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

Reptile

NES Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
27,648
Likes
19,911
Feedback: 121 / 0 / 0
Nineteen-year-old Dominick Black is in jail and charged with allegedly buying the AR-15 Kyle Rittenhouse used August 25, 2020, during the Jacob Blake riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Rittenhouse was charged in the murder of two people during the violent unrest.

On August 30, 2020, Rittenhouse’s attorney John Pierce told Breitbart News Sunday Rittenhouse used the AR-15 in self-defense. He said:

The rioters got enraged by that. Kyle actually attempted to retreat. He was chased down by attackers that were repeatedly stating that he should be killed. They came at him lightning-fast and attempted to begin striking him and wrestling with this rifle with an intent to kill. He had no choice but to fire his weapon and protect himself.
During that same interview, Pierce claimed the AR-15 was legally possessed but would not say how it was acquired.

He held it was a legal weapon, adding “I can’t comment right now further on the specifics of where the weapon was obtained. It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.”

On November 9, 2020, ABC 7 reported 19-year-old Black was under arrest and in jail for allegedly buying the rifle for Rittenhouse.

ABC 7 cites an affidavit claiming Black allegedly took money from Rittenhouse, “then on May 1st he drove 300 miles north from Kenosha to a hardware store in upper Wisconsin to buy the [AR-15].”

 
Oh let me guess they promised to spare the kid from prison time if he signed the affidavit.
 
Isn't the rifle legal for Rittenhouse to own? Therefore, it is not illegal to buy a rifle for him, i.e. not a straw purchase.
 
Isn't the rifle legal for Rittenhouse to own? Therefore, it is not illegal to buy a rifle for him, i.e. not a straw purchase.

Not under Wisconsin law, no. Here's the law Black was charged with violating:
 
Isn't the rifle legal for Rittenhouse to own? Therefore, it is not illegal to buy a rifle for him, i.e. not a straw purchase.
That’s not how that works. A “straw purchase” is simply a purchase made on behalf on someone else, whether or not they’re legally capable of making the purchase, or owning the firearm, themselves.
 
That’s not how that works. A “straw purchase” is simply a purchase made on behalf on someone else, whether or not they’re legally capable of making the purchase, or owning the firearm, themselves.

Thank you. That's exactly it. And if its legal for you to own then why do you need someone else to buy it for you?
 
Thank you. That's exactly it. And if its legal for you to own then why do you need someone else to buy it for you?

Not saying no law was broken here but there are exceptions with 18-20 and under 18 year olds. You can own and carry a pistol in many places at 18, maybe less, but how you aquire them is often moot. Same with rifles, many states have very young ages or none at all but federally you can't buy one until 18.

My first rifle I didn't buy either, nor was it from family. Where I shoot there is a group of younger folks around, some are under 18, some are under 21, they get their guns one way or the other.
 
Not under Wisconsin law, no. Here's the law Black was charged with violating:
State felony. He's screwed. The rifle was used in two murders. Really screwed! Hope he has a good lawyer and the Wisconsin authorities don't team up with ATF for federal straw purchase felony charges on top of it all.
 
This entire case is fascinating and I hope the outcome is in Kyle's favor...his friend as well.

Is there a reason that the guy without a bicep isn't being charged with anything, despite the video evidence and facebook post that he wished he emptied his clip into Kyle? Can't "the people" report this? Is the D.A. the ONLY one that decides what cases are accepted? Seems like a dictatorship in that regard if what I'm wondering is true.
 
A “straw purchase” is simply a purchase made on behalf on someone else, whether or not they’re legally capable of making the purchase, or owning the firearm, themselves.
Don't Lie for the Other Guy

Purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one,​
or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction,
is a “straw purchase,” a Federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison​
and a fine of up to $250,000.​
 
Don't Lie for the Other Guy

Purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one,​
or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction,
is a “straw purchase,” a Federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison​
and a fine of up to $250,000.​

I get that its probably a straw purchase somehow but neither of those are likely met in this situation. The kid was not a PP. It was not about "name associated" as far as I know.

