What would be different if Kyle Rittenhouse were 9 instead of 17? In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, I felt like he would be charged with possessing a weapon while under-age. But this charge was dropped. I looked into this and ran into this article: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/explainer-judge-drop-rittenhouse-gun-charge-81285031. It seems that if the gun is &quot;long barreled&quot; (which an AR-15 apparently is), there is no lower limit on the age at which someone can possess it and open carry it. This opens the door to some strange but very possible scenarios. What if Kyle were 9 instead of 17? He would still be legally allowed to open-carry that rifle? And he apparently got it from a friend, not a parent or guardian. And that friend wasn't held accountable either. Does this mean I could just buy a rifle and then give it to a random 9 year old? And if said 9 year old then went and hurt someone with it, there would be no consequences for me? I'm sure I'm missing something can someone please confirm? EDIT: Quoting from here: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/kyle-rittenhouse-reveals-how-gun-was-paid-for-in-first-interview-since-arrest/2366751/ &quot;Wisconsin law prohibits minors from carrying or possessing firearms unless they're hunting.&quot; Kyle was not hunting. So why was he not prohibited from possessing the firearm?
Pre-1991, Wisconsin criminal law ONLY prevented handguns (as well as various other things such as nunchuks and tasers) from being possessed by minors (being people under age 18), in section 948.60. https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1987/related/acts/332 The Hunting code is a civil code, and it places restrictions on the use of firearms by people aged under 16, at 29.304 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29.pdf This meant that prior to 1991, the possession of an AR-15 by a 15-year-old would not face any criminal penalties, only the civil penalty provided under 29.971 ($1000 fine). In 1991 the Wisconsin Senate passed a law which updated 948.60 https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/1991/related/acts/18 Because 948.60 is a criminal law cross-referencing a civil one, the wording ends up confusing, but the effect of the revised 948.60 was that: a minor who went hunting with any firearm without a hunting accomplishment certificate (29.593 of the civil hunting code) a child under 16 who possessed a firearm of any kind except in accordance with 29.304 would for the first time be guilty of a crime, after the 1991 law passed. In addition, because 948.60 does double purpose as the supply of a weapon to a minor section, an adult supplying a child with an illegal short-barreled weapon (as defined in 941.28) is also guilty of 948.60, along with the minor themself. Therefore, 948.60 gives criminal effect to breaches of 29.304. Hence, children aged under 16 ONLY (29.304 does not apply to 16 or 17 year olds), and the person supplying them must comply with 29.304, or commit a misdemeanor under 948.60 as the minor (subject to age of criminal responsibility of 10), or a felony as the supplying person. Thus: Age 0-11 - can only carry a firearm during a hunter education class under supervision by an instructor, or carrying it, unloaded, to or from said class, by their parent, or an adult designated by their parent Age 12-13 - ditto, but can also carry a firearm while accompanied by their parent or adult designated by their parent Age 14-15 - ditto, but can now possess a firearm if they have a hunter education program certificate, including from other states or countries, if evidence is provided to the department So we can see that: under Wisconsin code 29.592, no person may hunt without an accomplishment certificate, and that for a 16 or 17 year old ONLY, such hunting with a firearm becomes a criminal offence under 948.60 the person supplying a gun to an 0-11 commits a crime, as does the child if they are 10-11 it would appear to be legal for a parent to accompany their 12 or 13 year old to a riot armed with an AR-15, or for the parent to designate a person to do this a 14 or 15 year old who has a hunter competency certificate can attend a riot armed with an AR-15 unaccompanied a 16 or 17 year old can attend a riot with an AR-15. However, unlike 18+ year olds they cannot attend with a handgun, since 948.60 is only intended to ban minors from handguns, while giving teeth to other restrictions on the use of rifles and shotguns by minors.
Short answer: It depends. It is lawful if one has a lawful reason, such as it's needed for work, or it's a folding pocketknife (e.g. a Swiss Army Knife) with a blade less than 3 inches. Long answer: The primary legislation is s.139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which makes it unlawful to have in a public place: (2) ... any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife. (3) .... [this includes] a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches. Subsection (4) gives the &quot;good reason or lawful authority&quot; general defence for possessing such an article which is complemented and supplemented by: (5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4) above, it shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had the article with him— (a)for use at work; (b)for religious reasons; or (c)as part of any national costume. This site gives some more information and identifies certain knives that are banned, and this site, under &quot;legislation&quot;, lists semi-related offences. .
