I am not a lawyer, but it certainly sounds like a straw purchase. KR could possess, but not buy the rifle. It would be a little different (IMO) if it was KR’s father who bought it, but it appears sketchier when you get a friend to do it.
However, I have not seen any mention of KR’s friend being brought up on charges. And considering the DA would love to bury anyone even remotely associated with this, if there isn’t a straw purchase case in the works I suspect whatever the handling was between KR and his friend was legal.
The story I read was the AR was locked in a safe at the friends house, after the riots started the family moved all firearms to the basement??? The story was that Kyle went down to the basement and returned carrying the AR…
WI law states, or a transfer that is intended to be temporary and that has a purpose that is not illegal.
He could have transfered it to Kyle through an FFL after he turned 18.
I could be off base, but I think the straw purchase problem might only be a federal issue and not for the local DA to follow. Could evaporate in the wake of the primary case, or might still be cooking on a delay fuse somewhere.
You are again deflecting or playing ignorant. I have explained, twice now, the relevance of the video, and it not being a recent iteration of the ATF’s understanding of laws that are over 50 years old. Your cute retort that maybe I should watch the video is extremely condescending and points to your intentional deflect of the facts I have related to you, and your unwillingness to admit/accept your ignorance of the subject being discussed.
As to your opinion of the ATF’s interpretation of the law regarding “straw purchase” and how the Form 4473 was completed is irrelevant and currently unknown how the form was completed regarding the sale of the firearm used by Mr. Rittenhouse. Conveniently, you deflected, again, my statement of how ridiculous “gun control” laws are that punish someone for providing a firearm to someone that can legally possess said firearm. Your twisting of my statements, law and logic, deflection, etc., clearly show the tenuous position you are feebly attempting to defend.
The point is that he wasn’t operating under color of law, nor were there any discriminatory factors. The other examples are of such specificity that none apply. Perhaps I mistakenly gave you the impression that I was unaware of these nuances. I stand by my statement. Federal charges are a non-starter. My understanding is that the arrangement he had with his friend over the rifle had already been ruled out as a straw purchase by the feds. His friend was charged under state law, and since the outcome of the Kyle’s trial included the ruling that the rifle in question didn’t meet the definition of a “dangerous weapon” under Wisconsin law, it now seems that the DA will likely have to drop those charges or see them dismissed by a judge (assuming the presiding judge doesn’t make a contradictory ruling).
Might be some civil cases, though it doesn’t sound like a good idea to me, given the video evidence.
Geez, Dave, breathe, will ya? I haven’t been attempting to defend anything with you.
I have been following these gun laws for 50 years, and you aren’t teaching me anything about them. I was trying to verify whether the comic ATF animation at the other end of the link in your post was what you were intending people to see, or if there was some misunderstanding — because the way you described it sounded like something entirely different.
I don’t care how the Rittenhouse (or not-Rittenhouse) Form 4473 was completed, so I have said nothing about it. I just repeated what the words on the damn form are. I don’t care how ridiculous gun control laws are, nor how ridiculous you think they are. I respect them; or I don’t. I try to change them; or I don’t. But they just are what they are, no matter what you or I think about them. Try to relax.
No, I had no idea whether you had gotten your opinion from someone else, or were independently well-informed, or just had a casual idea like anyone might.
I wondered for myself whether claims that there might be federal civil rights charges was even a plausible thing, so I went off to find a vaguely plausible source of authority. I shared what I found for the benefit of others, and it seemed to me that federal charges were a plausible thing.
You’re certainly fine by me to have your conclusion — I expect neither you nor I will be making the call on this one.
LOL coming from you that is quite amusing. I am quite calm and self-assured, unlike the decedents emotional states and behaviors in the Kenosha incident. As you clearly should see, I have a well-defined opinion of our rights and they are not based on “feelings”, but facts, logic and reason. You keep trying to denegrate me with you implication I do not know what the video I linked to represents, where it obviously is you that is unwilling to admit ignorance of our rights and laws. You then state you either respect or don’t our laws. What is it you do when you “disrespect” firearm laws? Break them? Is that not what you are accusing Mr. Rittenhouse of doing? Is it only those laws you agree with that are sancrosanct? Do we need live by your version of what is right?
Your condescension and denegration in your posts show your intolerance to views that do not accept your Leftist ideology. That is quite ironic as Leftists always claim to believe in moral equivalency and tolerance for other’s viewpoints. You clearly do not tolerate views that oppose yours and you are unwilling and/or unable to learn and/or accept logic, facts and reason that conflict with your view. I am quite willing to debate issues, but there is no debating with closed-minded people.
This seems to be getting a little out of hand. I had just heard that, for whatever technical reasons, including perhaps that the buyer did not, in fact, transfer the rifle to Rittenhouse, rather kept it and let him use it while in state, that it didn’t technically qualify as a straw purchase. Keeping the rifle and only lending it to the person ineligible to buy (but not ineligible to possess) is not how straw purchases look. Anyway, the facts aren’t in dispute, so the feds could have charged Rittenhouse’s friend many months ago if they believed the charge would stick. I wouldn’t put anything past Garland at this point, so complete is his lack of integrity, but do they want to launch another prosecution with a weak case? Might be better to “look into it” and ultimately bow out as with Zimmerman.
Did you ever see the video of the x military guys walking into the Antifa mob a few years back? That was something to watch. Does anyone know where to find it?
No, I do not remember where it was. I just remember the first vet walking up to the protester and knocking out the guy then taking about 3 steps and knocking out another person.
So…this was all for not. Realized he was not the victim? Terrible we had to go through all of the nonsense. Thanks for the update, had not heard. Two good things came from this.
