Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 08:59:25 PM
And... Rittenhouse is still in violation of 948.60(2)(a). It's a misdemeanor.  The exceptions are make the misdemeanor into a felony. That is what the exception applies to. Read the whole statute 948.60.

How is he in violation?  He's over 16.

Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:06:58 PM
How is he in violation?  He's over 16.

He is not 18yo. That is a misdemeanor.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:17:08 PM
He is not 18yo. That is a misdemeanor.

He's covered under 3(c) per 29.304, which deals with 16 and under.  He's 17.

Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:18:58 PM
He's covered under 3(c) per 29.304, which deals with 16 and under.  He's 17.

No he is not. That exception makes the misdemeanor in  2a into a felony instead of a misdemeanor.
It's kind of like the difference when you get into a traffic accident and cause minor injuries when your sober is usually a misdemeanor.  If you're DUI and get into an accident and cause injuries It's a felony.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:22:43 PM
No he is not. That exception makes the misdemeanor in  2a into a felony instead of a misdemeanor.

3(c) is clear:

(3) 
  (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

  (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

  (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.


He's in the clear on 941.28, 29.304, and 29.593 doesn't apply.

3(c) was added in 2005, hence the confusion, but being 17 (over 16), he's completely in the clear.

Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:27:48 PM
3(c) is clear:

(3) 
  (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

  (b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

  (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.


He's in the clear on 941.28, 29.304, and 29.593 doesn't apply.

3(c) was added in 2005, hence the confusion, but being 17 (over 16), he's completely in the clear.

It is clear that under 18 is a misdemeanor and the exception makes it a felony. If it was legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles I guarantee alot more stupid ass kids would be doing it. Section 3 only applies. Rittenhouse is not clear of the misdemeanor charge of carrying a dangerous weapon. He will be cleared of everything else possibly.
Read the whole statute.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:31:02 PM
It is clear that under 18 is a misdemeanor and the exception makes it a felony. If it was legal for 17 year olds to open carry rifles I guarantee alot more stupid ass kids would be doing it.

What exception? And where is it made a misdemeanor?

Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 09:35:14 PM
What exception? And where is it made a misdemeanor?

2a says it's a misdemeanor.  3c makes the same crime a felony.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 09:49:40 PM
2a says it's a misdemeanor.

3 has the exceptions to this....

Quote
  3c makes the same crime a felony.

Not in Kyle's case.

3(c) completely clears Kyle of the ENTIRE section.  Again, here's the language:

QuoteThis 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.

Kyle is not in violation of any of those three statutes.  If we can't agree on that then I guess we're at an impasse.

I have to go night-night.  Maybe someone else can do a better job than I in explaining it.

Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 10:10:13 PM
3 has the exceptions to this....
Not in Kyle's case.

3(c) completely clears Kyle of the ENTIRE section.  Again, here's the language:

Kyle is not in violation of any of those three statutes.  If we can't agree on that then I guess we're at an impasse.

I have to go night-night.  Maybe someone else can do a better job than I in explaining it.

You've explained it fine and you're wrong. You don't get it. 2a applies to Rittenhouse. 3c does not apply to Rittenhouse .

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 15, 2020, 04:15:33 AM
You've explained it fine and you're wrong. You don't get it. 2a applies to Rittenhouse. 3c does not apply to Rittenhouse .

If you were on that jury would you convict him?

Quote from: Possum on September 15, 2020, 04:44:37 AM
If you were on that jury would you convict him?

Very good question young man. 

Quote from: taxed on September 14, 2020, 07:59:12 PM
The little bit I've just now dug into, it seems like you were right originally... he's completely in the clear and legal.

This is why I asked "clouded" for the verbatim Statute.  Laws are sometimes intentionally worded in such thick legalese it takes a platoon of lawyers to figure it out.  Guarantee's them a source of income.

Quote from: Killer Clouds on September 14, 2020, 07:22:48 PM
He is a minor. He broke the law. He is 17yo. He is a criminal.  Facts are still facts.
I understand the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment has been infringed upon by every state in the union and the federal government itself. Why does anyone need permission to buy and own any firearm or ammo? Why does anyone need permission to carry a firearm open or concealed? The reason is because the law says so. The 2nd amendment does not negate the fact that Rittenhouse broke the law. The person that loaned him the firearm broke the law. If as you say Rittenhouse owned the firearm, and he didn't, he owned it illegally and committed a felony in his home state of Illinois. Your wrong again and can't prove me wrong.

Yet you continue to ignore the most important fact. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Certainly you can agree that that fact is the most important fact here and trounces all other facts.

Besides he didnt really break the law did he. He was defending his own property, which is the equivalent of being in ones own home.

Now for this last point Im just spitballing, but wasnt this declared a riot? Now if a riot of other state of emergency is declared does that not temporarily overwrite certain laws? If we were being invaded wld he not have the right to carry outdoors? Or what happens if martial law is declared? The riots can certainly be considered a type of foreign invasion or rebellion considering their foreign support and anti american stances.

Quote from: T Hunt on September 15, 2020, 05:14:44 AM
Yet you continue to ignore the most important fact. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Certainly you can agree that that fact is the most important fact here and trounces all other facts.

Besides he didnt really break the law did he. He was defending his own property, which is the equivalent of being in ones own home.

Now for this last point Im just spitballing, but wasnt this declared a riot? Now if a riot of other state of emergency is declared does that not temporarily overwrite certain laws? If we were being invaded wld he not have the right to carry outdoors? Or what happens if martial law is declared? The riots can certainly be considered a type of foreign invasion or rebellion considering their foreign support and anti american stances.

I'm not overlooking the 2nd amendment.  Unfortunately unconstitutional laws still apply. By your theory, of which I agree with by the way,  I could by a Tommy gun without a background check or special permission from the government. You keep saying he was protecting his property and he wasn't.  At this point we will have to see what happens. Rittenhouse is in custody and has lawyers. There were multiple laws broken by multiple people. The most annoying thing about the whole situation is why aren't all the rioters in jail? They committed worse crimes than Rittenhouse.