After some more research, I found several german retailers like Frankonia and Brownells, which do ship firearm magazines to Austria. My reasoning is as follows: If they were regulated in any way, they would either be confiscated or sent back to the store. In either way, the customers would get in contact with the store, and the store would stop shipping magazines to Austria. Since I was unable to find a german store which specifically mentioned that they would not ship to Austria, I am going to assume that they are not regulated and can be purchased freely.
Laws vary by state, of course. In Wisconsin, according to the 1993 case State v. Neumann: the offense of second-degree sexual assault by sexual intercourse does not require proof of intent and therefore someone who claimed to be too drunk to know what he was doing was still guilty. Although that was a case involving adults and therefore a different statute, I think the statutes are similar enough to produce a similar result in a case involving a minor. But even though intent isn't required, according to the 2007 case State v. Lackershire she's still be not guilty in Wisconsin. It flat out says that: If the defendant was raped, the act of having sexual intercourse with a child does not constitute a crime. Additionally, in your case, there was a gun to her head. Under Wisconsin law, the woman could not be guilty of statutory rape, because of this law: 939.46 Coercion. (1) A threat by a person other than the actor's coconspirator which causes the actor reasonably to believe that his or her act is the only means of preventing imminent death or great bodily harm to the actor or another and which causes him or her so to act is a defense to a prosecution for any crime based on that act, except that if the prosecution is for first-degree intentional homicide, the degree of the crime is reduced to 2nd-degree intentional homicide. The paper you link to mentions several possible defenses like coercion, and how each defense is not applicable in some states. I don't think it ever clearly establishes that there is a state where there is no defense. The example you (and the paper) give occurred in Florida. I couldn't find an applicable statute in Florida law, but that appears to be because it's in common law instead of a statute. According to the 1981 Florida case Wright v. State: Florida has recognized the common law defense of duress as a defense to crimes other than homicide so I don't think the woman would have been guilty under Florida law, either. The paper states that she was in fear for her life and that of her daughters, and it is extremely apparent in hindsight that her fear was reasonable. I imagine that if the author was able to find an actual case where a victim was prosecuted under similar circumstances (or even one where the victim clearly could have been prosecuted under the law of that state) he would have used that case as his example instead. It seems that he couldn't... and that might tell you something. He probably used this example because it was sensational, but it doesn't seem that the woman was guilty under applicable law.
Bob can probably print the firearm for personal ownership if Bob is not prohibited from possessing a firearm himself, but after that it gets problematic. This is ignoring any potential safety violations and liability issues or patent violations which might arise. According to an ATF spokesman quoted in this article : it is legal for Americans to build their own firearms without a license so long as they are not prohibited by law from possessing firearms, the firearms are legal to own, for personal use, and not for sale or transfer to others. Whether the gun parts are printed, created by other ways of manufacturing, or legally purchased from a licensed dealer has no impact on whether it is legal for an American to build a gun for personal use, though some states like California have placed additional requirements on the process. So transfer of ownership is possibly problematic. It's notably not a way to avoid normal firearm possession restrictions : Knight [the ATF spokesman] emphasized it is not legal for felons or somebody otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms to build their own guns under any circumstance. &quot;Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922(g) prohibits several categories of persons (i.e., persons convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than a year) from possessing firearms in or affecting interstate commerce,&quot; Knight said. &quot;Title 18 of the Unites States Code, section 922(d) prohibits persons from disposing of any firearm to a person the transferor has reason to believe is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.&quot; Finally there's a rather crucial point to note about the design of such firearms : He said the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 outlaws the manufacture or possession of firearms that can pass through a walk-through metal detector or X-ray machine commonly employed at airports without being detected. &quot;A person or manufacturer cannot produce an undetectable firearm as prescribed in Title 18 of the United States Code, section 922(p),&quot; he said. So making a weapon that's undetectable by a metal detector is not allowed (at least according to the ATF).
