quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
First, I’m happy that Kyle was found not guilty. He seems like a genuinely good kid. You can tell he will have some emotional issues but to me he seems the type to be able to work through them and put them behind them. I wish him the best in wherever his life leads him.

Second, I’d like to thank the jury. They did what was right and what was required even though they were under amazing pressure. I have next to zero faith in law at the federal level but these people gave me hope that some still take our system of justice to heart. That is REALLY good to see.

Stay safe young man. You did nothing wrong.


Now, it’s Saturday night so I’m gonna pour myself a short glass of Rye and enjoy an amazing ballad about a young man who triumphed over evil.

The Kenosha Kid

(Turn up the volume and sing along )





In the town of old Kenosha marched some troubled rogues one day
Held hammers high above their heads and looking for a fray
No one dared to ask their business no one dared to make a din
Save for one young man among them with an AR on a sling
AR on a sling

In this town there were some outlaws bound to teachings of the Red
Many soy boys were among them as were trannies overfed
They were vicious prone to violence burning gas stations and more
And their leader rode a skateboard rolling swiftly on the floor
Swiftly on the floor

Now the young man started talkin’ made it plain to folks around
He was there to stop the mob from burning businesses to ground
Didn’t look like much the tough guy ‘cept for one important thing
And the thing of course an AR riding tautly on a sling
Tautly on a sling

Now the night was passing quickly as the mob moved wielding flame
And the youth called out to halt them as they spotted him as game
He was running down the pavement when a lout caused him to trip
And tempted the soy leader with a skateboard on his hip
Skateboard on his hip

It was over in a moment as the folks had gathered ‘round
The skater sought the rifle as the youth lay on the ground
Oh he might’ve went on livin’, but forgot one major thing
And he fell down shot dead by the kid with an AR on a sling
AR on a sling

AR, AR
He fell down shot dead by the kid with an AR on a sling
AR on a sling

Shared

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
The Kenosha Kid

That's fracking cool

1. I bought a gun.
2. I loaned it too a friend.

It is still my gun; not Kyle's.

Then shut the hell up.

quote:

Originally posted by Some Shot:
1. I bought a gun.
2. I loaned it too a friend.

It is still my gun; not Kyle's.

Then shut the hell up.

That would directly contradict what Kyle stated on the stand under oath….so that ship has sailed.

Mark Richards said that he was fired by the two previous attorneys who he felt were exploiting Kyle and using him to advance their issues. It seems the exploitation is now happening.

People have asked if Kyle will get his rifle back.

It is not Kyle's rifle. Dominick Black bought it.

Black has a court status conference scheduled for Monday 22 Nov 2021 w Judge Schroeder and Prosecutor Binger

One of the credits at the end of the excellent RazorFist clip -

“Binger’s Trigger Discipline by:

Alec Baldwin”

LOFL!!

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
For anyone familiar with the “straw”* purchase issue, is there any guidance from the ATF or case law that defines how long a gun must be held by a purchaser before he can transfer it to someone else and not be accused of that crime?

There’s not case law that says X is illegal and a straw but Y is ok. It all comes down to the intent of the purchase.

This is rich.

https://twitter.com/leslibless...479465267207/photo/1

Per the "example", "Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money..."

I was not aware of this, and my opinion was that Black made the purchase and did not give the weapon to Kyle, but had intended to keep possession until Kyle was old enough, then transfer the gun legally.

The information since provided, has clarified my misunderstanding of the "straw purchase".

(and I still believe both were trying to do the right thing, but failed, according to law)

And I still am of the opinion that the entirety of the "straw purchase law" is to prevent illegal gun possession by those who should not (criminals, etc.).

And I realize "breaking the law" is still the issue.

So, I stand corrected.

quote:

Originally posted by lbj:
This is rich.

https://twitter.com/leslibless...479465267207/photo/1

Footnote: Sioux Falls, SD native and high school debate team member still trying to find his niche seen working at Mickey D's.

The singer actually sounded like Marty Robbins

Kyle was not a prohibited person. I've read the list in the 18 U.S.C. 922 (g) 5 times now and there's nothing there that applied to him. That doesn't mean the purchase wasn't a straw purchase because prohibited persons and straw sales are separate issues. One is not a prerequisite for the other.

