19-Yr-Old Man Charged for Allegedly Buying AR-15 for Kyle Rittenhouse

State law will play a major factor. In some states, if you kill a person while commiting a crime, it's a murder charge straightaway. If the rifle was illegally purchased and possessed, that could be at least part of the reasons for murder charges. Each state is different. If this incident happened in Texas, the defense team would have a much easier time than the prosecutors.
Wisconsin law is actually in Rittenhouse's favor in this case. There's an out on the "during the commission of a felony" aspect if the person tries to disengage from the situation. As Rittenhouse is shown on video being chased by all three of the people shot prior to each of the shootings, the disengagement aspect should break his way.
 
That doesn’t square with the actual text of the law, though.
Sure, sure.
I have no doubt that the pamphlet was written
by the same guy who writes Fish and Game pamphlets
about sea kayak kitchen galley fire extinguisher requirements.

My point is that even ATF documents written in crayon
list two different ways to get jacked up for a straw purchase.

So an analysis that asks whether only one of the ways apply to a specific case,
is far from exhaustive.

ETA: Your citation of case law takes it to an even higher plane. [bow]
 
That doesn’t square with the actual text of the law, though. Abramski v US further supports my point that purchasing a firearm on behalf of another person, for any reason, constitutes a “straw purchase”.

Gifts have always been an "allowed" reason. And unless someone can prove that rittenhouse gave the dude money to buy that rifle for him, there goes that.
 
Here is my take...

Do I need to buy a permission slip to exercise any of my other rights? It is illegal to cross state lines while expressing my right to free speech? Or to have a friend purchase for me to use. Imagine that it were.

Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and concise.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom