Kyle Rittenhouse’s Unlawful Possession Charge Is A Huge Can Of Worms

kyle rittenhouse rifle kenosha

(Adam Rogan/The Journal Times via AP)

Make no mistake, America, nothing less than your God-given right to defend yourself, your family and your country is on trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Watch closely, and hold your government accountable.
Attorney John Pierce

Gun rights advocates and those familiar with the laws surrounding self-defense have bees saying — since the video came online — that by any legal definition, Kyle Rittenhouse was legally defending himself when he shot three men (killing two) when he was attacked in Kenosha last month. Even those on the anti-gun left who have taken time to read the law and watch the video evidence are coming to the same conclusion.

This is an obvious case of Kenosha District Attorney Michel Gravely wildly overcharging Rittenhouse in order to appease the mob. But what about the misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18?

Rittenhouse’s attorney has been saying that he possessed the rifle he used that night in Kenosha lawfully, even as a seventeen year-old, despite a law seemingly forbidding it. I had wondered if he would base his argument on Wisconsin Code 948.60(3)(c) which lists some exemptions. But no; it’s much better than that.

Was Kyle Rittenhouse’s possession of a gun protected by the Second Amendment?

Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce of Pierce Bainbridge, plans to fight the underage weapons possession charge, arguing that at 17, his client could be part of the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Put another way, Pierce will likely argue that Wisconsin’s ban on firearms possession by 17-year-olds is unconstitutional because a 17-year-old minor is on the same Second Amendment footing as an adult.

In fact, the reason Mr. Pierce claims that a seventeen year-old could be in the militia is that current federal law says so.

10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and class

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I’ve spent thirty years raising that 17-year-old 2A militia point, mostly to watch with amusement the shock and disbelief on faces as anti-gun types discover that they are in the militia.

I’m going to make a prediction.

If that charge goes to trial, the court will not allow the argument, and Kyle will be convicted. The conviction will be upheld at every level until the Supreme Court simply denies cert, and never hears the case.

Instead, I suspect Kenosha prosecutor Michael Graveley will quietly drop the unlawful possession charge, with little more explanation other than such a comparatively minor charge is a distraction when we have all these serious felonies to prosecute…because no one wants to open that can of worms. And the prosecution is holding a can opener.

Gravely had no comment on how willing he is to use it. While I’d dearly like to see that can opened, Mr. Pierce’s first duty is to his client.

Let’s say the SCOTUS did take the case. They could uphold the conviction, or find in Kyle’s favor.

Upholding the conviction means finding 10 U.S. Code § 246 invalid. But that’s the basis for age limits for military enlistment and draft registration. That would create a mess that Congress would have to scramble to fix.

On the other hand, vacating the conviction and upholding 10 U.S. Code § 246 has a lot more problems.

Problems like the Gun Control Act of ’68 age limits. State age limits on possession of a firearm. All those laws would have have to be revised to allow possession by seventeen-year-olds of long guns and handguns, thanks to the Heller decision that the Second Amendment protects handguns (and McDonald incorporated the 2A to the states).

I would also expect law suits challenging anything but hardcore “shall issue” concealed carry licensing. California, New York, New Jersey et al. would collectively excrete a very, very large brick.

Such a ruling would also torpedo much of the Biden/Harris victim disarmament plan.

This is the case for which I’ve been waiting three decades. And it probably won’t be resolved now.

 

CORRECTION: We have updated this post to fix an autocorrect error. The post previously referred to “Jew Jersey” rather than New Jersey. That was an unfortunate, unintended typo that was not, in any way, intended as a derogatory reference to anyone’s religion. We regret the error.

Author’s Note: I just became aware of the typo. As a founding member, writer, and site administrator for The Zelman Partisans (“Jews. Guns. No compromise. No surrender.”); and as a former long-time member of Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (and a one-time contractor for Aaron Zelman), I assure you that it was only a typo; one which I regret. I apologize to anyone I accidentally offended.

comments

  1. avatar Ryan Robinson says:

    Well aren’t YOU just a little ray of sunshine?!

    Seriously though, I hope you’re wrong.

    1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

      When all is said and done, will it really matter? Outside of a misdemeanor conviction, that is?

      Max sentence is 6 months, and by the time the trial is over, that’s time served, plus a year, more than likely.

      Will that misdemeanor conviction make him a prohibited person?

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Read the 4473.

        He’s currently prohibited because he’d have to answer “yes” to 21.b but if the only conviction they get is on that particular misdemeanor then after the trial he can honestly check “no” on 21.c.