Kyle's buddy bought the rifle using Kyle's money with the intent of Kyle receiving the rifle. That's a straw purchase. There's no Federal, Wisconsin, or Illinois law that prevented Kyle from owning the rifle. If his friend had used his own money instead of Kyle's and given Kyle the rifle, all would be good. Being an Illinois resident, Kyle would have to have a FOID, but there's no age restriction; he'd have to have a parent's or guardian's written permission to apply for one.

There's no time limit because all that matters is intent at the time of purchase. I can buy a rifle with the sole intent to give it to my minor son as a gift. At the time of purchase, I am the purchaser, I'm using my money, and I can honestly answer that I'm not purchasing the firearm on someone else's behalf. On the other hand, let's say my minor son saves his money, gives it to me, and I buy a rifle for him. That's a straw purchase, because my intent at the time is to buy it on his behalf. I cannot answer the question honestly. It doesn't matter if my plan is to give it to him 100 years from that point because my intent at the time I answered the question was to buy it on his behalf.

Let's say my son is not a minor. I can give him money, to buy himself a rifle. Again, at the time of purchase, he answers the question honestly because he is buying the rifle for himself.

Where it could be fun is, my son is not a minor and I give him money to buy a rifle as a gift to my wife. Straw purchase because he's buying it on my behalf. But, if he wants to buy a rifle to give as a gift to my wife, and I give him the money to do it; that's not a straw purchase. In both cases, I'm giving money to my son, he's buying a rifle, and my wife is getting a gift, but the intent is not the same. It's all about the intent.

Please drop a comment for our cowardly, traitous friends at black rife coffee.

These clowns really think they aren’t projecting a little too much? Always with the dudes in drag, etc…

https://youtu.be/Z3OltrYDZro

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
922(g) definitions are for the charge “prohibited person in possession of a firearm”. He was most certainly prohibited from completing a “lawful purchase” due to age.

It's the definition for prohibited persons in general as it applies to whom anyone can transfer or deliver a firearm to as well. The age limitation is specific to licensees.

"(b)It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(1)any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;”

I’m trying to wrap my head around the straw purchase thing and your comment about intent was an ah ha moment for me. I think I finally get it. The age thing being specific to licensees was another ah ha moment.

quote:

Originally posted by Underdog:
Please drop a comment for our cowardly, traitous friends at black rife coffee.

These clowns really think they aren’t projecting a little too much? Always with the dudes in drag, etc…

https://youtu.be/Z3OltrYDZro

I didn't watch the whole thing, but I am sure that one, it was making fun of the current state of the military and two, it has nothing to do with KR case.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
922(g) definitions are for the charge “prohibited person in possession of a firearm”. He was most certainly prohibited from completing a “lawful purchase” due to age.

It's the definition for prohibited persons in general as it applies to whom anyone can transfer or deliver a firearm to as well. The age limitation is specific to licensees.

"(b)It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(1)any firearm or ammunition to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than eighteen years of age, and, if the firearm, or ammunition is other than a shotgun or rifle, or ammunition for a shotgun or rifle, to any individual who the licensee knows or has reasonable cause to believe is less than twenty-one years of age;”

I’m trying to wrap my head around the straw purchase thing and your comment about intent was an ah ha moment for me. I think I finally get it. The age thing being specific to licensees was another ah ha moment.

You’re real close. I deleted that other post as it wasn’t very detailed and I was in a hurry.

922 (g) (1-9) deals with who can and can not Lawfully POSSESS a firearm. Felons, mentally ill, domestic abusers, etc. the “transfer” language in (g)(1-9) does not involve transfer from a FFL.

While many of them are also prohibited from PURCHASING a firearm, that list isn’t inclusive under (a)(6). If I knowingly put down an incorrect address, I’m a prohibited person under (a)(6). And on and on.

The context that you’re attempting to classify “prohibited” as by quoting 922(g) is in fact incorrect as it applies to POSSESSION. Rittenhouse was a prohibited person due to age. The “correct” charge would be the (a)(6) violation not (g)(1-9).

Hope this helps and I hope it makes more sense to you.

Interesting to note that the RevComs are making a big showing at marches and protests.
Dee Williams of the Revolution Club (The Revolutionary Communist Party, USA) spoke at the post verdict press conference along with BLM leaders and other Marxist\Socialist leaders.

Here’s Jesse Jackson with the Revolutionary Communist Party banner behind him, marching in Chicago.
Seems they crossed state lines to protest.


Link

well, then I guess we would know who's who.