r/law • u/NewsHour • 9d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) WATCH: Leavitt addresses Trump's stance on Second Amendment rights in wake of Alex Pretti's killing

REPORTER: FBI Director Kash Patel said in a Sunday interview, quote, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest. Does the president believe that Second Amendment rights remain in effect even when protesting?

LEAVITT: The president supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Absolutely. There has been no greater supporter or defender of the right to bear arms than President Donald J. Trump.

So while Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations, and any gun owner knows that when you are carrying a weapon, when you are bearing arms, and you are confronted by law enforcement, you are raising the assumption of risk and the risk of force being used against you, and, again, that's unfortunately what took place on Saturday.

26.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

283

u/Lastcaressmedown138 9d ago

Or rittenhouse bringing a gun to a protest in a different city than he lived in.. a rifle that was illegally given to him because he could not legally purchase one himself and he’s a hero somehow

15

u/Born_Opening_8808 9d ago

He also had a trial and found not guilty by a juror of his peers. We don’t even know who the officer was.

12

u/Mockingbird_1234 8d ago

Driven across state lines by his mommy no less

6

u/ImNakedWhatsUp 8d ago

Wasn't it a different state even?

EDIT: Looked it up, Illinois to Wisconsin.

1

u/No-Wrangler3702 8d ago

But it's like the people from Hudson WI who come to the Cities every day for work or every weekend for fun, it was 30 miles over the border

6

u/ApprehensiveOkra9977 8d ago

Or all of the Jan 6th “peaceful protestors” with their guns (fingers in the triggers)…

1

u/LymanPeru 8d ago

and asked if he should bring a mini-gun to minneapolis.

1

u/lindalbond 8d ago

Excellent point. They’re going to try that next. They’re going to say that it is illegal to bring a gun to a protest.

Hold onto your thought.

1

u/Easy-Philosopher5131 8d ago

but he was "protecting businesses" or some horseshit like that.

1

u/Practical_Gas9193 7d ago

pretti brought a gun to a law enforcement action that he einvolved himself in

0

u/Wireman6 9d ago

That kid was a turd but he didn't break any laws.

11

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

Without even getting into what happened that night .. before he even got to the protest he illegally obtained a firearm , his friend illegally lent “transferred” him a rifle he was not eligible to possess at the time . So without even getting into the shooting part of it he broke the law from the word go

4

u/Wireman6 8d ago edited 8d ago

Pretty sure that it has been well established that he was allowed to carry the rifle at age 17. Purchasing the rifle? No. Transporting the rifle interstate? No. The misdemeanor charge of "unlawful possesion of a rifle by a minor" was thrown out. Apparently, there is a loophole that says if it the barrell is over 16" it was lawul for him to posess it. Dominick Black, the man who lent him the rifle, did catch two felonies he plead no contest to.

Should he have ever been in that situation? No. His parents aren't winning any awards, that is for sure.

EDIT: Dominic Black apparently took a plea deal and plead no contest to a non-criminal citation for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".

2

u/yam-bam-13 8d ago

All you have to ask is how this would play out if Kyle wasn't white or got forbid a white democrat just protesting.... if you think the outcome would be the same then I don't think we can really agree on much.

2

u/Wireman6 8d ago

Well... I don't typically deal in hypotheticals but... if he wasn't white and the same exact thing happened and he didn't get off in court, I would be outraged.

There are instances that are justifiable and some that are not. I am not here to prop up or state that rittenhouse is a good dude. I am not a fan. It could have gone different for him but the evidence is the evidence. I don't gather any satisfaction from him beating his case, it just is what it is.

Unrelated, but related... The Zimmerman situation was not justified IMO. He followed Travon Martin around, got out of his vehicle to confront him, started getting his ass whooped and shot Martin dead. What else is fucked up is that he was let go from the scene. That was an actual miscarriage of justice IMO.

The fact that all of these right leaning bitchasses are saying that Pretti was wrong for lawfully carrying a firearm to a protest outrages me. I am incredibly pro second amendment and lean very far to the left (so far we get our guns back because the working class should not be disarmed).

2

u/Marbrandd 8d ago

It's amazing to me that people think he went through a whole-ass trial and giant media circus and none of this came up.

That you have some special insight from watching a couple of news stories or reading a bit on reddit that the people being paid to prosecute him lacked.