        So, no. If he’s only convicted of the misdemeanor possession charge then he’s not prohibited because he couldn’t have ever faced more than a year.

        1. avatar Joel says:

          To me, they can charge him with minor in possession as a minor, but how do you charge him as an ADULT with a MINOR in possession charge?!? As a juror, I couldn’t let that bit of irony slide in this case or any other…..

        2. avatar strych9 says:

          Adult in possession as a minor…

          Sounds like a botched attempt at English in describing the pedo that got ventilated.

        3. avatar Sal Weisz says:

          4473 only applies for over-the-counter purchases from a (for-profit) licensed dealer. It doesn’t outline possession/ownership (as firearms can be sold, gifted, inherited or borrowed in most places without any paperwork as they are at that point, private property and not subject to federal law unless they cross state lines).

    2. avatar Rheopectic says:

      Put your head back up your trolling ass where it belongs.

      Like most leftists, you are smelling your own feces.

    3. avatar Don LaRue says:

      The REQUIRED element of a damaged party has been met with Kyle’s arrest, so if his lawyer doesn’t fudge the argument this should make it to the SCOTUS. His lawyer should have motioned to amend with his legal position and not entered a pleading under the charges.

  2. avatar Pete says:

    Have you read the actual law he is charged under. I don’t believe he’s in violation at all.

    948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

    (3)
    (a) – Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

    (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.

    The exceptions in detail:

    941.28 deals with short barreled rifles, which his rifle was not.

    29.304 deals with restrictions on the use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age, which he is not.

    29.593 deals with the requirement of certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval, which he wasn’t engaged in.

    I read it to mean he was not in violation of the statute. I’d be happy to be persuaded otherwise.

    1. avatar Patrick says:

      I came to the exact same conclusion. The charge is ridiculous because according to the subsections, a rifle that is not an SBR is excluded.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        The one person deserving being charged is the prosecutor,case and all charges dropped against Rittenhouse.

        1. avatar David says:

          The convicted burglar who got his Peter beater nearly blown off should be charged as an accessory in 2nd degree murder since his co-perverts died in commission of a felony aggravated assault upon the same individual

        2. avatar FedUp says:

          Attempted Homicide and Felony Murder were my thoughts on Gaige Grosskreutz.

          As for Kyle, he was armed under the supervision of his adult brother, until the cops separated them and Kyle found himself running for his life.

          Really, I don’t see a single thing Kyle is charged with surviving a motion to dismiss at a pretrial hearing in an honest court.

    2. avatar tim mccoig says:

      PETE , u are so right ! but they are going to hang this poor kid just to calm down the over the top clowns , and u know this ?

    3. avatar Bruce says:

      Very much agree. 948.60(3)(c) effectively swallows the law there, at least in the case of a 17 with a long gun not being used to hunt or trap. My prediction is that the charge will be dismissed on the pleadings, or the equivalent. The statute is written as to put the burden on the prosecutor to prove that “the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593“. This statute “applies only” to those under 18 with a long gun in one of those three categories. It is thus an element of the crime, and thus failing to include it in the jury instruction would legally be error. But they should never get to trial – since they failed in the complaint to provide any evidence whatsoever to support even one of these three exceptions.

      Which is why I don’t think that it will ever get to the 17 year old militia member question. The court is likely to be leery of getting into this sort of 2nd Amdt issue, esp if they have a nice clean statutory way of avoiding the issue, as I think that they do. All the judge has to do is say that the prosecution hasn’t submitted any evidence that 948.60(3)(c) wouldn’t be applicable as an exception to the 948.60(2)(a) prohibition on those under 18 from possessing guns, and he doesn’t have to deal with being reversed, and in Dealing with all the briefing that would go into a 2nd Amdt challenge.

    4. avatar arc - the annoying one says:

      Been throwing this all around the web when it comes up. The Charge doesn’t stick in this case.

    5. avatar Paul says:

      Probably everyone here has read the law, along with opinions published by anti-2A and 2A proponents. What this article boils down to is, do we argue the law as published and amended, crawling through the loopholes and inane language, parsing every word, or do we challenge the validity of any law violating 2A rights.

      Like the author of the article, I prefer to challenge the validity of the law. That may not serve Kyle’s best interests in the short term, but that is the route I would prefer to take.

      1. avatar Pete says:

        But that isn’t the role of his lawyer. He is the defendant’s advocate and what is good for him is what the lawyer is tasked with accomplishing.

        1. avatar CWS FAN says:

          Well said.

