Wisconsin and age of exercising rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
I expect more of this if the protests continue. One thing I don't remember anyone bringing up was the curfew which was violated by both Rittenhouse and the rest of the mob. More video is coming to light now that shows one of the shot folk acting like he was looking for trouble and another of the wounded dude with a gun and later statements that he intended to shoot Rittenhouse. I think Rittenhouse walks on the murder charges but gets the max for the curfew and firearms possession charges.

Now we see (as I thought would happen) protesters and counter protesters with guns. As I said earlier, more to come.
 
Stupid people, do stupid things

Again, we have to wait for him to get "Due-Process" and one point is that following;
The rifle belonged to a friend in Wisconsin. It did not cross a state line.
Click to expand...
Currently he has been charged with First Degree Murder. It is my opinion that the charges will "have" to be reduced. Yes, he committed one or more crimes but they to date, they have not been defined. As usual, the bar will have to be lowered before he will get justice. ....... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
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).
Click to expand...

Yes, the militia act was written much later than the 2nd ammendment. However, it's purpose is to clarify and define some terms.

The first clause in the second amendment recognizes a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.

What is the militia?

Enter the Militia Act.

It lists several types that exist, namely the unorganized militia that includes all able bodied males ages 17 to 45.

The next clause of the second amendment recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Is someone under 18 not a person, then, and therefore not allowed to bear arms? The militia act seems to include them in that bracket of we the people.
 
WeedWacker said:
Yes, the militia act was written much later than the 2nd ammendment. However, it's purpose is to clarify and define some terms.

The first clause in the second amendment recognizes a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state.

What is the militia?

Enter the Militia Act.

It lists several types that exist, namely the unorganized militia that includes all able bodied males ages 17 to 45.

The next clause of the second amendment recognizes the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Is someone under 18 not a person, then, and therefore not allowed to bear arms? The militia act seems to include them in that bracket of we the people.
Click to expand...
I don't accept that the purpose of the Militia Acts (there were two) was to clarify and define some terms. I think everyone at the time of the founding knew what a militia was. The Militia Acts set out who was in the militia, and what kit they were required to provide.

There is nothing in the original Militia Acts of 1792 about an unorganized militia. That came more than 100 years later, in the militia act of 1903, to differentiate between the National Guard and the unorganized militia. The original age range was 18 to 45, and it only included able-bodied, free white males.

In addition to defining who comprised the militia, it also spelled out how the militias were to be organized and equipped. That was its purpose, not to clarify words used in the Second Amendment. Back then, everyone knew what the words meant and what the Second Amendment meant.

http://americanusconstitution.com/militiaactof5-8-1792.html

CHAP. 1.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.[1]

This Act was passed May 8, 1792
Militia how and by whom to be enrolled.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enrol every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrolment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. 1803, ch. 15.That the commissioned officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger and espontoon, and that from and after five years from the passing of this act, all muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound. And every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.
Click to expand...

The Militia Act has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Heller decision made it clear that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause was not a requirement for serving in the militia in order to enjoy 2A rights. The 2A applies to everyone, irrespective of membership in a militia.
 
Last edited:
Fleeing across a state line makes it federal and hoooo boy, that "friend" in Wisconsin is gonna need a fancy lawyer.

Minors simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults. They can't vote, for instance.

Some regulations on minors is in the Wisconsin DNR Hunting Regulations. page 7
https://widnr.widen.net/s/z9kfb1yqcw
Let's assume that the fella has not passed the Wisconsin Hunter Education Class so he's not eligible to carry a firearm unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian anywhere in the state as a minimum and local regulations will be more restrictive.
 
One thing is certain- I'm sure everyone involved would gladly take a Mulligan.
Click to expand...

I'm betting Mr. Kyle Rittenhouse is alive and well today because someone provided him a rifle. There's several instances of unarmed white guys, minding their own business, running into these mobs and being beaten severely ..... one locally, for certain ...one in DC Thursday night .... others, I'm sure. Going armed was prudent, given the circumstances ....getting separated from his group, not so much.
 
stinkeypete said:
Fleeing across a state line makes it federal and hoooo boy, that "friend" in Wisconsin is gonna need a fancy lawyer.
Click to expand...
There's video of him at or near the scene, trying to flag down a passing police vehicle (two or three, in fact), and they just drove past him. If he's charged with fleeing across state lines, that video is the first thing I would show the jury if I were his attorney.