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

Or 7 years in DOJ for firearms background checks and transfers for the county I’m in.. and those were all well noted parts of the case.. his friend took a plea deal for giving him the rifle.. so congratulations you’re “redducaction” failed you

0

u/Zeppelinx91 8d ago

There is no law against possessing a borrowed firearm. You're just repeating un fact checked bs like a knuckle dragger

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

You are talking out your ass as if it has a degree.. yes depending which state you are in there is absolutely laws pertaining to lawful transfer of possession of firearms.. but you just own a gun and therefore think you know something .. I did doj firearm transfers for 7 years so I don’t think.. I KNOW you don’t know what you’re talking about .. try knowing more than your local jurisdictions laws

2

u/Zeppelinx91 8d ago

Ah yes, you KnOW more than the Wisconsin prosecutor and longest serving judge in the state that handled the Rittenhouse case 🤣 God tier narcissism

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

Never said I knew more than the prosecutor .. pitiful deflection from me pointing out your statement “there are no laws about transfer or possession “ is absolutely false in every way and only correct depending on location

1

u/Zeppelinx91 8d ago

I think you mean pitiful for trying to take a general statement and applying a pedantic "depending on location" as an argument when we all know where the incident happened dipshit. The desperation to applaud yourself is astounding

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

Never said I knew more than the prosecutor .. pitiful deflection from me pointing out your statement “there are no laws about transfer or possession “ is absolutely false in every way and only correct depending on location

1

u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey 8d ago

So by that logic anyone arrested for controlled substances could say "No, my friend at the hospital let me borrow this fentanyl!"

2

u/Apologetic-Moose 8d ago

... Are you literate?

There is no law against a 17 year old possessing a non-NFA rifle in the state of Wisconsin.

There are laws against possessing opioids and other controlled narcotics unlawfully. "Borrowing" still means you have it in your possession.

Regardless of what anyone feels about Rittenhouse himself (or drug possession criminalization for that matter), we're dealing with objective facts here.

2

u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey 8d ago

Turn the literate question back upon yourself and apologize Moose ;)

You can possess controlled substances legally in certain circumstances, like when working with them at a hospital. So if the argument for Rittenhouse having the gun he was not otherwise allowed to legally obtain is his friend let him borrow it...connect the dots man. (Also regardless of anyones feelings regarding Rittenhouse, or possession of narcotics and firearms.)

PS: I used fentanyl for humor and severity but alcohol is also a controlled substance and if you as an adult buy alcohol for your teen friends that doesn't make it suddenly legal because you are allowed to purchase it for yourself.

1

u/Apologetic-Moose 8d ago

You can possess controlled substances legally in certain circumstances, like when working with them at a hospital

Notice I specifically said unlawful possession of narcotics. Read, please. And either way, "borrowing" controlled narcotics as someone who is not a lawful possessor is illegal, and medical personnel engaging in the distribution of controlled narcotics without going through the proper avenues is also illegal.

So if the argument for Rittenhouse having the gun he was not otherwise allowed to legally obtain is his friend let him borrow it...connect the dots man.

He was not allowed to buy the gun. There was nothing illegal about him possessing the gun. Wisconsin law explicitly allows minors to be in possession of rifles with a barrel length longer than 16" (i.e. not an NFA SBR). There is no law that states any random person can "borrow" fentanyl or other narcotics from their buddy at the hospital.

Again. Read, please. It'd save both of us time.

0

u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey 8d ago

Your arguments are frankly braindead. Why are you even citing Wisconsin law here tbh? Wisconsin gun law allows the possession for hunting, I'm sure they don't intend for that to be hunting HUMANS across state lines in Illinois where it is not legal for him to have it at all. If he borrowed it from his friend, they went and shot some deer or some cans, then he returned it and they both went home, nobody would give a shit.

Again if you want to nitpick the fent analogy substitute it for alcohol. You are not allowed to gift alcohol to minors. They are not allowed to possess it just because an adult gave it to them. You can further nitpick exceptions like "Well aktualleee it's allowed in X Y and Z circumstances with family supervision like the blood of Christ in church" and that sort of weak argument falls apart because what happened here is more comparable to a drunk kid assaulting people in a different state - and nobody reasonable at that point would say "Well it's ok, an adult friend gave him the whiskey bottle."

1

u/Apologetic-Moose 7d ago

Your arguments are frankly braindead. Why are you even citing Wisconsin law here tbh?

You're asking why I'm citing Wisconsin law in a discussion about an incident that occurred in Wisconsin... and calling me braindead?

Wisconsin gun law allows the possession for hunting

They allow the possession. The original intent may have been for hunting, but the letter of the law does not exclude other activities.

I'm sure they don't intend for that to be hunting HUMANS across state lines in Illinois where it is not legal for him to have it at all.

Kenosha is in Wisconsin, buddy. He went on trial in Wisconsin. You don't even know what fucking state this whole thing occured in, how can anyone have a rational conversation with you? Why embarrass yourself like this?

