Now that Kyle Rittenhouse has been found not guilty for his legitimate use of force, we wait for the Federal response. It was Rittenhouse himself who admitted on the stand that he gave money to Dominick Black — who was dating Rittenhouse’s sister — to purchase an AR-15 style rifle for Rittenhouse from a Wisconsin hardware store because Rittenhouse was underage.
Kyle claims that the money was a gift to Black with the understanding that he would use the money to buy a rifle that would then be given to Kyle on his 18th birthday. The fact that Kyle was allowed to use the rifle while still 17 is suspicious itself. Look, I am progun and I even smell bullshit here.
If the Feds want him, this is where I see them going.
19 Comments
Chris · November 19, 2021 at 4:35 pm
“ The fact that Kyle was allowed to use the rifle while still 17 is suspicious itself.”
I disagree.
The law doesnt say squat about that.
I dont see that AT All.
I see The Law adhered too.
But i dont feel the govt has any right knowin what you own firearms wise anyway.
Divemedic · November 19, 2021 at 5:58 pm
We aren’t talking about OWNING a rifle, we are talking about purchasing one. No matter what we think the law SHOULD be, it was illegal for him to purchase the rifle himself.
So he gave someone else the money to buy it, then that person “loaned” the gun back to him. Looks like a straw purchase to me.
steve · November 20, 2021 at 2:16 pm
It will probably still go to court, but I suspect it’s going to come down to where it was stored. If it was stored on Black’s premises, maybe it passes muster. But if it was stored at Kyle’s dad’s place, which is likely the case, you are right — that looks like a transfer to me.
Steve · November 20, 2021 at 2:20 pm
Oh, it was stored at Black’s. I had not followed that part of the story. I’m more in the camp of what the law there should be rather than what it is.
The process is the punishment. F-ing bastard feds.
AC47spooky · November 19, 2021 at 5:08 pm
I agree … it’s not over yet.
WAR is the Answer · November 19, 2021 at 5:44 pm
Just read that Brandon is severely butthurt by the verdict and wants comrade kommissar Garland (CCP) to investigate as ordered by bathhouse Barry Obama.
(H/T-CT)
21stCenturyCassandra · November 21, 2021 at 12:40 am
Well, Brandon is butthurt, but it’s probably just diaper rash from not getting his Depends changed often enough.
Toastrider · November 19, 2021 at 6:35 pm
The problem is that the weapons possession charge got dismissed.
So they’re in the unenviable situation of charging Black for a crime that was dismissed against Rittenhouse.
I agree that this is PROBABLY the only way they can get him. Civil rights violation? Unlikely. Crossing state lines to commit violence? Got news for you, feds, you missed a whole bunch of people doing just that last year.
Therefore · November 19, 2021 at 7:49 pm
There was no straw purchase as there was no transfer of the firearm. It was still Black’s rifle. He had loaned it to Kyle at the time of the incident.
If the firearm was later sold to Kyle it might become a straw purchase. I’m not sure how all of that works.
PapaSierra · November 19, 2021 at 8:43 pm
Yes. The rifle was stored in Black’s house in Kenosha. They can legitimately claim that it was loaned to him that night. But the feds could definitely make trouble for them. Sucks that this isn’t over yet.
Divemedic · November 19, 2021 at 9:47 pm
Keep in mind that Black is already being charged with making a straw purchase.
TCK · November 20, 2021 at 3:07 am
Wait, what?!
We’re gonna have to upgrade to tires and gasoline, lamposts aren’t good enough for the grotesque subhuman monsters of the federal gestapo.
PapaSierra · November 20, 2021 at 8:54 am
IANAL, but since the state finally acknowledged that it was lawful for Rittenhouse to possess the rifle in WI, the charges against Black will be more difficult to sustain. Much will hinge on the “substantial transfer” definition of a straw purchase.
Chris Mallory · November 21, 2021 at 1:37 pm
Actual transfer of the weapon does not matter. When you buy a firearm from a dealer you fill out a Form 4473.
“Form 4473 Question 21:a. Are you the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form and any continuation sheet(s) (ATF Form 5300.9A)?
Warning: You are not the actual transferee/buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are
not the actual transferee/buyer, the licensee cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. Exception: If you are only picking up a repaired
firearm(s) for another person, you are not required to answer 21.a. and may proceed to question 21.b.”
According to Abramski v. United States you are committing a crime if you check “Yes” to that question but are buying the firearm for another party. (Legitimate gifts do not fall under this category, but many gun stores will suggest you give cash and let the end user come in to buy himself just to keep the appearance of a straw purchase from happening.)
If the Feds want to push it, Black is screwed and Rittenhouse could be facing conspiracy charges.
Chris Mallory · November 21, 2021 at 1:27 pm
It does not matter if the rifle was transferred or not. The fact that Rittenhouse gave the money to Black and had him buy the rifle for him means the law was broken as soon as Black checked “yes” on question 21:a on the 4473.
If Black had bought the rifle with his own money then gifted it or sold it to Rittenhouse that would have made it legal if Rittenhouse had been a legal resident of Wisconsin. As long as Rittenhouse was a resident of Illinois any transfer not taking place at an FFL with a background check on Rittenhouse and following the laws of both Wisconsin and Illinois would have been illegal. Depending on state law, person to person firearm sales are legal, but both buyer and seller have to be from the same state. Rittenhouse providing the money with the intention that the rifle was to belong to him makes it illegal.
Check out this case from the US Supreme Court on straw purchases:
“Abramski modified his defense and claimed that the misrepresentation was not material because the law only cares about the person buying the gun from the dealer, not the final receiver of the gun. The Court disagreed with this interpretation and held that the law cared about the final receiver, which is properly considered the person buying the gun. Such straw arrangements, the Court held, are different from allowed transfers where a person buys a gun for himself and later decides to sell it. Accordingly, the Court found that the misrepresentation was material. Additionally, the Court found that the answer was required to be kept on the dealer’s record. The Court thus held that the purchase violated 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6),[1] which makes it unlawful to falsify facts “material to the lawfulness of the sale,” and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(A),[2] which prohibits misrepresentation with respect to information which a dealer is required to maintain on record.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abramski_v._United_States
Divemedic · November 21, 2021 at 1:48 pm
Exactly the point I have been trying to make.
WOIW · November 19, 2021 at 10:56 pm
Its really simple and once everyone is on the same page it gets easier. No arrest, no court. Rack and stack. If the door comes down you better get me fast because if i make it out of the house mister flame thrower and his lead buddies have a lot of dates to make before the curten drops. At this point fuck’em
E M Johnson · November 20, 2021 at 7:26 am
black will get burned. not kyle
VaFish · November 20, 2021 at 11:49 pm
Kyle admitted to giving the money to Black to purchase the rifle and he would take possession of the rifle when he turned 18. Black will get burned for the straw purchase, Kyle will get charged with conspiracy.
Comments are closed.