Ah, ok, after reading further it appears that while everything was in the spirit of the purchase on the up and up, the purchaser lied on the form...

Ok, I get it from a letter of the law standpoint. Stupid, but I understand it.

quote:

Originally posted by KevinCW:

quote:

Originally posted by iron chef:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Jester814:
That does not sound like a straw purchase to me according to my understanding of a straw purchase.

Actually, it is. All day long. Dude A gives Dude B money to purchase a rifle. Dude A is a prohibited person from completing a lawful sale. Dude B goes into the gun store and gives materially false information to make an unlawful purchase appear to be lawful by falsely answering yes on question 21(a).

Some will naturally attempt to argue “well Kyle wasn’t a prohibited person”. Absolutely he was. Could he walk into that gun store and complete the sale himself? No. Then that naturally comes to the argument “well, then I commit a straw purchase for my kids...”. No that’s clearly not the same. As I understand it, there’s no relation to the original purchaser.

From a letter of the law standpoint, it’s a straw purchase.

Don’t know if Illinois has a state law against it, but it satisfies 18 USC.

I don't know the finer points of WI & IL statutes regarding straw purchases, but if the feds were to charge Dominick Black, I believe they'd have a very strong case against him.

Abramski v. United States went all the way to the Supreme Court. Abramski was a LEO in Roanoke, VA. He used his blue label discount to buy a Glock for his uncle in PA. He transferred ownership of the Glock through an FFL. Both he & his uncle were legal to own firearms.

The evidence that nailed Abramski to the wall was the check his uncle wrote him. It was dated before Abramski made the purchase, and on the memo line, his uncle wrote, "for Glock 19 handgun".

Black & Rittenhouse both testified that Rittenhouse gave money to Black for Black to buy the rifle. This wasn't a case of a parent or legal guardian buying a gun for his child. If Black used his own money to buy the rifle and told Rittenhouse, "I'll lend it to you when you want, and when you turn 18, I'll sell it to you," then they'd have an argument against straw purchase, but by federal law, I think it's clear cut.

I'm confused and possibly missed something. So in that case, NEITHER party was prohibited from purchasing the gun legally themselves, and one party did so in order to get it at a cheaper price, and then transferred it to the other person after the fact, but the money changed hands before the purchase. (making sure I have that part correct)

I thought to be a straw purchase it had to be an attempt to get around the law, or a background check or something?

What am I missing?

The issue is marking yes to "are you the actual purchaser of the firearm." Even if both parties are not prohibited, claiming to be the actual purchaser when you are, in fact, not is illegal.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:

What the hell is John Durham doing sitting behind Binger at the trial?

since any of us could get caught up in something like this, I will post this once more

from 4473



Mr Smith asks Mr Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr Smith
Mr Smith gives Mr Jones the money for the firearm. Mr Jones ... must answer "no" to question 21a

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/d...-form-53009/download

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

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.

I didn’t read your whole post, but I am sure that one, you’re drinking BRCC and two it is as applicable as any other comment/post regarding people or groups that are anti-Kyle.

Judge Schroeder said he had trouble understanding Wisconsin law 948.60

He had to deal w that law for Rittenhouse and he will have to deal w it again for Dominick Black



Prosecutor Binger charged Kyle w violating 948.60(2)(a)

"Any person under 18 who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of Class A misdemeanor"

but in part (3)(c) , it says this section only applies to a person under 18 who possesses or is armed w a rifle if the person is in violation of 941.28 (short barreled rifle) or is not in compliance w 29.304 (under 16 y.o.) and 29.593 (hunting approved certificate)

Kyle's rifle was not a short barreled rifle, he was not under 16, and hunting was not applicable.

so Schroeder dropped the 948.60(2)(a) charge.

Either the prosecutors were sloppy or they tried to pull another fast one

Wisconsin has a lot of farm land and hunting is common. The law was written to allow 16-18 y.o. to have rifles and shotguns.

Binger questioned Kyle about why he didn't have a handgun rather than a rifle; Kyle said he couldn't legally have a handgun in Wisconsin. Binger actually seemed surprised at that answer. Kyle knew 948.60

Binger charged Dominick Black w 2 counts of violating 948.60(2)(c)

Black is an adult.

This law includes loaning or giving a dangerous weapon to a person under 18, and then the person under 18 discharges the weapon and causes death

Schroeder will need to consider (3)(c) once again.

