Kenosha shooting

I believe a necessary element of a straw purchase is that the person being purchased for must be prohibited from possession of the item. Kyle was not prohibited from possessing a rifle in Wisconsin.

If you buy alcohol for a minor, that is a straw purchase. If you buy alcohol for someone over 21 that is not a straw purchase. If you buy alcohol and have a party and someone under age drinks some of it that is a grey area.

In this case there was someone of legal age to purchase who obtained a rifle legally, then handed it to a person who could not purchase but could legally possess the rifle. Not a straw purchase I think.

3 Likes

I don’t think that’s quite right.

ATF Form 4473
#21a:
Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.
Certification:
I understand that answering “yes” to question 21.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.
Definitions:
Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. […] A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or possessing the firearm.

EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm. Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must answer “no” to question 21.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr. Jones.

1 Like

I stand corrected. :slightly_smiling_face:

2 Likes

May he sue, get wealthy, get to be a nurse, and enjoy his life.

Nick Sandmann speaks out on Rittenhouse verdict in Hannity exclusive - YouTube

2 Likes

The trial is over, it’s pointless to keep flogging it.
If you haven’t already, everyone should head over to-
What are you thankful for this year?

3 Likes

Almost over… :laughing:

8 Likes

How DARE you!!!

2 Likes

Thanks! I stand corrected!

2 Likes

Not over. Ironically, the lawsuit on dead thug’s behalf against the city of Kenosha and its PD seems to have merit.

1 Like

That night in Kenosha, Gaige Grosskreutz, Anthony Huber, and many others acted heroically.

Are they referring to the lighting a dumpster on fire heroism, the beating someone with a skateboard heroism, or the viciously kicking someone on the ground heroism?

3 Likes

However, he did not pay his friend to buy the firearm, he gave his friend the money necessary to purchase the firearm.

Just another example of stupid firearm laws. Does it really matter how one acquired the firearm if possession of said firearm is legal? This all comes from the NFA, FFA, and GCA that were passed to infringe on our rights that “shall not be infringed.” Watch this video to understand some of the utterly, beyond stupid firearm laws.

2 Likes

I love thish video. Cracksh me up every time I shee it.

3 Likes

If that’s how you want to parse the Form 4473 language, I guess I can’t stop you. Good luck.

I agree that the firearms laws violate 2A, and that many ATF rulings are ridiculous — both silly things they allow and silly things they disallow. The video you link makes the hilarious point of recent efforts. But deciding what laws to disregard is different from deciding what laws are objectionable, and how to repeal them.

1 Like

To play devil’s advocate… Say people of color get unfair convictions left and right for defending themselves. How would convicting Rittenhouse make it better? Does anyone here believe that two wrongs somehow cancel each other and make a right???

4 Likes

It doesn’t. Unless you are a racist or, you are an anarchist/communist/fascist or you want an excuse to burn, loot and break things. By the way, all three can and probably do apply.

Stay safe out there.

4 Likes

Just what I and We have been saying all along. :us:

OP-ED ARTICLES

WE ARE KYLE RITTENHOUSE

Written by Dinesh D’Souza, Town Hall Published: 17 November 2021

The Rittenhouse case is in the hands of the jury, and there are a lot of people opining about the wider implications of the case. David French, the Never Trumper formerly of National Review, now of an obscure publication called The Dispatch, tweeted, “The movement to make a hero out of Kyle Rittenhouse is both ridiculous and dangerous. He was a foolish kid wielding a deadly weapon.”

Now, I’ve said before that if I were Kyle Rittenhouse’s mom or dad, I would discourage him from doing this, so there’s an element of me that agrees with French. But there’s another side to it that I want to highlight because I’m a little offended by this tone from David French. I could almost retitle his article: “Why I, David French, sitting on my butt while Antifa thugs are burning down Kenosha, am morally superior to a lower-middle-class white teenager who rushed to defend a community where his dad and other family members lived.”

This Rittenhouse kid has guts; he has more guts than the prosecutor who himself said he wouldn’t go out there. The cops weren’t there. They came, but they came much later. Much of the male population of Kenosha was cowering in fear, hiding in their homes while left-wing rioters were destroying the city. Who’s the real hero here? A case can be made that the real hero is Kyle Rittenhouse.

The left is trying to demonize him just as they tried to demonize the McCloskeys when they came out of their home in St. Louis, guns drawn, because they’re trying to demonize all of us along with the Second Amendment, the idea that you can use force and guns to defend yourself when you are under a direct assault that you didn’t start and didn’t provoke.

So gun rights are very much on trial, and I say that because this is such an open and shut case of self-defense. In each of the three incidents, Kyle was directly attacked in a manner that he had reason to fear would cause him deadly harm if not death. If you don’t vindicate self-defense here, where can you vindicate it? What’s an easier case? It’s hard to say.

The left’s common refrain here is we can’t have vigilante justice. That’s the lesson that they’re drawing from this. This is the lesson that Jen Psaki said President Biden wanted to convey. On MSNBC, there’s pretty much the same message which is: this is all vigilantism.

I want to argue that vigilante justice arises out of the failure of normal justice. I just read a little item that says 500 National Guardsmen are now in Kenosha in case there are riots over the verdict; I guess they are thinking it might be an acquittal, so they need the National Guard. But if you had those 500 National Guardsmen before, you wouldn’t have had the riots.