There are several federal excise taxes on firearms. The main ones are (dispensing with the fine definitional details and Internal Revenue Code citations): A tax on transfers of firearms of $5 per concealable firearm and $200 per firearm on certain other firearms; a $500 per year firearm's dealers tax which is increased to $1000 if you import more than a certain number of firearms per year; a 10% of sales price excise tax on pistols and revolvers; and an 11% of sales price excise tax on other firearms and on ammunition. Of course, like any other business, firearm's dealers also have to file annual income tax returns on their revenues less their expenses on tax forms that depend upon the form of organization of the business (e.g. C-corporation, S-corporation, partnership/LLC, trust, etc.). The IRS has the right to examine the books and records of people who owe or are believed to owe taxes without going to a court to obtain permission to do so. Treas. Reg. § 1.601.105. Subject to certain exceptions, information obtained by the IRS in a review of a taxpayers records and their return information are confidential. 26 U.S.C. § 6103. There are criminal penalties for (slightly over simplifying) tax offenses including willfully failing to keep records necessary to file tax returns, willfully attempting to evade or defeat taxes, willfully failing to collect and pay taxes where required by law to do so, and willfully making false statements to IRS employees or on returns. 26 U.S.C. § 7201-7212. If the government provides probable cause to a federal judge or magistrate in connection with a possible criminal tax prosecution that there is probable cause to believe that a taxpayer has committed a criminal tax offense, then the government may obtain a search warrant to seize records without the advanced notice available in the usual civil record examination process. For example (not based on any facts I have been told about or read about in this particular case), suppose that a former employee of a firearm's dealer or an ex-spouse of one of the owners of the business, told the IRS that the dealer intentionally lied on their excise tax return by underreporting the number of firearms the dealer sold and that the dealer then kept the sales taxes collected from unreported buyers who completed Form 4473, and told the IRS criminal division investigators where the Form 4473s were kept at the dealer's offices. In that case, it would be routine for the IRS to obtain a federal search warrant to obtain those forms to seize and review in connection with an excise tax fraud investigation. If there was just an income tax audit, bank records and accounting records obtained by subpoena from banks and accountants would usually be sufficient. But this would cease to be the case if the inventory records obtained by subpoena from the dealer's suppliers, for example, and the accounting records, didn't match. If there was evidence of unreported firearm sales income, or of unreported excise taxable sales, the IRS would usually need to compare the the Form 4473s of the business to its income and excise tax returns filed with the IRS. It would be routine to obtain these records with a search warrant rather than a civil office record review with advanced notice if tax fraud was suspected. The Form 4473s due to IRS confidentiality requirements, wouldn't be publicly available to anyone by the IRS and criminal investigators (not even members of Congress or local law enforcement), and would probably only be presented in redacted or summary forms in a criminal tax fraud prosecution at trial. In all likelihood, the IRS doesn't care about the customers who filled out the Form 4473s at all, and isn't even bothering to investigate them (except possibly to spot check for fake social security numbers or names, which appear on the forms, to see if fake information was used to Form 4473s used to substantiate tax records). Instead, the IRS is probably simply tallying them up and noting dates of sale, putting them in a spreadsheet, and seeing if they are different from what was reported to the IRS on the dealer's tax returns. If the dealer, for example, paid the proper excise taxes on 800 guns in 2022, but had 1200 Form 4473s in banker's boxes at its offices, then the people involved in the tax fraud at the dealership are probably going to go to federal prison for a few years. Indeed, they would probably just plead guilty rather than going through a futile trial where documents with their own signatures on them from boxes seized in their shop clearly establish their guilt in that case. Federal firearm excise tax fraud prosecutions aren't terribly common, but they are about as plain vanilla as they come in the world of federal criminal prosecutions. This certainly doesn't portend any threat the Second Amendment rights or any crack down on the firearms industry. In terms of this message this sends, this is really no different that seizing the electronic records of a gas station that filed false gasoline excise tax returns to show how much gasoline was actually sold, and prosecuting the people who engaged in the tax fraud for that. The argument that a Form 4473 isn't a &quot;financial record&quot;, when it provides documentation of all of the information except the price on all of the dealer's firearm sales (Manufacturer, Model, Serial Number, Type of Firearm, Caliber or Gauge, number of firearms sold, and check boxes for tax exemptions), and the fact the some of the federal firearm excise taxes due don't even depend upon the price of the firearm, isn't a very strong one. Even if the search warrant didn't single out Forms 4473s from other kinds of business records, this would probably just be