As it applies to Black, (3)(c) says

This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 if the person under 18 is not in compliance w 29.304 (short barreled rifle) and 29.593 (hunting approved certificate)

One could argue 948.60(2)(c) does not apply to Black

The Potemkin Village the Left has created - "white supremacist murderer" is completely contrary to the facts of the case. The big lie repeated.

One useful counter to the argument is "22"?

If what they are saying is true, why were there 22 rounds left in the magazine?

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
One could argue 948.60(2)(c) does not apply to Black

The thing I have problems wrapping my head around with this is the actual transfer of the firearm from Black to Rittenhouse took place in Illinois. How do you charge someone for a crime that occurs in another state?

Any problems as I see it (unless I am wrong) take place in the northern district of Illinois.

quote:

Originally posted by Underdog:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

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.

I didn’t read your whole post, but I am sure that one, you’re drinking BRCC and two it is as applicable as any other comment/post regarding people or groups that are anti-Kyle.

Some of you guys are way too wrapped up in this and need to take a step back.

Skins was being objective and this comment was way out of line.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Skins was being objective and this comment was way out of line.

Agree. I considered saying something similar, but couldn’t decide how.

I found that … video to be disrespectful of some things some of us believe are worthy of respect, not to mention its just being bizarre. It therefore provides just one more reason to not have anything to do with the BRCC. I did not, however, see any relevance to this thread or the KR case in general.

(And no, I do not drink Black Rifle Coffee Company or even coffee.)

Anyone who even attempts to defend Black Rifle Coffee Company in this forum is going to have me to contend with.

You guys better be a bit more selective in your battles. Good grief.

Scrolling through that video of theirs, they look like what they are, which is a bunch of grab-asstic little fucking phonies. After the cameras are turned off, they probably grease each other up and go for rides.

There is absolutely nothing relatable about these fucking weirdos. I hope these phonies never hear the end of their shit judgment in this case. I hope they have to listen to it every day for as long as they are in business. The stink should follow them around.

Can someone point to the facts behind KR shooting Rosenbaum? I watched the videos many times when this first happened and it's hard to tell from those.

Are we going to re-hash this incident for forever? You'll need to get in line because the LEFT is already doing this.

Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. That's not an opinion; that's the verdict. Yes, I know you're not questioning this, but "not guilty" and "self-defense" are all that need to be said.

??
Pedo told KR if he found him alone he would kill him. Pedo and group chase KR. Pedo’s friend fires a shot in the air. KR turns around and Pedo lunges for the rifle and gets what he deserved.

I never watched the video. That’s just what I’ve read online. Sorry. Good enough for me.

quote:

Originally posted by Underdog:

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:

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.

I didn’t read your whole post, but I am sure that one, you’re drinking BRCC and two it is as applicable as any other comment/post regarding people or groups that are anti-Kyle.

What? Are you on drugs or something?

quote:

Originally posted by Underdog:
I didn’t read your whole post, but I am sure that one, you’re drinking BRCC...

Do yourself a favor and be nice.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
One could argue 948.60(2)(c) does not apply to Black

The thing I have problems wrapping my head around with this is the actual transfer of the firearm from Black to Rittenhouse took place in Illinois. How do you charge someone for a crime that occurs in another state?

Any problems as I see it (unless I am wrong) take place in the northern district of Illinois.

The rifle never left Wisconsin. Ever.

quote:

the actual transfer of the firearm from Black to Rittenhouse took place in Illinois

I believe the rifle Kyle used was bought in Wisconsin and then kept at Dominick Black's house in Kenosha.

From NYT:

Mr. Black is charged with two felony counts of providing the gun to Mr. Rittenhouse. He acknowledged on the stand that he was testifying for the prosecution in the hope of a lighter sentence on those charges.

Mr. Black testified that he kept Mr. Rittenhouse’s gun stored at his family home in Kenosha. When the unrest broke out in Kenosha, Mr. Black said, his stepfather took guns out of a safe in the garage and moved them into the house in case of a break-in. On the day of the shooting, before Mr. Black and Mr. Rittenhouse went downtown, Mr. Black saw his friend come upstairs with the rifle, Mr. Black testified.

Though Mr. Rittenhouse had not asked permission to take the gun along, Mr. Black said he did nothing to dissuade Mr. Rittenhouse from doing so when they went downtown, intending to help guard several used-car lots.

Got it, thanks. I have a stepson that is letting his feelings stand in the way of facts