Remember the guy who bought Kyle Rittenhouse the AR-15? Dominick Black? Was facing felony charges?

[Celerity]

He's reached a proposed plea deal. No felonies. No jail time. $2K fine for 'contributing to delinquency of a minor.' Judge Schroeder must sign off.

Link to tweet

[kirby]

1. Another example of white privilege...

Had his last name matched his skin color....

[stopdiggin]

2. think you have to put this in perspective

This was a straw purchase (w/ conditions imposed) - of a weapon that was not used in the commission of any crime (acquittal) - for eventual transfer to an owner with no criminal record or impediments (other than current age) against that ownership.

In that context - I wasn't really expecting them to lower the boom on this guy. You?

----- --- --- --- --- --- -----

[Solomon]

8. Oh the irony of your screen name with that post.

White privilege run amok.

[stopdiggin]

9. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstood to be an apologist

The little emoji thingies were supposed to convey my own frustration and a throw your hands up "what the hell?" kind of reaction.

But my point, and I think it a valid one - is that if we (meaning our justice system) are to exonerate what Rittenhouse did that night ... Then it hardly makes sense that someone who is clearly ancillary to those actions - is going to be receiving grave punitive sanctions. That just doesn't follow at all. Correct? And to argue that the two things are not connected or related in any sense - seems to me to be only facile. Am I wrong in this reasoning?

[NickB79]

11. A straw purchase alone is a felony in and of itself

It doesn't matter HOW the gun was later used, or the real purchaser's criminal background. That is entirely irrelevant.

It. Is. A. Felony. Full stop. There is no "perspective" needed.

[stopdiggin]

13. quite true

(and I would have had no problem with this being prosecuted to the full extent)
But - also quite true - there are tons of 'straw purchases' going on constantly, under a variety of circumstances, and in all parts of the country (with or without full knowledge of LE) - and the vast majority see no prosecution at all. I've seen semi-auto assault style rifles raffled off at charity auctions! Given the circumstances presented here, I was not at all surprised that this offense (and I fully agree that it was an offense - see first post) was was plead down to a lesser charge. And I think you're assertion that circumstances of who Rittenhouse is and what the gun was used for are "entirely irrelevant" is entirely facile. Of course it does. And that's the only reason this case made it on to the docket in the first place.

[alittlelark]

3. ..............................................

[Mr.Bill]

4. And I guess now

he will still be able to buy more guns.

[Busterscruggs]

5. He'll be standing

Outside the local middle school whispering "hey kid, want a glock?" In no time. If he were black he'd be buried under the jail already

[Sympthsical]

6. It was totally expected, so I don't get why people are surprised

Once the gun charge was dropped and Rittenhouse acquitted, this was going to be the result. Wisconsin's laws are certainly interesting, though. I wonder if they'll bother closing up some of the loopholes.

I mean, LOL. Right. But still. When the prosecutor has no idea how the thing reads, it can't be great.

[Captain Zero]

10. In WI seems like for every gun infraction there are

Enough loopholes to drive a truck through.
Makes laws meaningless.

[NickB79]

12. Straw purchases are a federal crime

Under the purview of the ATF. Wisconsin laws don't apply.

[stopdiggin]

14. again. you're quite correct

these were state rather than federal charges. It remains to be seen what the ATF does, if anything, about federal charges. To date I've heard nothing (and a google search brings up nothing but reddit and quora 'opinion'..)

[SYFROYH]

7. I have never understood the Fed's reluctance to go after straw purchasers.

If it is true that Rittenhouse gave Black money to buy a rifle and hold it for him in WI, that is the definition of a straw purchase. It doesn't matter if Kyle could possess it in WI, or if it was used in a crime.

This is the first question on FORM 4473:
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.

If Black checked the yes button, he should do the full weight.

But maybe I'm missing something.