harmless error, because the IRS absolutely has the right to ask for and seize Form 4473s in connection with the tax fraud investigation, just like any other business record of a firm suspected of not paying its taxes. These records aren't protected by any evidentiary privilege in a federal tax fraud prosecution. Also, combined with past sales fliers and catalogues and business records about sales pricing for different products from the dealer in its accounting records, it would be fairly trivial to use this information to recreate a very accurate forensic reconstruction of the gross firearm sales revenues of the dealer and the amount of excise taxes that should have been paid. It would be tedious work, but it would be extremely damning evidence of tax fraud if the estimated sales significantly exceeds the sales reported on the dealer's tax returns. Even if the some of the documents in a particular banker's box aren't within the scope of the search warrant (for example, perhaps someone put Christmas Cards and as well as accounting ledgers and cancelled checks in the same box), the IRS would not be beyond its rights to grab all of the banker's boxes of documents, review them at their leisure in a government office, and then return the contents of the boxes that turned out to be something other than what the IRS requested a search warrant to seize. A good faith belief that the boxes seized has some financial records in them would justify taking them away, reviewing their contents, and returning materials that were beyond the scope of what was sought. The IRS criminal division agents don't have to look through the many, many banker's boxes page by page at the dealer's place of business to screen them at that time at that level of detail. Similarly, the IRS agents are not required to assume that boxes actually contain what the label on the outside of the box says that the box contains. Of course, if the Form 4473s corroborate the tax returns filed by the dealer apart from minor clerical errors or uncertainties about the exact sales prices of sales reported on them due to irregular discounts provided by a dealer who sometimes haggled over the prices of used firearms, the dealer would be vindicated and the informant who triggered the investigation and prosecution (if there is evidence that this informant willfully lied to IRS investigators) might even be prosecuted for making an intentionally false report to a law enforcement officer. The dealer wouldn't be entitled to reimbursement for criminal defense expenses or harm to the dealer's reputation, but it would still be a huge PR coup and the criminal charges would go away, probably long before a trial was even held. Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen absolutely knows all of the facts in the post above. His claimed fear of a crackdown on gun users is something he is doing to willfully mislead the people of Montana for political gain. He may also be throwing stones at federal prosecutions because he was irritated that the IRS and Justice Department didn't keep him in the loop on this tax investigation in his state which he sees as his turf, even though it was purely a matter of federal tax law violations which his office didn't have jurisdiction over. Indeed, the IRS may have kept him in the dark and out of the loop from this investigation, in part, in order to protect taxpayer and gun owner privacy by not sharing confidential IRS investigation information with state law enforcement officers, something that it is not allowed to do.
It obviously varies by jurisdiction, but most jurisdictions I am familiar with have something like a "Statute of Limitations" where crimes cannot be prosecuted after a certain length of time because it was "too long ago". The logic is firstly that if you prosecute a pensioner for stealing a bottle of beer from a shop when they were 18, the person you are prosecuting is very different from the person that committed the crime. Secondly, it is very hard to obtain a fair trial after the passing of a long period of time. As far as I know, all jurisdictions vary the length of time depending on the severity of the crime, and the most serious crimes are never time-limited. Rape usually falls into the category of "never time-limited". Of course, although murder and rape can be prosecuted after 15+ years, the difficulty of obtaining a fair trial, and of producing evidence from that long ago, means that they may not be. Finally note that "prosecution" of the accused is often not the primary aim of accusers. They just want to say "this was wrong". Abused individuals often find it very hard to speak out about the abuse; the current scandals have made it that bit easier, by reassuring them that it isn't just them (see the #metoo campaign for example).
Tow truck drivers in general might be allowed to carry firearms if they have a concealed weapons license, but the shooter in the case at hand wasn't merely a tow truck driver. He was actually repossessing a car, and therefore under Florida Statutes 493.6101(21) he was acting as a recovery agent. Under 493.6401 he was therefore required to hold a Class &quot;R&quot; recovery agent license. And under 493.6118(1)(x)(9), Class &quot;R&quot; license holders are prohibited from: Carrying any weapon or firearm when he or she is on private property and performing duties under his or her license whether or not he or she is licensed pursuant to s. 790.06. The story says that the car was in a driveway, so it sounds like he was on private property. This would be grounds for discipline under 493.6118(2), up to and including revocation of his license. It could be that criminal penalties also apply, but I have not found them so far.