      2. avatar arc - the annoying one says:

        You have a valid point that I often lose sight of. It’s not just that the law doesn’t apply to Kyle in this case, it’s that the law it’s self is invalid in its entirety.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…it’s that the law it’s self is invalid in its entirety.”

          All laws are valid, until adjudicated otherwise. Constitutionality is not an individual decision, else you have anarchy under color of law. If one takes the constitution seriously, it provides a mechanism for making the unconstitutional become constitutional.

          Keep in mind that the BOR is not the Constitution. The consitution is its own self, and we must work within it. The constitution declares all legislation signed by the president is constitutional, as the constitution requires legislation to be faithful to, and consistent with the consitution. So, where is the validity proved/disproved?

          The founders did not design a clear mechanism for determining constitutionality of federal law. That was done well after the constitution was ratified, and provided by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Since then, no congress has attempted to remove that power from the inferior institution called “the courts”. Thus, through the silence of the people, the representatives permitted the SC to be the final arbiter…a condition the founders feared.

        2. avatar Mad Max says:

          “…else you have anarchy under color of law.”

          Isn’t that exactly what’s happening in Kenosha, Portland, etc. with local elected officials providing aid and comfort to the insurrectionists at the expense of the law-abiding and law enforcement?

          We no longer have the rule of law in the United States.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “We no longer have the rule of law in the United States.”

          Perhaps the situation is we don’t have the rule of laws we like?

          If people who believe in constitutional governance determine that the constitution no longer applies (“we no loger have the rule of law in the US”). Then it is a matter of survival of the fittest. No need to lament.

          Proceed with caution.

    6. avatar J says:

      That’s interesting because it means he could have had a pistol, too, as long as he also possessed a rifle or shotgun.

      It actually makes sense because if you have a rifle you’re not concealing anything. But it’s a bit surprising that having a rifle puts you into compliance.

    7. avatar Hannibal says:

      I tend to agree with you but I think it’s the kind of thing that could go either way.

      I see a lot of people arguing very definitively one way or another on the law and I just don’t think it’s that simple. What does it mean to be in compliance with? It wold seem obvious that the intent is to create a carveout for those hunting and with hunting licenses. Is someone in compliance with a hunting license section if they didn’t follow it but are not hunting?

      It’ll be interesting to see it play out.

  3. avatar NORDNEG says:

    ZFREE KYLE…!

  4. avatar Manny says:

    This is the type of “splitting hairs” that started when politicians and legislators decided (and we let them) to mess with “…….. shall not be infringed”. Now is all @+#*ed up.

  5. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

    Didn’t he play Themistokles in 300: Rise of an Empire? It is hard to tell with his shirt on.

    1. avatar RGP says:

      Themistokles?

      1. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        That’s how they spelled it in the movie credits. The attorney pictured in this article looks very much like the actor Sullivan Stapleton who played the Athenian general in the movie 300: Rise of an Empire (a graphic novel based and very highly stylized piece). Sorry, it was an off topic comment.

        1. avatar RGP says:

          Ohmagerd seriously they spelled it that way in the credits?????? Then again, it’s only been 2500 years or so, they must have been afraid that his family would sue…

        2. avatar Ing says:

          That’s the more accurate way to spell it. We get our ancient Greek spellings via the Romans; the letter K is in the actual Greek spelling, but the Latin language used C instead, so here we are.

  6. avatar AP says:

    I have bees saying this about run control.

    1. avatar Casey says:

      Don’t make fun of Scooby’s speech impediment. It’s rude.

      1. avatar Clark45 says:

        Absolutely.

        But seriously, isn’t anyone reading these articles even once to catch mindbogglingly obvious typos like these? C’mon Dan, even a cursory proofreading would have caught these embarrassing goofs.

        1. avatar Scooby Don't says:

          Gusery roofreading!

        2. avatar Omer says:

          I’ve been saying that for years. If they don’t want to take the time to have their articles proofed before they publish, that’s on TTAG.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “If they don’t want to take the time to have their articles proofed before they publish, that’s on TTAG.”

          T’is the nature of the internet: no rules. If one can get the point across, spelling, grammar, syntax are irrelevant. Look at how much information is transmitted, not through rules of writing, but through a single word….ending with “k”.

        4. avatar CWS FAN says:

          This not Comp 101. Therefore, don’t be a petty putz.

    2. avatar Elmer Fudd says:

      All of is cartoon characters have speech impediments.

    3. avatar Umm . . . says:

      Run rights (synonymous with the “Right to Bare Legs”, perhaps?) are extremely important.

      “Jew Jersey” in one of the final paragraphs takes the cake, though!

