One of the questions involving the Kyle Rittenhouse defensive engagements in Kenosha, Wisconsin, just before midnight on the 25th of August, 2020, is if Kyle was forbidden from carrying an AR15 rifle, because Kyle was, at that time, four months short of his 18th birthday.
The explanation of the law at ar15.com is very good. However, I thought it could profitably be elaborated for those who do not read the law extensively.
Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.
except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.
(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.
Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.
What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:
(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or which have an over all length less than 26 inches.
The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type, does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.
Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:
Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.
How about statute 29.539?
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.
To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 948.60 only forbids people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.
Michael Forest Reinoehl, a self-described anti-fascist who said he provided security for Portland racial justice protests, appears to have targeted a participant in a pro-Trump rally, emerging from an alcove of a parking garage before firing two gunshots, one that hit the man’s bear spray can and the other that proved fatal, according to a police affidavit unsealed Friday.
Police found a single Winchester .380-caliber bullet casing on the street, a metal canister of “Bear Attack Detector” that had a “large defect” in it and a collapsible metal baton just north of Aaron “Jay” Danielson’s body, a detective said in the affidavit.
Reinoehl is seen hiding in an alcove of the garage and reaching into a pouch or waistband as Danielson and a friend, Chandler Pappas, walk south on Third Avenue.
Homicide Detective Rico Beniga wrote that Reinoehl “conceals himself, waits and watches” as Danielson and Pappas pass him.
After the two men go by, Reinoehl followed them, walking west across the street moments before the gunshots were fired, police said.
Investigators said it appeared as if Reinoehl stood holding his gun with both hands extended when he fired. After the shots, his right hand remained extended and pointed at Danielson before he turned to run away, police said.
(Paul Mirengoff) Should we believe the story, reported by the Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, that President Trump made disparaging comments about American soldiers who died in Normandy? I don’t. Trump has a very nasty side, but I doubt he made the nasty comments Goldberg’s attributes to him.
Who needs a defense attorney when the prosecutor pleads your case for you?
You tube video of coordinated attack on Kyle Rittenhouse At about 11:45 p.m., on 25 August, 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse was in possession of a Smith & Wesson 15 (AR15 type rifle) in Kenosha, Wisconsin, during a period of civil unrest and rioting.
From the Daily Signal — looks pretty balanced to me.
Swearer: Yes. This idea of who was the initial aggressor becomes important.
Wisconsin, like most states, has a law that essentially says, look, you can claim self-defense except for in two circumstances. The first is when you do something unlawful to provoke the violence, or when you do something, regardless of whether it’s lawful or unlawful, with the intent, specifically, of provoking people to attack you so that you can then use it as a guise to kill your attacker.
In those two situations, it’s provocation, and you can’t claim self-defense anymore.
Now, at least as to this idea of, was he provoking? Was he intentionally seeming to provoke the attack? I mean, it’s hard to say that when you look at the video. You have an individual who is, in the first case, actively running away and being chased.
Now it’s possible, maybe he said something or did something prior to that. I think, certainly, the state will try to argue that if he was in illegal possession of that rifle, he was doing something unlawful.
You also have this reality that I think the state is going to play into of saying, “We’re going to paint this kid as essentially showing up with a rifle planning to kill someone.” Again, “He was this white nationalist who was trying to create a situation where he could kill protesters and claim self-defense.”
It’s just so hard because you have videos from earlier in the day where he is just cleaning graffiti, saying, “Look, I’m here peacefully. My goal is not to hurt anybody.”Daily Signal
The tide of public opinion is turning for Kyle Rittenhouse as the deluge of exculpatory facts break through the dam of misinformation.
That said, there appears to be a decent case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. Who says this? Sit down for the answer: a team of reporters from the New York Times. I’m starting to think someone from Fox News has spiked the water at the Times, as this story makes two sensible news stories in one day from the Times. Or maybe the panic is that high at DNC headquarters.
Here are key excerpts from the story, “Tracking the Suspect in the Fatal Kenosha Shootings,” in which Times reporters stitch together a timeline from several videos, and with my highlights:PowerLine Blog
As you probably are aware, what I’ve written in the above paragraph was the general narrative in the MSM and leftist social media at the outset, despite the evidence from multiple videos and eye-witnesses that Rittenhouse was acting in self-defense. However, strangely and uncharacteristically, the New York Times has given an indication, through study of the videos and a timeline, that self-defense was really what was going on that night in Kenosha.
That’s how clear it must be. Now we have a statement by Rittenhouse’s lawyers, and quite a statement it is. The facts they describe further change the story.New Neo
Wisconsin recently charged Kyle Rittenhouse with first degree murder for killing two people who were, from what the videos show, attacking him with weapons. Jurors need to understand the simple concept of din rodef, “the law of the pursuer.”
The Horowitz Report documents one of the worst political scandals in US history. Whether criminal complaints come out of it depends on who knew what & when.