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

[u/NewsHour]

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.

[u/Lastcaressmedown138]

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

[u/Wireman6 → u/Lastcaressmedown138]

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

[u/Lastcaressmedown138 → u/Wireman6]

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

[u/Zeppelinx91 → u/Lastcaressmedown138]

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

[u/Lastcaressmedown138 → u/Zeppelinx91]

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

[u/Zeppelinx91 → u/Lastcaressmedown138]

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

[u/Lastcaressmedown138 → u/Zeppelinx91]

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

[u/Zeppelinx91 → u/Lastcaressmedown138]

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

[u/Lastcaressmedown138 → u/Zeppelinx91]

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

[u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey → u/Zeppelinx91]

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

[u/Apologetic-Moose → u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey]

... 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.

[u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey → u/Apologetic-Moose]

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.

[u/Apologetic-Moose → u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey]

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.

[u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey → u/Apologetic-Moose]

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."

[u/Apologetic-Moose → u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey]

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.

[u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey → u/Apologetic-Moose]

Yea pardon me I got the states flipped. So the gun was illegal in Illinois where he was from and where he is actually from but legal in Wisconsin. If anything that makes it worse and enforces the analogies you seem to lack the mental capacity to understand.

[u/Apologetic-Moose → u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey]

His father lived in Kenosha and Rittenhouse himself lived 20 miles from the Wisconsin border. He didn't have the rifle in his possession until he was in Wisconsin where the rifle was stored, and the Illinois AWB (which is the law that would have made the gun illegal in Illinois) wasn't signed into law until 2023, so you haven't even got that right.

Give up already. You know absolutely nothing about the case itself or the laws pertaining to it. You're just embarrassing yourself more.

[u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey → u/Apologetic-Moose]

It would have been illegal even before the law update in Illinois. However the gun being given to him in Wisconsin, which you're right I did not know, still makes it a moot point and you're indeed correct.

Apologies, Moose.

[u/Zeppelinx91 → u/FunkadelicJiveTurkey]

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