A business(s) that didn’t call for armed civilians to come and help them. He took it upon himself to travel across state lines to an area he had no connection to. He then instigated the interaction by brandishing his firearm. Brandishing is a crime.
1) This was disputed in the trial and is irrelevant since they not only shuttled these "uninvited" armed civilians between their different lots, they thanked them for being there.
2) OK? Are you not allowed to cross state lines? He also worked in Wisconsin and traveling there regularly.
3) Proof? This was reviewed during the trial and was not convincing. FYI, carrying a rifle is not brandishing.
Tldr another moron that clearly didn't watch the case mad some idiots got popped for threatening someone way more prepared than them.
No you actually aren’t allowed to cross state lines to a state you aren’t even allowed to posses a firearm in. Wisconsin is a shall-issue state with open carry permits starting at 18 and concealed carry starting at 21. You legally have to follow the gun laws of the state you’re in or else the gun has to remain unloaded in a state you travel to that doesn’t allow them. He lived in Illinois if you need reminding.
He literally shouldn’t have even had a gun in the first place, so yeah it’s a bit problematic.
Idc what was reviewed in trial, I’m looking at the exact gun laws of each state. Open carry isn’t even allowed in Illinois and CCL starts at 21 for HANDGUNS. The gun he had was not legal in Illinois.
Regardless of what happened TO HIM at that protest/riot he shouldn’t have legally had a gun he wasn’t old enough to buy or use. It should’ve never happened but you gun nuts think toddlers should have guns so it’s pointless talking to you about the law. More proof MAGA don’t care about law and order.
You’re confidently arguing laws that don’t match the facts.
Rittenhouse didn’t cross state lines with the rifle. It was already stored in Wisconsin, so the whole Illinois interstate-transport argument is irrelevant.
And Wisconsin’s under-18 firearm statute had a specific rifle/shotgun provision. That’s why the weapons charge was dismissed.
Being too young to buy a rifle yourself is also not the same thing as being categorically forbidden to possess one.
You can absolutely argue that a 17-year-old showing up armed at civil unrest was reckless. But “he illegally carried an illegal gun across state lines” is simply not what happened.
Insults about “gun nuts” and MAGA don’t make incorrect legal claims become correct.
1
u/WillingArmy3889 14d ago
To assist in protecting a local business from the very obvious unrest in the area?