It was about being < 18, which does not prohibit one from having the gun by applicable state law, as far as I know anyway.

Edit: if in Wisconsin as 308 points out it is illegal for an 18 yo to have a rifle then the above is out the window, mostly.
 
Don't Lie for the Other Guy

Purchasing a gun for someone who is prohibited by law from possessing one,​
or for someone who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction,
is a “straw purchase,” a Federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison​
and a fine of up to $250,000.​

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”.
 
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”.

Unfortunately you're right. Abramski is a f***ing travesty of a decision and does nothing to help keep the children safe other than piss everyone off and create felons out of thin air.

It'd be one thing if the ATF pretended to give a shit about straw purchases, but the moral high ground on that went right out the f***ing window when they started walking guns to the Mexican drug cartels.
 
Unfortunately you're right. Abramski is a f***ing travesty of a decision and does nothing to help keep the children safe other than piss everyone off and create felons out of thin air.

It'd be one thing if the ATF pretended to give a shit about straw purchases, but the moral high ground on that went right out the f***ing window when they started walking guns to the Mexican drug cartels.

I don’t think the ATF has ever had the moral high ground in any regard, but yes....cases like Abramski would be easier to swallow were it not for Fast & Furious.
 
This entire case is fascinating and I hope the outcome is in Kyle's favor...his friend as well.

Is there a reason that the guy without a bicep isn't being charged with anything, despite the video evidence and facebook post that he wished he emptied his clip into Kyle? Can't "the people" report this? Is the D.A. the ONLY one that decides what cases are accepted? Seems like a dictatorship in that regard if what I'm wondering is true.
At least Wisconsin is a 2A-friendly state. If this happened in NY or NJ, it would be much worse.
 
Can someone just "gift" a rifle or shotgun, or does the gift have to come from a parent or legal guardian? Dad gave me my first .22 rifle at age 6. Grandpa gave me my first center fire rifle, a Marlin "Zane Grey Century" .45/70 lever-action, at age 14.
Yup gifts are all good... its dicey across state lines...which the courts could inadvertently strike down over this.


And Jesus i shot a 45/70 at 28 and pussed out after a box... 24 year old me would've been knocked on my skinny ass
 
State felony. He's screwed. The rifle was used in two murders. Really screwed! Hope he has a good lawyer and the Wisconsin authorities don't team up with ATF for federal straw purchase felony charges on top of it all.

Rifle was used in two shootings, whether they were murders or not remains to be seen as Rittenhouse has not been convicted.
This guy should also be terrified of accessory to murder charges, he may go away longer than Rittenhouse.
 
Rifle was used in two shootings, whether they were murders or not remains to be seen as Rittenhouse has not been convicted.
This guy should also be terrified of accessory to murder charges, he may go away longer than 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.
 
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”.

Yes, but it is still dumb though. If the guy who eventually possesses the gun could legally buy it himself, there should be nothing nefarious about someone else purchasing the gun first and then passing it on to the other guy.

Of course, then you have to figure out "intent". Someone can buy a gun for themselves, immediately realize they hate it, then sell it to a friend a week later. Not a straw purchase. But, it otherwise looks just like a straw purchase as long as everyone keeps their mouths shut. Who knows, maybe this 19 year old wasn't really intending to do a straw purchase but lied about it just to get a better deal.
 
Yes, but it is still dumb though. If the guy who eventually possesses the gun could legally buy it himself, there should be nothing nefarious about someone else purchasing the gun first and then passing it on to the other guy.

Of course, then you have to figure out "intent". Someone can buy a gun for themselves, immediately realize they hate it, then sell it to a friend a week later. Not a straw purchase. But, it otherwise looks just like a straw purchase as long as everyone keeps their mouths shut. Who knows, maybe this 19 year old wasn't really intending to do a straw purchase but lied about it just to get a better deal.
Don’t get me wrong: I vehemently disagree with the entirety of GCA68, but that doesn’t change the reality of what the law says, or how the executive and judicial branches interpret it.
 
I can't believe it's been almost a day and not a word. . . . . . .


Leave it to Wisconsin to always blame the Black man.
 
Back
Top Bottom