If you don’t have law and order, when you have people looting and marauding and burning your town, and the cops are nowhere to be seen, what other form of justice is there other than vigilante justice? I think back to the Charles Bronson movies of the 1970s when New York, at least in the movie, was portrayed as absolutely the Wild West. Rape, and murder, and pillage occurring all over the place, and so the reason we identify with Charles Bronson in those movies is because we recognize that vigilante justice may be a crude form of justice, but it is justice.

It’s the same thing in the old Western movies. You have a kind of stranger who comes in from out of town — the man with the gun — he becomes, in a sense, the enforcer of justice. Now is he appointed sheriff? Was he elected? Who told him he could enforce the law? Well, when there’s lawlessness around…

The key point here is that the left created this lawlessness. It sanctioned it. It signed off on it. It could easily have been stopped. And we see this when the prosecutor goes out there and calls Antifa a crowd full of heroes. He’s talking about criminals, pedophiles, domestic abusers, terrible people, the absolute dregs of society.

But the left loves these people. Why? Because they’re doing the paramilitary bidding of the left. They’re the Colectivos of Venezuela. They’re the Brownshirts of the Nazis. They’re the Blackshirts of Mussolini. This is the left. They want it to be so that they can be marauding at their say-so, and the rest of us just step back. They don’t like Kyle Rittenhouse because he said enough is enough. He drew his AR-15. That’s what terrifies the left. That’s why they want to go after him — they’re after the larger phenomenon of brave people defending themselves.

I think one of the lessons of Kyle Rittenhouse is that if we see a mass breakdown of law and order and if we see the left unlashing these paramilitaries on the street, we’re going to need hundreds if not thousands of Kyle Rittenhouses.

If it wasn’t Kyle Rittenhouse alone, but let’s just call it a kind of Rittenhouse Squad, 100 people with AR-15s in Kenosha all marching together, I think the Antifa guys would have been stopped dead in their tracks. They would have been stopped by a citizen militia — kind of Kyle Rittenhouse times 100 — and this is really what gets the left all freaked out. Not because they’re against violence — they want all the violence to come from their side — they don’t want any kind of violence to stop their violence. That’s why they don’t want the cops on the scene, and that’s why they don’t want Kyle Rittenhouse.

6 Likes

Where did I state we should disregard laws? If you want to debate an issue, do not use straw men arguments as to what I would state or believe. State your opinion, and I will state my fact-based opinion.

The video is not of recent efforts at “gun control”, unless laws from the 1930s are recent, in your opinion. This is the major problem with those that are not firearm owners and those politically to the Left - their opinions are based on feelings and/or lies. All “gun control” is “silly”, as no “gun control” law has ever prevented a crime. Many “gun control” laws have put otherwise law-abiding citizens in legal jeopardy, due to the byzantine wording, one example is the Form 4473 wording you commented on.

1 Like

I didn’t have an “opinion”. I quoted the wording on the Form 4473 which describes what a straw purchase is. You seemed to think they were only describing a paid agent who receives compensation for purchasing a firearm for another. I wished you luck with the legal struggles I anticipated you’d likely face trying to argue that meaning at law.

Unless the link I got from you post was not the one you intended, the one I saw was not really about “gun control” at all. It was about ATF’s fluid and bizarre rulings on accessories, AOWs, SBRs, and other actual and contrived definitions nobody can make sense of or keep track of. That stuff is silly IMO, and more so in the past 10 years, less so since 1980s, and not at all silly since the enabling legislation.

Instead of us collaborating on how to change or roll back the laws, or clarify definitions, we are apparently just going at one another for some reason. :thinking:

1 Like

So your opinion is that a person that can legally possess a firearm is disbarred that right based on a nebulous statement on a federal form - got it.

No, it is based on the NFA, FFA, and GCA - laws written over 50 years ago. It has nothing to do with any arcane rulings the ATF (oops, AFT, according to our peerless leader) they may have concocted recently or even within the past 10 or 20 years. Your ignorance of that fact is what I also addressed in my last post. Glad you were able to disregard more facts that are contrary to your “opinion”, i.e., feelings on “gun control”.

I am not “going after” anyone. What I am doing is trying to make you understand reason, logic and facts. Your continued pursuit of fantasy is what is holding you back from understanding the truth, and not your concocted “one true view”, but the reality of our Natural Rights that include our RKBA and our Natural Right to self-defense. Read what Jefferson stated about our RKBA that is based on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Oops, the latter two were Christians, I understand Leftists automatically disbelieve anything a Christian would believe. FYI, I am not a Christian, neither am I a Republican, nor a Trump supporter. I am a Libertarian-leaning Conservative.

Not quite. My opinion is that the ATF will consider it a felony if a person checks YES on Form 4473 #21a when purchasing a firearm with another person’s money and then giving that person the gun just obtained for them. How it works out in fact is not for me to calculate.

Not sure what to say about the link in your post (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nfCyhOX42g). Maybe that’s not what you intended to share, but that’s what is there and it is an amusing parody about recent ATF rulings. I have no idea what to say in response to your attacks. Maybe go watch the video — but it’s kind of a steamer if you have no sense of humor.