Wisconsin and age of exercising rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WeedWacker

New member
In the wake of the tragic deaths of two protestors shot while participating in a riotous mob pursuing a minor with an AR-15, I've seen many discussions on the issue of whether or not Me. Rittenhouse should be charged with a felony over the original misdemeanor and whether or not it was self defense. I have yet to see anyone discuss the merits of age restrictions in Wisconsin in contrast to the militia act which includes the age of 17 years as those who are the unorganized militia (i.e. not in the national guard or naval militia). Nor have I seen constitutional arguments for ages when rights may be exercised.

Wisconsin law prohibits minors from carrying dangerous weapons. What constitutes a dangerous weapon? If a minor has a baseball bat while traveling to and from playing a baseball field are they not allowed to use it for self defense as a bat is arguably a legal and dangerous weapon, especially according to FBI statistics?

It's it possible this WI law is unconstitutional especially when held alongside USC 10 246?

I would assume it would depend on whether it is established that the second amendment applies outside the home (inside the home established via Heller and McDonald). Would the state having legal open carry law establish the second as a right outside the home?
 
I'm not so sure the deaths were tragic. Both deaths, and the guy who will probably lose an arm, were felons and by all appearances the shooter tried to retreat and only shot in self-defense when they tried to kill him. But we don't know what happened before all this started.
 
But we don't know what happened before all this started.
Click to expand...

We don't. But what we do know is that the shooter made the decision to pack up a gun he was too young to be carrying, take it across state lines, and insert himself into a situation where violence was pretty much imminent.

Now, is the restriction constitutional? That's up for debate, and I'd be inclined to say no. But this is a terrible test case for such a thing.
 
Does the "across state lines" part really make any difference? Other than the media has glombed onto that phrase.
 
But this is a terrible test case for such a thing.
Click to expand...

Frequently egregious circumstances occur before a case settles am uncertainty in case law.

zxcvbob
Death tends to be tragic especially if it's from making poor decisions. I also may have been a little sarcastic and couldn't make that statement with a straight face thinking about the three who subjected themselves to their own stupidity, namely pursuing someone carrying a rifle immediately after demonstrating said rifle was in working order and the bearer was willing to deploy it against aggressors. The memes on social media are off the wall.
 
Just a matter of time and due-process

Really a good idea to keep our opinions to ourselves when situations like this arise. I firmly believe in Due-Process as most and it works even though not all are satisfied with the outcome. I know what I saw in a number of videos but that is just one view. Yes, he charged with breaking many laws that have not been defined at this time. He has been charged with First Degree Murder. .... :confused:

Is anyone really surprised this happened? I think not as sadly, it was inevitable :rolleyes:

Be Safe !!!
 
Last edited:
Does the "across state lines" part really make any difference?
Click to expand...

It's a murder trial. We can make all the statutory and philosophical arguments we want, but juries are made up of human beings, and they can be unpredictable.
 
I won't comment on the people shot.

But I do feel very strongly that this young man essentially threw his life in the blender when he made the decision to insert himself across state lines into that environment. And then compounded the problem when he again crossed state lines in the aftermath.

He made a lot of poor decision before and after the shootings.

He is most certainly going to spend a long period of time incarcerated, enormous legal expenses and years of court maneuverings. Not to mention the inevitable civil litigation that will spin out of this.

His future looks pretty grim right now, and that is a tragedy.

Is 17 years old too young? Well, he could enlist in the military with parental consent, so he would legally be able to carry a machine gun for Uncle Sam.
 
The question is how much limitation is constitutional. 17 is a recognized age for being active as part of the militia. Does the constitution have an activation date or are people of all ages allowed to participate? I can understand not allowing very young children even up to halfway through high school a right to carry a firearm, but what about other tools? A taser is considered a firearm but it's less lethal and severely limited in range. Or mace, as a deterrent. Is it considered dangerous and therefore illegal for a 10, 11, or 12 year old girl to carry?
 
I'm not of the opinion that the Militia Act offers Mr. Rittenhouse any protection. If (and I stress "if," because I have seen conflicting reports) he was a member of some sort of self-styled "militia" group, I respectfully submit that said group is not the militia to which the Militia Act refers. The official militia, irrespective of the ages of the members, is a body of [a subset of] the People, existing for the purpose of supporting and defending the Constitution when officially called up to do so.