      1. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

        As an avid runner, Democrat, and wanna-be-member of “The Squad” I endorse all of the above…… For the record I’m kinda like unofficially the 5th member of The Squad. I asked The Squad if I could join their club.
        Rashida whispered something to Alexandria and then they both giggled while looking at me. Iyana started laughing hysterically. Ilhan just stood there with her arms crossed staring daggers at me. When Iyana stopped laughing 10 minutes later, Ilhan rolled her eyes, turned away from me, and whispered “Oh-my-god you’re SO lame Eric.” And then they all walked away….. please note how they didn’t say “no”. Sooooooo, I guess I’m in.

        Eric Swalwell 2020

        1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          You have a sick and twisted mind… 🙂

        2. avatar Eric Swalwell says:

          I’ll have you know Geoff that since I have become a member of The Squad I have dropped my slave name and am now Mohamed bin Swalwell al Amriki. Now that I am a minority, you calling me “sick” is now a Federal hate crime. Death to the Jewish state of Jew Jersey and a salam malekum to you my friend. May The Prophet’s peace be with you and may your town burn with the heat of 1000 suns as the fiery eyes of Allah burn with hatred for you pro 2nd Amendment infidels.

          Mohamed bin Swalwell al Amriki 2020

        3. avatar jwm says:

          Day-um, Mohammed. May the fleas of a thousand camels invest your arm pits.

      2. avatar Jew York says:

        Makes sense though…. 😉

  7. avatar hal says:

    does it make any sense to charge him as an adult, for being a minor with a firearm, used in self defense?

    1. avatar CanoeIt says:

      If charged as a minor, when he turns 18 his Juvy record is supposed to be sealed, and by charging as an adult it stays on his record…

      1. avatar hal says:

        if charged as an adult, claiming he is a minor, sounds silly to me.

        1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

          This nation needs to decide what the majority age is for everything and stick to it. As the constitution in the militia clause states 17,everything voting, service,purchase all manner of arms, drinking and everything else considered a adult at age 17 and be done with it,Period.
          If one can give ones life at 17 then that person is a adult, and personally Rittenhouse showed adult qualities in his actions that some 30 and 40 year olds lack.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        Kyle being charged as an adult is progress because he now has equality with the black youth of America, who have long been charged as adults before they reach the age of 18:

        “In 2014, Black youth were 14% of the youth population nationally, but 52.5% of the youth transferred to adult court by juvenile court judges, the highest percentage of Black youth transferred in nearly thirty years of data collection. In total, non-white youth of color were 66.8% of youth transferred by juvenile court judges despite being 48% of the youth population. However, overall, the number of youth transferred by juvenile court judges is relatively small compared to youth transferred by prosecutors in direct file states or those statutorily excluded from juvenile court. 12 states and DC allow prosecutors to direct file youth to adult court without a juvenile court judge reviewing the decision. As a result in 2016, Florida, the state with the highest number of direct file transfers publicly reported in the country, direct filed 1,084 youth, 67.7% were black youth even though black youth were only 20% of the youth population. There was similar disproportionality reported in California where black youth were 11.3 times more likely to be direct filed than their white peers before California voters ended direct file through Proposition 57 in November 2016.”

        Now we are achieving real race equality, once white kids get charged as adults just as often as black kids.
        Kyle will be very comfortable in lock up, he will have many young black men to keep him company.

        1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

          Wow. Another low: this time of the lies, damn lies, qnd statistics variety:

          In 2014, Black youth were 14% of the youth population nationally, but 52.5% of the youth transferred to adult court by juvenile court judges…

          Did you catch it?

          Let me help: statistic A (black youth are 14% of population) conflates the population of statistic B (black youth are 52.5% of defendants transferred to adult court).

          Black defendants may be 14% of the overall population, but they make up just shy of 50% of perpetrators of violent crime (which, I believe, are generally the types of crimes that tend to get transferred to adult court). So:

          Overall population: 14% black, 84% other
          Criminal population: 48% black, 52% other

          (Note: actual percentages vary by year.)

          But, it doesn’t make for nearly as salacious of a charge to say that black youth defendants make up 48% of defendants while representing 52% of adult-transferred cases, does it?

          (And note also: that 48% is for all ages; I don’t have youth numbers at hand. They could very well be lower – or higher.)

  8. avatar Lynette says:

    “Run rights advocates and those familiar with the laws surrounding self-defense have bees….”

    Run rights? bees?

    Doesn’t anybody proof ready anymore?

    You must be some fantastic legal eagle if you can’t even get the first word spelled correctly, SMH.

    .

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      I think it’s a new TTAG record. A writer couldn’t get past the first letter of the first word without an obvious error.