But ... I believe any charge involving crossing state lines would have to be a federal charge. I wonder if Trump and Barr would even consider charging him.
 
stinkeypete said:
Fleeing across a state line makes it federal and hoooo boy, that "friend" in Wisconsin is gonna need a fancy lawyer.

Minors simply do not enjoy the same rights as adults. They can't vote, for instance.

Some regulations on minors is in the Wisconsin DNR Hunting Regulations. page 7
https://widnr.widen.net/s/z9kfb1yqcw
Let's assume that the fella has not passed the Wisconsin Hunter Education Class so he's not eligible to carry a firearm unless accompanied by his parent or legal guardian anywhere in the state as a minimum and local regulations will be more restrictive.
Click to expand...
I asked earlier what "across state lines" had to do with anything. I guess your post is an attempt to answer that. :rolleyes: I still think it's a red herring.

The Militia Act is an interesting defense for any potential WI firearm charges. It has very little to do with the 2nd Amendment. The USSC had no problem with Miller's claim to be in the unorganized militia, and Rittenhouse has a better claim to that than Miller did.
 
Miller was decided in error because nobody showed up to provide evidence that shotguns were actually used by soldiers. (Miller was dead at the time) But IIRC they had no issue with the militia claim; just said it was moot because short-barrel shotguns were not military weapons.
 
"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 was going to suggest googling up Micheal Graveley, the DA that's prosecuting Kyle. He has since taken down his Facebook page. Right at the top of his page he states that "I prosecute ALL self defense cases." (Emphasis mine) He probably took it down because of too many nastygrams as there were a few when I went there. Some were quite threatening. Nice guy that Graveley, you're guilty until proven innocent.
Paul B.
 
Won't stick

"The state is still going to throw everything it can at him
Click to expand...
True and it's not going to stick. Look for charges to be reduce or pleaded. Then, all "heck" will break loose again ..... ;)

Be Safe !!!
 
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,
Click to expand...

No "we" don't maybe you do but it's my understanding the gun was given to him by a friend in Wisconsin . Here in lies the problem , we talk as if "we know" and we don't . So "if" it was given to him from a friend in Wisconsin and that friend was there with him that night , then what ??? Hmm not so clear anymore is it ?

I also understand that Wisconsin has a rather robust self defense clause in the law that you can claim self defense even if you were the one that started the interaction . I'm looking for the video I watched that had a practicing Wisconsin lawyer explaining all this . His conclusion was that all charges will be dropped based on how the law reads there .

I'll post when I find it . Good watch IMO lots of context in there .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8L7JQ-KXzWg
 
Last edited:
That is a very informative watch. Sounds like that kid is going to go through heck, but at the end of the day he is going to walk away.
Click to expand...

I think you're right but not because of what that lawyer said ... well kind of but more because I don't think he gets 12 of his piers to say he's guilty . Maybe some , maybe most but based on what I've read and heard I can't see everyone voting guilty . There will be at least one hanging this jury if the acquittal doesn't happen .

There has also been rumors that his lawyers have legal issues them selves in other states which can't be good . If anything , he can't afford any distraction in his case and having lawyers with legal troubles will not help much .

Here is the criminal complaint https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/7047765-Kyle-Rittenhouse-Criminal-Complaint.html

EDIT , Here's another video of a lawyer going over the Criminal complaint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMmCAbJT6U0
 
Last edited:
There has also been rumors that his lawyers have legal issues them selves in other states which can't be good
Click to expand...

Interesting wrinkle that I hadn't heard. Your first attorney interview struck me when that lawyer laid out that the prosecution will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his actions weren't justified.

Especially considering that they have charged him with pre-meditated murder, I just think it is going to be a pretty crazy stretch to get over that bar.
 
I believe towards the end of the criminal complaint it states that the defendant spoke with the detective . That’s never good for the defendant . What he said during that interview could very well be why he was charged with first-degree homicide . This case Just got a whole lot more interesting imo .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top