Wisconsin and age of exercising rights

[WeedWacker]

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?

[zxcvbob]

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.

[Tom Servo]

But we don't know what happened before all this started.

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.

[zxcvbob]

Does the "across state lines" part really make any difference? Other than the media has glombed onto that phrase.

[WeedWacker]

But this is a terrible test case for such a thing.

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.

[Pahoo]

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. ....

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

Be Safe !!!

[Tom Servo]

Does the "across state lines" part really make any difference?

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.

[ghbucky]

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.

[WeedWacker]

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?

[raimius]

So, it appears WI law does not allow a 17 year old to carry a gun, but there may be some ambiguity.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jso...amp/3444231001

[Aguila Blanca]

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.

[zxcvbob]

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]

[WeedWacker]

I'm not of the opinion that the Militia Act offers Mr. Rittenhouse any protection.

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.

[veprdude]

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.

[Tom Servo]

Kid may have committed a misdemeanor in Wisconsin by having the gun, but that remains to be seen.

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.

[JERRYS.]

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.

[steve4102]

My understanding is that he did not cross state lines to attend this riot.

He had been in Kenosha working for quite some time.

He went to the area to clean up graffiti and such, maybe.

Kyle Rittenhouse Was Working as a Lifeguard in Kenosha the Day of the Shooting, Went to Clean Vandalism at School After Work
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...m-school-work/

[steve4102]

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 ???

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

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.

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.

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

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.

"Definitely"? Are you sure about that? Was the rifle was ever taken into Illinois?

[Bob Willman]

The rifle belonged to a friend in Wisconsin. It did not cross a state line.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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.

[Pahoo]

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.

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 !!!

[WeedWacker]

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).

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.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by WeedWacker

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.

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/mi...f5-8-1792.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.

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.