This political chat room is for you to sound off about any political ideology and discuss current political topics. Everyone is welcome, yes, even conservatives, but keep in mind, the nature of the No Holds Barred political chat forum platform can be friendly to trolling. It is your responsibility to address this wisely. Forum Rules
User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 11:28 am » wrote:
Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:04 am » wrote: There was no paperwork when Black, the original buy, purchased the weapon.
I'm betting there was but I will look it up.

Regardless, he bought the gun for someone else who couldn't using their money.  Straw Purchase.
Post 2:

Which leaves federal law. There is no federal 'straw purchase' law, but it is a felony to make a false statement on ATF form 4473.

Dominick Black has admitted under oath in open court that Kyle Rittenhouse gave him the money to purchase the M&P 15, and that Kyle picked out which firearm to purchase.

Question 21.a on the current ATF 4473:

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.
...

I certify that my answers in Section B are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 21.a. if I am not the actual transferee/buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law.

More:

 
 

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 11:28 am » wrote:
Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:04 am » wrote: There was no paperwork when Black, the original buy, purchased the weapon.  
I'm betting there was but I will look it up.

Regardless, he bought the gun for someone else who couldn't using their money.  Straw Purchase.
 

 
Post 3:

The instructions on ATF 4473 for question 21.a are:

Question 21.a. Actual Transferee/Buyer: For purposes of this form, a person is
the actual transferee/buyer if he/she is purchasing the firearm for him/herself or
otherwise acquiring the firearm for him/herself. (e.g., redeeming the firearm from
pawn, retrieving it from consignment, firearm raffle winner). A person is also the
actual transferee/buyer if he/she is legitimately purchasing the firearm as a bona
fide gift for a third party. A gift is not bona fide if another person offered or gave
the person completing this form money, service(s), or item(s) of value to acquire
the firearm for him/her, or if the other person is prohibited by law from receiving or
possessing the firearm.

EXAMPLES: Mr. Smith asks Mr. Jones to purchase a firearm for Mr. Smith (who
may or may not be prohibited). Mr. Smith gives Mr. Jones the money for the firearm.
Mr. Jones is NOT THE ACTUAL TRANSFEREE/BUYER of the firearm and must
answer “no” to question 21.a. The licensee may not transfer the firearm to Mr.
Jones. However, if Mr. Brown buys the firearm with his own money to give to Mr.
Black as a gift (with no service or tangible thing of value provided by Mr. Black),
Mr. Brown is the actual transferee/buyer of the firearm and should answer “yes” to
question 21.a. However, the transferor/seller may not transfer a firearm to any
person he/she knows or has reasonable cause to believe is prohibited under 18
U.S.C. 922(g), (h), (n), or (x).​

So the question comes down to whether Kyle Rittenhouse needed to have practical possession of the firearm after the purchase in order for Dominick Black to have made a false statement to question 21.a of ATF form 4473. The rifle was stored at Dominick Black's step father's house, and Kyle had access to it on a couple of occasions, including the night of August 25, 2020. Does having access to the firearm constitute possession?

I cannot speculate whether Dominick Black's purchase was made "on behalf of another person."

Apparently the DA did not think it was a straw purchase. 
 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:04 am » wrote: There was no paperwork when Black, the original buy, purchased the weapon.  
Yes, there was:
  • Complete Form 4473, the questions on this form will show the dealer you are buying from that you can lawfully and legally possess the firearm you are intending to purchase. If you are purchasing a handgun you will also need to fill out the state background check form in addition to the Federal Form 4473.[3]
  • Dealer will submit your information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System for a long gun purchase. If purchasing a handgun they will use the state background check form and submit it to WI DOJ (Wisconsin Dept Of Justice.) via their website or phone.
  • https://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Firearm-in-Wisconsin

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:32 am » wrote:
I cannot speculate whether Dominick Black's purchase was made "on behalf of another person."
We know that is was.  He admitted to it in court.
"Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Black said he used Rittenhouse's money to make the purchase."

"Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn't get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 258860001/

You Lose - Loser...
 

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 11:37 am » wrote:
Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:32 am » wrote:
I cannot speculate whether Dominick Black's purchase was made "on behalf of another person."
We know that is was.  He admitted to it in court.
"Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Black said he used Rittenhouse's money to make the purchase."

"Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn't get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 258860001/

You Lose - Loser...
 

 

Keep reading, there were three posts. 

So the question comes down to whether Kyle Rittenhouse needed to have practical possession of the firearm after the purchase in order for Dominick Black to have made a false statement to question 21.a of ATF form 4473. The rifle was stored at Dominick Black's step father's house, and Kyle had access to it on a couple of occasions, including the night of August 25, 2020. Does having access to the firearm constitute possession?

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:55 am » wrote: Does having access to the firearm constitute possession?
When it's a gun you paid to have bought by someone else because you couldn't, you bet your *** it does.

 No different than if a convicted felon had done the exact same thing.  They broke the law to buy that gun that way, and they knew it.
 

