to explain the difference between night and day and how lighting affects perception ....
The wild muzzle is definitely a sign of weekend amateur.
The jury should find Kyle innocent of all charges even if they use jury nullidication. We have to many worthless laws on the books which are specifically designed to make innocent people guilty.
This is a law in many / most states. Whoever drafted this into law watched WAY too many Bruce Lee movies.
It is the entire purpose of the prosecution.
Fortunately, in this case they were unable to prevent an honorable judge from managing the trial.
Just copy & paste the title into a search engine. The articles behind paywall are almost always published by another source. The above link, which I found searching under the title, works for me.
This trial does not preclude federal charges and Garland will bring those charges against Rittenhouse.
Sure is. I thought that this would be the one charge they would convict him on. Looks like the judge is doing all he can to assure that Justice is done.
What federal charges do you think Garland will bring?
They are not obvious.
I have thought about it a bit.
Gun charges have not been brought, because he did not break any federal gun laws.
bump
Bingo!! Some people can be so rude and inconsiderate. I don't like my time wasted either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.