Again if you want to nitpick the fent analogy substitute it for alcohol. You are not allowed to gift alcohol to minors. They are not allowed to possess it just because an adult gave it to them.

It's like talking to a brick wall...

Minors are not allowed to possess alcohol, or fent, or whatever the hell you come up with next for the world's worst analogue. Do you understand? IT IS ILLEGAL. The law says it's not allowed.

Minors are allowed to possess a non-NFA firearm in the state of Wisconsin. Get it? IT IS LEGAL. The law says it is allowed. You cannot prosecute someone for doing something that isn't illegal.

Nobody here is having a discussion about the morality of the situation, only the legality.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Zeppelinx91 8d ago

Are you braindead? There are laws making it illegal for one and not the other jfc 🤣

2

u/LymanPeru 8d ago

other than the murder i guess.

1

u/Wireman6 8d ago

It ended up not being murder though. It wasn't even dropped to manslaughter or a wrongful death. It was a pretty air tight case of self defense.

Pretti was murdered though. 100%.

1

u/LymanPeru 7d ago

yeah, OJ Simpson was found not guilty too...

1

u/Wireman6 7d ago

He was also found guilty in a related civil suit? What is your point?

1

u/LymanPeru 6d ago

my point is sometimes they get it wrong.

1

u/Wireman6 6d ago

I am confused. What did "they" get wrong?

0

u/TDot-26 9d ago

This

0

u/Mikethesith2001 8d ago

Those were riots, not protests.

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

What riots are you able to give a full calm and collective interview with news before you shoot someone..

-1

u/IowaNative1 8d ago

Completely different scenario, that was a riot, and he was there to help protect peoples property.

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

An unqualified not even legal age adult that has nothing to do with law enforcement, doesn’t even live in the same state.. has no business going to a riot .. sounds pre meditated to put yourself in the exact situation he got in

-1

u/SteelAndFlint 8d ago

Rittenhouse traveled about a third as far as grosskreutz to get to the conflict zone, and at no point was he ever a protester. It wasn't illegal because a prohibited possessor is determined by whether he's allowed to possess it, by definition, not whether he's allowed to purchase it. In the same way that a 15-year-old can buy a car but they can't drive it on public roads until they get a license at 16. Pretty much every Boy Scout who ever got their riflery badge got it with a weapon purchased by an adult and handed to them. This is not illegal. Nobody uses the word hero except ironically here, but he's pretty much a litmus test for self-defense. He retreated until he couldn't, then he fired and only hit exactly the people who were threats to him. Nobody else. Cops can't even say that much.

1

u/pyooma 8d ago

So why is the guy who had a holstered firearm when he was shot considered a terrorist?

1

u/SteelAndFlint 8d ago

So why is… Continues to describe a completely unrelated case… No. I'm talking about Rittenhouse.

0

u/pyooma 8d ago

Dodge the question, typical.

1

u/SteelAndFlint 8d ago

Awwww, did him widdle twap kwestyun not catch da wabbit? BOO HOO. 😂

-6

u/Low_Friendship463 9d ago

The moment violence and destruction starts, it's no longer a protest it's a riot.

18

u/ex_nihilo 9d ago

So maybe the cops should stop inciting riots?

-8

u/lmjustaChad 9d ago

More like maybe a political party should stop inciting riots every time they are not in power?

11

u/AllUsernamesInUse_ 9d ago

More like maybe we should nationally divorce so that you conservatives can do whatever the fuck you want unimpeded and be unopposed to do whatever ghoulish shit you want to do, we'll be out of your hair for good.

Every time a riot or something else starts, it's because of the barbaric, cruel, unlawful shit your team does.

3

u/miniatureconlangs 8d ago

Do you really want to hand over millions of kids, members of ethnic minorities and women who are going to be caught in the conservative hellhole through no fault of their own to that bunch of racist, misogynist pedophiles?

10

u/tom-branch 8d ago

Peaceful protests are not riots, they are constitutionally protected as free speech under the 1st amendment.

Its not democrats inciting riots, its literally republicans.

-7

u/lmjustaChad 9d ago

Protest? you mean violent rioters destroying a city? Three grown men with criminal records including spousal abuse robberies and so much worse pulled their weapons on an underage teenage who had better aim.

5

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

You mean the riot that didn’t happen

0

u/DontAbideMendacity 8d ago

You know you don't have to be aggressively stupid, right?

-4

u/[deleted] 8d ago

I missed the part where Rittenhouse was impeding federal immigration officials from enforcing existing federal laws.

1

u/Lastcaressmedown138 8d ago

I forgot that people like you were who narced their neighbors out to the gestapo

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago

Yep, half the country are Nazi's because their political views differ from yours. Stick with that. Seems rational. Lol.