      1. avatar AP says:

        Sometimes I wonder if they do this on purpose, to see if people are paying attention. Kind of give a litmus of their audience. I also remember in the past, occasionally there would be a completely bogus article (not April 1 related).

        1. avatar Brrrr says:

          Nah its just laziness. You should always proofread things you publish. Spellcheck isnt enough because “runs” and “bees” are actual words

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      Even with much training, Russians have difficulty with English as a second language.

      You would think when the NRA set this all up years ago, that they would’ve selected Russian operatives with a better grasp of American as she is spoken.

      It is so hard to get good help these days

    3. avatar CWS FAN says:

      This site is not Comp 101. Therefore, don’t be a petty putz. My response was meant for those folks who think so much of themselves that they forget that they are rude and ignorant.

  9. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Kyle Rittenhouse’s Unlawful Possession Charge Is A Huge Can Of Worms”

    No, it’s not…it’s a major stretch on the part of the prosecutor, and will be dropped, if not on principle alone, but by the mere fact that WI is a hunting state, and there are literally hundreds, if not thousandsans of 16-17yr olds out hunting with “dangerous” weapons(high power deer rifles) every yr, and there’s NEVER been any problem before…circumstances be damned, this IS a bogus “catch all” charge that will NOT stick…

    1. avatar Bruce says:

      It’s not a stretch, but a convenient misreading. Very similar to what the Mueller prosecutors did with one Obstruction of Justice statute.

    2. avatar That Jason says:

      And every single one of those young hunters passed the hunter safety course, mandated for everyone born 1973 and later.

      A course with an overwhelming focus on firearm handling, as you’d well know if your handle is at all accurate.

      1. avatar WI Patriot says:

        And your point ..???

    3. avatar Matt says:

      Sure thing. And the law specifically says an exemption from the law is if you lawfully posses a WI hunting license. Kyle doesn’t (or I assume he doesn’t or it would have been brought up before now).

      Now I am down for arguing the constitutionality of the law itself. On its face, he was violating it as none of the exemptions apply to him. He was not being supervised by an adult in the training or use of the firearm. He does not possess a hunting license. He wouldn’t even be able to try to argue some kind of self defense argument that he possessed it briefly to defend himself or others (as he placed himself in to the situation and was in possession for hours before it actually became a self defense situation).

      I think damn well him and his mother showed exceptionally poor judgement. However, beyond incredible poor judgement, the only thing I think he is guilty of is possession of a long gun as a minor under WI law. And I also think that laws is crap.

      I also doubt the prosecutor will drop that charge.

      1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        Sure thing. And the law specifically says an exemption from the law is if you lawfully posses a WI hunting license.

        The statute says no such thing.

        What it says is that 948.60 does not apply to possession of a long gun when one is not in violation of the statute regarding hunting while under 16 and the statute regarding applying for a hunting permit.

        Since Rittenhouse was not engaged in hunting, he could by definition not be in violation of either statute; therefore, his possessionof a long gun was not subject to 948.60 and therefore not unlawful.

        1. avatar WI Patriot says:

          Thank you for pointing out the obvious to those that choose to peruse the statutes instead of actually reading them…

        2. avatar Lohengrin says:

          FYI -Peruse means to read carefully.

          pe·ruse
          /pəˈro͞oz/
          verb
          FORMAL
          read (something), typically in a thorough or careful way.
          “he has spent countless hours in libraries perusing art history books and catalogues”

          examine carefully or at length.
          “Laura perused a Caravaggio”

      2. avatar WI Patriot says:

        You obviously don’t understand the laws as they were written, additionally, IF you’re NOT from WI, then perhaps you should STFU, because you no understanding…And IF you are from WI, perhaps you should take the time to read and understand the laws before commenting…

    1. avatar AP says:

      LMFAO!! You win the Internet today!

    1. avatar jwm says:

      ‘Oh bother, said Pooh, as he chambered another round.’

      1. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

        “Oh bother, said Pooh, as he chambered another round.”

        Oh, man, it’s been *ages* since I last saw that! 🙂

        Get the patch :

        https://www.ebay.com/itm/Circular-Winnie-The-Pooh-Martini-Henry-Morale-Patch-Tactical-Military-USA-Army-/223215330525

        Image to pilfer :

        https://www.pinterest.com/pin/28991991323444315/

  10. avatar GunnyGene says:

    RE: the US Militia – Let’s hope the left doesn’t use that 17-45 age bracket to try and confiscate guns from all the old geezers like me (I’m 75). 😉

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Really, I think the left approves of the provision where asylum seeking immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms as members of the militia.

