NSR: A gun on Every Corner: Discuss the NRA, Gun Ownership and All Those Non-Mass Shootings..

Good
Good
Good

"This had crippled the organisation financially."

Very good, indeed.

 

Again, good. I hope the systemic corruption, foreign influence and lack of oversight are fully exposed. I hope the NRA goes broke and disappears.

I have no problem with the practitioners of any legal activity organizing. I am all for it.

However, as we all know, the NRA long ago ceased being a collection of gun owners. It has been a political operative and lobbying organization for gun manufacturers. It has been infiltrated by foreign actors and has been a money laundering operation for years. They have asserted political power that is significantly disproportionate to their size.

Good riddance.

 

I have read a copious amount of literature about the corruption at the NRA.

They are deeply, deeply corrupt.

I suspect the podcast you mentioned would confirm much of what I read and surprise me with additional information.

 

A bar in Patchogue, New York is taking bets on how many people will be shot in New York City and Chicago on Labor Day weekend from Saturday through Monday.

 

I hope it isn't Brick House Brewing. That place is pretty good.

 

Do you think updating us all on each new podcast you're listening to is the best use of y/our time?

If so, I'd recommend the Judge John Hodgman show.

 

Bumped from the Trump tweet thread

@superdave I am not attacking your comment, as I have seen it several places already.

Also, I am not the one to lecture anyone about the second amendment, as it is not really my area of knowledge, but your comment starting me thinking and I wanted to quickly respond.

I would not call it a brilliant strategy. It may work for him, for exactly the reason you mention, but it is not a brilliant strategy.

1. It is a weak defense. The second amendment allows one to "keep and bear arms" not indiscriminately shoot several people. Again, I agree that it could work for this little f'er, but overall, it is weak sauce.
Of course, defense attorneys can bring up any defense that is (Rule 3.1) not "frivolous" and can bring up a "good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."*

"Self-defense" (at least how the incident was described by Trump) would be a stronger argument (and would be more likely to work).

2. The prosecutor will "shoot holes" right through it.
What militia?
How is this militia "well-regulated"? -the key point
Who is the head of this militia?
Where were you trained?
Do you have any "enlistment" papers?
Please describe the command structure.
Etc.
It took my about 15 seconds to come up with those questions. A prosecutor with any time and talent could craft a much better argument.

3. If it worked, it could set off unintended consequences for the pro second amendment crowd.
a. It could force Congress to finally address the idiocy of the wording of the second amendment. Congress could declare that anyone who wants to own a gun would have to be a member of a "well-regulated" militia.
And NOBODY (and I mean nobody) wants that to happen.
b. A second could be that Congress could look at what it means to "keep and bear arms" and craft legislation to define that.
Of course, Congress would never do that, as that would take real effort and guts, but there are many potential consequences of successfully raising such a specious defense.



* Model Rule 3.1:
A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law. A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the respondent in a proceeding that could result in incarceration, may nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of the case be established.

 

apart from a couple of very brief passing comments, I've seen little about how this idiot's age will be a factor.

I think he is too young (not yet 18) to even carry a gun - correct? if so, what affect would that have on the prosecution of his case?

 

For the lawyers - If they go this route, would they be exposing the other members of their militia as accessories? Would this open up a slew of civil and personal lawsuits to 'responsible gun owners" who were there with Kyle Rittenhouse?

 

As one of "the lawyers" here on Big Soccer, my point was partially about unintended consequences and that this strategy has not been well considered by his lawyer.

There is a "risk of exposure" but it is a slight risk.

Your argument is somewhat akin to "respondeat superior" in employment law.

If he was in a militia and was trained by them, there is a possibility of going after the militia for "negligent training" but I doubt it would fly.

I really doubt any criminal charges as "accomplices" as you mention would work.

The third could be some sort of conspiracy (if the militia members prearranged the shooting) but that would be a stretch, as well.

Finally, if he was in a militia (and he was not, I imagine), I am sure they would have a battery of liability waivers. Of course, there are ways around them, but I would assume they would have them.

Again, if he and his legal team go down this road, it MAY end up okay for him (although I highly doubt it), and would likely be bad for the militia people in the long run.

 

It depends on whether he had parental consent or not. Obviously, carrying it across state lines might be an issue, but if he had permission from his parents to go to the event and to take the weapon with him, it may be sufficient to protect him from the underage carrying of a weapon. If he didn't have permission, that likely makes it an illegal possession of a firearm by a minor. Even then, he's been charged with first degree murder, so he'll be tried as an adult and a long jail term. the minor in possession of a firearm is likely just seasoning on top of the murder charge.

 

Maybe? But that's usually just the top level charge. He's also likely been charged with 2nd degree murder and manslaughter as well.

That being said, he did bring a weapon from another state with the express intent of "defending local businesses" when he had no ties to the local businesses that he was "defending". That could be enough justification to bring a 1st degree charge.

 

That defense of him being part of a militia feels like a desperate Hail Mary. The first question he would have to answer is "who's your commanding officer?".

 

It also depends on whether he had a FOID.

In Illinois, children can obtain a FOID card before they are 21 if 1) the parent consents and 2) the parent has (or is eligible for) a FOID card.

If not, then there is a serious question about how he obtained the weapon.

 

It seems like there is speculation that Kyle's mom may have driven him to the protest and may have been the person he was on the phone with when he was overheard saying he killed someone. Which also brings to question whether she picked him up and took him back home, which would make her an accomplice after the fact...

 

The gun is apparently registered to his mom, so likely another situation where Mommy buys a gun for her son.

 

yeah but extenuating circumstances - it was past his bedtime.