If Mr. Rittenhouse was a member of some ad hoc group that calls itself a "militia," it does not appear that the leadership of said militia offered their services to the Governor for the purpose of assisting the police, nor does it appear that they were operating under government control authorization.

In other words ... he was a vigilante, not a miltiiaman.
 
Here's Colin Noir's take on the incident https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSU9ZvnudFE

Kid shouldn't have been there. Nobody should have been there. Kid may have committed a misdemeanor in Wisconsin by having the gun, but that remains to be seen. He doesn't forfeit his rights to self-defense even if the gun was illegal.

The state is still going to throw everything it can at him because the political leaders approve of the mayhem. [Colin didn't say that last part, I did]
 
I'm not of the opinion that the Militia Act offers Mr. Rittenhouse any protection.
Click to expand...

My understanding was the militia act defined the unorganized militia as all able bodied males ages 17 to 45 with disregard to official group organization, as in all men were to be considered able to muster and defend or coordinate to perform emergency tasks such as search and rescue. They didn't need to be the Official Militia of Township Anywhere. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" doesn't refer to "official militias." It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and is inclusative in implying the people are the militia, not a state approved or registered group is the militia and the people need to belong to it to be considered militia and be covered by the 2A.
 
One thing is certain- I'm sure everyone involved would gladly take a Mulligan.

This is something that anyone carrying a gun around should think about. As soon as you do that you open Pandora's Box of circumstances that may arrive and outcomes may be very different than what was planned. Posting up to defend your business is very different than wandering around in open carry format. It makes the legalities much muddier in terms of who's provoking who.

One of those shot is seen holding a pistol. Hard to know exactly what went on. Whoever provokes violence usually can't claim self defense.
 
Kid may have committed a misdemeanor in Wisconsin by having the gun, but that remains to be seen.
Click to expand...

He definitely committed a crime in Illinois. Minors there can only be in possession of a firearm if accompanied by an adult, and he must have possessed the gun there for some length of time.

As I said before, this is a murder trial. Everything is on the table. Everything.
 
juvenile charged with non violent misdemeanor gets scrubbed when he turns 18. the murder trial is a farce. who on the jury is going to say that they will shoot somebody if they are attacking them first? it only takes one to get this tossed.
 
Here is a stupid question.

If young 17 year old Kyle is being charged as and adult, how is it that they can charge him with a “minor” in possession of a firearm?

Either he is or he isn’t ???
 
WeedWacker said:
I'm not of the opinion that the Militia Act offers Mr. Rittenhouse any protection.
Click to expand...
My understanding was the militia act defined the unorganized militia as all able bodied males ages 17 to 45 with disregard to official group organization, as in all men were to be considered able to muster and defend or coordinate to perform emergency tasks such as search and rescue. They didn't need to be the Official Militia of Township Anywhere. "A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state" doesn't refer to "official militias." It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and is inclusative in implying the people are the militia, not a state approved or registered group is the militia and the people need to belong to it to be considered militia and be covered by the 2A.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Militia Act defines who is a member of the unorganized militia, and that is not dependent on membership in any group or organization. I am not a lawyer but, in my view, being a member of the unorganized militia does not automatically convey an authorization to go out armed in contravention of applicable laws in the jurisdiction (state, county, city, or whatever) when the duly-elected government has not called up the members of the unorganized militia to supplement the organized militia (if the state even has one).

I live in a small town that has an all-volunteer fire department. Members of the department are allowed to install blue flashing lights on their vehicles. They are authorized to activate those blue flashing lights when they are responding to a fire call -- not any time they choose to get somewhere in a hurry.

Don't confuse the Second Amendment with the Militia Act. The Militia Act doesn't make any reference to the 2A, and the 2A doesn't make any reference to the Milita Act (and couldn't, of course, since the Militia Acts hadn't been written when the Bill of Rights was created). IMHO, if Mr. Rittenhouse is going to base part of his defense on the 2A, he's going to have to do so without using the Militia Act to open the door to a 2A defense.
 
Tom Servo said:
He definitely committed a crime in Illinois. Minors there can only be in possession of a firearm if accompanied by an adult, and he must have possessed the gun there for some length of time.

As I said before, this is a murder trial. Everything is on the table. Everything.
Click to expand...
"Definitely"? Are you sure about that? Was the rifle was ever taken into Illinois?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top