    2. avatar Dave says:

      It’s “the right of the people”, not “the right of the militia”.

  11. avatar Stateisevil says:

    The problem with the system is that people like the district attorney are free to walk around.

  12. avatar tim mccoig says:

    WWJD ? well , i think this time ? they are coming at you yelling there going to kill you ? its time to hit the bolt release button and chamber the 1st round , next you empty the first 30 round mag. at the closest targets , try not to play cop , that means not 8 rounds in each person , they are not trained solders , they drop with a shot in any part of there body . in the pinky , they drop and cry. next bang in your next 30 round mag. [ if u smart u understand the term banging mags ] and start looking for people that are still trying to get up and come at u , they get 1 more bullet each or u could be a sheep and get your throat cut or hung on a cross ? or loaded on to a box car ?

    1. avatar George W. says:

      I don’t think I could’ve said it better myself…. EXACTLY!

    2. avatar Lohengrin says:

      So you’re suggesting that Jesus should not have died for our sins? Really?

  13. avatar Kendahl says:

    I used to live in Omaha, Nebraska. A few years ago, four teenagers went on a morning carjacking spree. Their first victim was a minivan driver. The oldest of the teens stepped in front of him at a intersection and pointed a handgun at him. By doing so, he checked all the boxes for the driver to shoot him in self defense. Of course, all the anti-gunners recoil in horror at this. They are also unhappy when I point out that the driver would have been equally justified in flooring his accelerator pedal to run over the teen.

    1. avatar Omer says:

      A mag full of hollow points ($15 give or take of ammo) is WAY cheaper than the body shop.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        Get a re-enforced front end bumper. Don’t slow down long enough to take an accurate shot. Just drive over them. By slowing down you are also giving them a chance to take more accurate shot. You car is a weapon use it too.

  14. avatar GS650G says:

    The US government might need to admit they arm 17 year olds to defend the country. If they can fight for Uncle Sam when politicians order then to then why not defend themselves and neighborhoods?

    1. avatar jwm says:

      Uncle Sam issued me an m16 when I was 17. Full on giggle switch on that thing. That was just the start. I was given other goodies. Like hand grenades. And more. All before I was 18.

      1. avatar GS650G says:

        Beretta 92 and M60 at 19 years old.

  15. avatar 1bulletleft says:

    Or.. throw some gas on this dumpster fire. Argue that an AR-15 does not meet the legal definition of a firearm provided by the ATF. This due to it having two receivers instead of one. A guy in California, doing build parties, walked free because state and local officials were afraid of taking that case to court. If Kyle is getting beat on by the legal system he might as well start swinging back.

    1. avatar Matt says:

      Combined upper and lower receiver DOES meet the definition of a firearm though. If you read the analysis of the issue, it is that no INDIVIDUAL part of an AR-15 meets the definition. But no where in law or regulation does it say a part has to have all of the bits in just one stand alone piece to be a firearm.

      So an AR-15 is sure a firearm under the law. But no individual piece could rightfully be called one. The same with most handguns actually…

      1. avatar 1bulletleft says:

        Matt I definitely could not agree more on all your points. The arguement is more pointing out the archaicness of the federal legality reguarding gun laws. In part illustrating the confusion,of such, on a federal level. It’s a smoke and mirror tactic, however it appears to be a nuclear hot button. Once pushed might produce hilarious results.

  16. avatar Sam I Am says:

    “Run rights advocates…”

    Laugh if you want, but these sorts of errors are due entirely to spellcheck capabilities of software. Not only is the software essentialy stupid (lacks nuance), we lost our ability to do the work ourselves. There are only two types of persons who use spellcheck functions: those who have screwed up, and those who will. Identify the needed corrections. Dispense with the snarc and ridicule. Move on.

    1. avatar the jogger's ghost says:

      No justice, no peas!
      Spellcheck is racist and everyone should be able to go for a jog at 2AM if they wanna.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “No justice, no peas!”

        Brilliant !

        Nicely done.

      2. avatar jwm says:

        I’m working towards whirled peas.

        1. avatar adverse6 says:

          Cheeseburgers……..