User avatar
Crazytrain

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,555
Politics: Beer and Popcorn

Beer
Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 11:37 am » wrote: We know that is was.  He admitted to it in court.
"Black testified that shortly after he got an AR-15-style rifle, Rittenhouse expressed interest in one. During a trip to Black's family's hunting property in May 2020, Black agreed to buy a rifle for Rittenhouse, who was 17 and couldn't lawfully buy or possess one.

Black said he used Rittenhouse's money to make the purchase."

"Black said they discussed knowing it was illegal, but agreed Rittenhouse wouldn't get the gun himself until he turned 18. They shot a couple hundred rounds that week, Black testified, and that was the only time Rittenhouse had used the weapon until Aug. 25, 2020."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... 258860001/

You Lose - Loser...
But Huey is saying black and Rittenhouse are wrong. 

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 11:56 am » wrote:
Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 11:55 am » wrote: Does having access to the firearm constitute possession?
When it's a gun you paid to have bought by someone else because you couldn't, you bet your *** it does.

 No different than if a convicted felon had done the exact same thing.  They broke the law to buy that gun that way, and they knew it.
 

 

Again, the DA, and the Judges did not think so.  Nod.  

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 12:01 pm » wrote: Again, the DA, and the Judges did not think so.  Nod.
It doesn't matter what they think.  

Killer Kyle and his friend broke the law, and they knew they were doing so.

 
 

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 12:04 pm » wrote: It doesn't matter what they think.  

Killer Kyle and his friend broke the law, and they knew they were doing so.

The Judge in the Rittenhouse case said they didn't.  Go argue with him.  Plus, if you had actually read what I wrote it is not clear if there was a form filled out.  

Both will be free men with no criminal record.  

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 12:07 pm » wrote: The Judge in the Rittenhouse case said they didn't.  
That is not true.

He did not rule on the Straw Purchase.

 

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 12:08 pm » wrote: That is not true.

He did not rule on the Straw Purchase.

Exactly.  There was no original straw purchase charges brought by the DA.  DA charge for every thing. If the evidence was there for an illegal straw purchase the DA would have charged them with it.  They did not.  Then it was deemed in court that Kyle could have the weapon.  

User avatar
Crazytrain

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,555
Politics: Beer and Popcorn

Beer
Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 12:10 pm » wrote: Exactly.  There was no original straw purchase charges brought by the DA.  DA charge for every thing. If the evidence was there for an illegal straw purchase the DA would have charged them with it.  They did not.  Then it was deemed in court that Kyle could have the weapon.
One two step. Cha cha cha. 

User avatar
GHETTO BLASTER

Share      Unread post

User avatar
     
     
Posts: 2,888
Politics: Republican

The deal between Rittenhouse and Black was not a Straw Purchase.
Rittenhouse did not take custody of the gun until after he was legally eligible.


 
Last edited by GHETTO BLASTER on 13 Jan 2022, 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Crazytrain » 13 Jan 2022, 12:12 pm » wrote: One two step. Cha cha cha.

So you can show the charges for a straw purchase.

3,4 cha cha cha. 

User avatar
Pengwin

Share      Unread post

User avatar
   
   
Posts: 1,410
Politics: Liberal

Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 12:10 pm » wrote: There was no original straw purchase charges brought by the DA. 

If the evidence was there for an illegal straw purchase the DA would have charged them with it.  
1. Right.

2. There was but they didn't.  Not the same thing.

 

User avatar
Crazytrain

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,555
Politics: Beer and Popcorn

Beer
Huey » 13 Jan 2022, 12:13 pm » wrote: So you can show the charges for a straw purchase.

3,4 cha cha cha.
First was it a straw purchase?. 

If so do you think the law should be enforced?
 

User avatar
Crazytrain

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 6,555
Politics: Beer and Popcorn

Beer
And I find it funny that a person can legally carry an illegally obtained firearm in that state.

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Crazytrain » 13 Jan 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: First was it a straw purchase?. 

If so do you think the law should be enforced?

He never took possession.  If it was a straw purchase, and the DA thought it was, it should be enforced.  

User avatar
Huey

Share      Unread post

User avatar
      
      
Posts: 17,474
Politics: Liberacon

Pengwin » 13 Jan 2022, 12:16 pm » wrote: 1. Right.

2. There was but they didn't.  Not the same thing.

Obviously the DA did not think so.  Where did you get your law degree?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Annoyed Liberall, Beekeeper, Bill Gates [Bot], Buffalo, ConsRule, Crazytrain, DeplorablePatriot, dickens, FJB, FOS, GHETTO BLASTER, Google Adsense [Bot], Google Feedfetcher, Hank, Ike Bana, Isabel, Jinn Martini, leftist, LibDave, nefarious101, Neo, neue regel, OdeToJoy, PaperLi [Bot], Pengwin, Polar1ty, PoliticalPopUp, pwingly, Semrush [Bot], SharminSultana, SJConspirator, Steve Jobs [Bot], supraTruth, Taipan, thelion, Twitter [Bot], Vegas, Yandex [Bot], Zeets2 and 601 guests