This ruling would have been helpful to have stopped Kyle Rittenhouse from killing two people and wounding another back in 2020 in Wisconsin when he crossed state lines with an assault rifle as age 17.
this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
146 points (98.0% liked)
politics
23359 readers
3285 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Not really. Kyle travelled from Illinois to Wisconsin with his rifle in order to kill two people. He did not travel through Pennsylvania, so this law wouldn't have applied to him.
Pretty sure Kyle traveled without a firearm and had someone of-age purchase him one across state lines.
Here is an article about the guy who purchased him the gun, since Kyle couldn’t legally, taking a plea deal. https://abcnews.go.com/US/friend-bought-rifle-kyle-rittenhouse-plea-deal/story?id=82178053
All of that happened in Wisconsin. What does it have to do with Pennsylvania?
The key context is that this type of law in Wisconsin would have made it illegal for Kyle to not only purchase a firearm, but illegal to own/brandish/carry one.
Would it have stopped someone from illegally buying Kyle one or Kyle using it? No. But then he wouldn’t have gotten away with murder.
Ok? You could play that game for any law with any crime.
If Wisconsin had a law making it illegal to cross state lines then he would have been stopped too.
You're just saying "what if". This has nothing to do with the Pennsylvania law.
Yes, you could play that game for many laws. One like this, specifically, could have helped Kyle face justice. That’s the point.
I bet it would have helped at the grassy knoll too!
Lmao okay reply guy!
Lol "haha look at you replying to messages! What a loser!"
Replying and adding to the conversation are two very different things, friendo. Lmao
Like bringing up a crime that didn't happen anywhere near the state this entire post is about? Friendo Lmao
You may be short on reading comprehension, so the idea that a law in one state could have helped find justice in another is confusing to you. That’s okay.
If other states adopt the law now that SCOTUS has blessed it, of course it will be useful.
No...no it won't. The fuck is with you people thinking criminals will magically follow the laws...you know the large inner cities have a problem with giggle switches on glocks being carried by literal kids right? Chicago tried to sue glock because of it.
Criminals don't magically stop doing something because you made it illegal.
You fix the problem at the source, and focus on the why it's happening, not with what was used.
I'm not anti gun by any means, and I also do think that most people under 21 are not responsible enough to be carrying firearms around most of the time in their daily life.
That said, I also don't like how we sort of have different levels of adulthood.
At 18 you're old enough to vote, get drafted, serve on a jury, be legally responsible for your actions and are considered an adult with all of the responsibilities and privileges that comes with that
Unless you want to buy alcohol, tobacco, carry a firearm, run for certain offices, etc. then you're not adult enough.
And put mildly, that rubs me the wrong way.
I don't necessarily disagree with the ages we set those restrictions at, overall I think they're fairly reasonable.
But I do think that it means that if they're not getting all of the rights and privileges as an older adult, they shouldn't be saddled with the same responsibilities.
I think younger adults need to be compensated in some way for the rights and privileges they don't get to enjoy. Lower taxes at least, maybe exemption from selective service (though I'd really like to abolish it entirely) until they're old enough to carry a firearm any other time, if they're not old enough to run for a particular office maybe their votes should count extra for those positions to ensure their voices are being heard, etc.
I always thought this seemed sensible, but in practice the analysis is case by case. Can't really do gun law that way.
Good. Glad to see some progress.
At issue was a state law that barred 18-to-20 years olds from open carrying firearms during declared states of emergencies.
So 99% of the time nothing's different. 😐
So do you suppose the SC is basically saying "quit bringing us these piss-ant rulings, bring us the real shit" by basically ignoring this one? Takes no work to just ignore it, but requires a lot of work to write up a contentious 6-3 ruling? I can't understand it otherwise.
Headline: Supreme Court
Me: oh here we go again
Headline: leaves in place PA....
Me: NICE
OT: My glasses must be fogged up....turn blossom's for Harris?
CNN - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for CNN:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/15/politics/supreme-court-pennsylvania-under-21-guns/index.html