  17. avatar Darkman says:

    Once again arguing about whether a”Court” will determine if a citizen has a Right or refuse to even Hear the case. A Right which was Not Provided By or Enumerated From any “Court”. A Right which was Won on a Battlefield. Fought,Suffered and Died for by Patriot Citizens who strived to Attain Freedom from a Government That would Demand their Servitude to it’s Will. The Government (All sides being equal) has once again determined that the Citizenry bend to it’s Will. Depending on where you live and which Faction of the Government control that city of state. Neither side will except the Rulings of a “Court” as has been shown. Those in Government simply look to a different “Court” or write a different “Law”. All the while “We the People” swing in the Political Wind with neither side Truly Winning. The “System” has become a larger problem than the fight for Civil Rights. It has become nothing more than a play ground for those in Government to use as a way to Control All sides of the Issues. As factions on both sides of the fighting We see in Our streets today Blame the other for all the Nations Woes. Maybe the real problem is the System and those in control of it (All Sides). Instead of fighting among ourselves maybe the time has come to Clean Up the Real problem. That being Those who are playing each side against the other for their Personal Gain, While reaping all the Bounty and Suffering None of the Pain. Keep Your Powder Dry.

    1. avatar Second Coming O' Christ says:

      Been saying that for years…. I’m waiting for god to sort it out…I guess…

    2. avatar Matthew 26:52 says:

      That is exactly the Devil’s deception

  18. avatar Fred says:

    It’s a great defense, but am I the only one who is worried about the fact that the Militia consists of men between the ages of 17 and 45? If that’s what the 2nd Amendment hinges upon, I’m worried.

    It’s been a couple of decades since I was eligible to be a Militia member, based on age. And I’m guessing that many readers here have aged out, as well. Still, I love having that arrow in my quill, when I’m wresting with one of those 2nd Amendment opponents who says “But… Militia!”.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Militia” is still not part of a conditional clause, such as “for as long as a well regulated militia is necessary … ” etc. “Shall not be infringed” stands alone, with ABSOLUTELY ZERO conditions. Do not allow any conversation to be dragged down that rabbit hole. Repeat after me, “It is only 27 words. If you cannot understand them, repeat 3rd grade. Writing a 10,000 word document to explain why it does not mean what it clearly says, is a clear demonstration of your treasonous intent. For which you should be shot.”

      1. avatar Oath Keeper says:

        Oh how they love to over complicate and undermine

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    I’ve been saying it since it happened. Any legislation that prohibited Kyle from having a firearm was a government assuming undelegated powers and is unathoritve, void and of no force.

  20. avatar Debbie W. says:

    It’s a tug of war with an innocent 17 year old caught in the middle. It certainly appears all zig zagging gun control laws do is complicate matters.
    Such Gun Control has gained standing because no one ever stood on the floor of Congress and said Gun Control is rooted in racism and genocide and has no place on America…Period.
    Gun Control Zealots are the proprietors of an agenda that is rooted in racism and genocide and they need to go.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Am I the only regular(lots of new folks/and or trolls) TTAG commenter who has no idea what’s gonna happen? When has a leftard prosecutor followed the law? Like in St. Louis with Karen n Ken? I’m just happy young Kyle has great representation…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I’m just happy he had a gun, otherwise he would clearly be dead. Other than that, I’m pretty sure the charges will be quietly dropped, because Kyle et al will take it SCOTUS.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        He would not have been there if he didn’t have a gun.

        He would’ve been at home working on his GED.

  22. avatar DaveL says:

    First, I don’t think this is a great argument. Restrictions on the carrying of arms by minors almost certainly, if push comes to shove, be classed alongside other “longstanding prohibitions” by the Supreme Court. Second, push will almost certainly not come to shove, as lower courts have continued to thumb their noses at Heller and the Supreme Court has continued to wimp out in face of their intransigence. Third, on a theoretical level we shouldn’t rely on the government’s definition of the militia to set the bounds of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment pretty much exists to prevent Congress using its power to regulate the militia to define the militia’s and its underpinnings out of existence.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      So the longer the Government denies an enumerated right on specious grounds the more justified they become?

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “So the longer the Government denies an enumerated right on specious grounds the more justified they become?”

        You’re starting to understand the judicial theory of “history and tradition” as a tool to evade the constitution.

        In short, “Yes”.

  23. avatar Chip Bennett says:

    Based on the video interview I saw of Pierce, he intends to assert both 948.60(3)(c) (i.e. the long-gun exception to 948.60) and the USC regarding the militia age range.

    It would be dereliction of duty as Rittenhouse’s counsel not to assert 948.60(3)(c), since that subsection clearly indicates that his carry of a long gun as a 17-year-old was not unlawful.

    (I also suspect that the counter to the USC militia age defense would have to do with 948.60(3)(b), which exempts anyone engaged in National Guard duty. Is that a valid counter? Your guess is as good as mine.)

  24. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I will often ask, when presented with the argument about the militia, the anti-gunner just where the militia got their weapons to go about doing militia things. They usually say ‘the government’ and when I point out that the Colonies didn’t have alot of money to begin with, certainly not enough to equip everyone…they (anti-gunners) will move the argument to some other non-sense after I point out that the Militia was comprised of people who owned their own equipment already on par with the British Red Coats.

    I don’t think the prosecutor will want to open up this particular can of worms, but who knows things are weird in 2020 land. If Roberts or RBG would just bugger off I would say let’s go all the way.

    The lower courts and ‘people are saying that Justice Scalia’s Dicta is the law, it is not.

  25. avatar possum says:

    So Kyle defended his life with an illegal rifle, oooh Bad

    1. avatar Chip Bennett says:

      The rifle was legal, as was Rittenhouse’s possession of it.

  26. avatar Black Long guns Matter says:

    Free Kyle “Dead commies in a Pile” Rittenhouse now!!!!! No Peace until we see his release ✊✊✊

  27. avatar Juice says:

    Wait a minute, either you (and a lot of other people) are reading the 2nd wrong, or I am.

    The “well regulated militia” is the part where we reluctantly armed the government because it is “necessary to the security of a free State.” Because we allow them that power, but we can’t trust them not to abuse it, then we explicitly declare “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The militia is not the people. The militia is the United States Armed Forces.

    1. avatar Country Boy says:

      Read your Funk & Wagnal

      mi·li·tia
      /məˈliSHə/
      Learn to pronounce
      noun
      a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
      “creating a militia was no answer to the army’s manpower problem”
      a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
      all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

  28. avatar Hannibal says:

    “or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

    Boy that’s a strangely written sentence.

  29. avatar Lohengrin says:

    OK, so I have a silly question: The WI constitution says ‘the military power (which is to say the militia) is vested in the Governor of the state (Which is to say, he commands the militia). So, if he’s the commander of the militia, when, exactly did he call the militia to service? If he didn’t, then who else has the right to? Isn’t a militia functioning outside of lawful command an unlawful combatant?

    1. avatar adverse6 says:

      Aren’t socialist driven terrorists outside any law? “Socialist” is just another name for the legal front for organized crime in The US. This is not about anyone’s rights, this is about the overthrow of anything but a socialist government. They are terrorizing their own territories now, what will they do to the rest of us once elected? Stay away from the mobs for now. The real fight, if there is one, will come later.

      1. avatar Lohengrin says:

        Well, yes, but this is going to be decided by a court, not by a mob.

      2. avatar Miner49er says:

        “Socialist” is just another name for the legal front for organized crime in The US.”

        The Mafia would be disappointed to hear this.

      3. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Socialism is just a nice purse within which to concdeal totalitarianism (communism).

        BTW, “socialism” and “social welfare state” are not synonyms.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “So, if he’s the commander of the militia, when, exactly did he call the militia to service? If he didn’t, then who else has the right to? Isn’t a militia functioning outside of lawful command an unlawful combatant?”

      Ouch. The unwelcomed question. However…..

      There is history indicating local militias pretty much operated under local commanders. Towns and villages didn’t need further approval to use their militia to repel Indian attacks. Or the French. We have to remember that in days of yore, towns and villages could be quite isloated from each other, with communications iffy, at best. Waiting for orders from the colonial governor was problematic, at best. However….

      The layout of the colonies under the British is not equal to independent citizens banding together under no recognized authority, and launching a revolt. Which, of course, leaves open the question of whether persons revolting to overthrow governments, local, state, federal, operating without a recognized political chain, are still a militia. If individual groups of people form an opposing force to all recognized government, are those groups “militia”, or simply “rebels”?

  30. avatar Michael Pelletier says:

    It’s 10 USC 311, not 246.

  31. avatar Geoff says:

    Kyle did not violate any Wisconsin gun laws. Go to thegunfeed and read this article.
    Are People under the age of 18 Forbidden from Open Carry of Rifles in Wisconsin?

  32. avatar AmericanIcon says:

    “…the Gun Control Act of ’68 age limits. State age limits on possession of a firearm. All those laws would have have to be revised,,,” No, not ‘revised’, ELIMINATED as offensive to the Constitution. That document clearly states, and the joint and several States agreeing to its authority would have to recognize, that it is “the supreme Law of the Land”, and that both federal laws in conflict with it, and state laws limiting or contravening its authority are null and void.

    The fact that so many people – of all ages, unfortunately – are irresponsible is neither the government’s responsibility nor the government’s place to impress illegal, illicit and immoral restraints on the liberties of the entire, formerly free population

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email