Kyle Rittenhouse Lawyer: My Client Legally Possessed Rifle in Wisconsin

Kyle Rittenhouse legally possessed a firearm last Tuesday in Wisconsin, said John Pierce, an attorney representing Kyle Rittenhouse, offering his remarks in an interview on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Sunday with host Joel Pollak.

Rittenhouse was arrested last Wednesday and charged with murder in the shooting deaths of two people during the previous night’s riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Pollak asked how Rittenhouse obtained a firearm.

“Wisconsin is an open carry state,” replied Pierce. “You’ve seen the video of what was going on in that city. It was a war zone, and Kyle had every right — just as much a right — to be there as the people that were trying to burn down that city, and he was attempting to protect property and attempting to be there to provide medical aid.”

Pierce added, “Every person that has any sense at all is going to take a weapon to that location. It was a legal weapon. I can’t comment right now further on the specifics of where the weapon was obtained. It was obtained as a legal weapon. It did not cross state lines. That charge is incorrect as a matter of law in Wisconsin. Actually, that weapon can be possessed by anyone 16 years or older.”

Pollak asked, “People are wondering why he would come to a violent scene. Was he looking to be a hero? Was he looking for confrontation? What was his motivation?”

“Kyle was not there looking for a fight,” Pierce remarked. “He is a great kid who serves as a community lifeguard in Kenosha. He was there to protect businesses that were being destroyed and burned to the ground. He was also there to provide medical aid to protesters and others who might be wounded. He actually took a first aid kit there to help wounded protesters, which he did repeatedly.”

Pierce continued, “Of course, Kenosha was burning, and he took a rifle so that he could protect himself if he needed to — and to protect property and to protect others. This is one hundred percent self-defense. It’s not even close. Kyle was actually attempting to put out a dumpster fire that the rioters had set.”

Pierce went on, “The rioters got enraged by that. Kyle actually attempted to retreat. He was chased down by attackers that were repeatedly stating that he should be killed. They came at him lightning-fast and attempted to begin striking him and wrestling with this rifle with an intent to kill. He had no choice but to fire his weapon and protect himself.”

Pollak asked, “Could he have helped these people with the medical kit without bringing a gun, and is that something he thought about doing?”

Pierce said Rittenhouse would have been killed had his client been unarmed.

Pollak inquired, “If that was the danger though, why did he go? If you can’t show up to a situation without a weapon, why go?”

Pierce held, “If we take that line of thinking, then the anarchists have won. He has every right to be in the community that he works in. We cannot turn over our cities to people who simply want to burn them to the ground.”

Pollak remarked, “If everybody showed up with guns, if everybody applied the same principle and decided they were going to enforce law and order. What would the result of that be for our society?”

Pierce determined, “If every law-abiding American showed up in the city that they loved with an AR-15, the chaos would stop immediately.”

Pollak asked if Rittenhouse belonged to any militia.

Pierce responded, “I am not aware of any such facts. … This is something that a lot of people are not aware of, but this is actually the law under Title 10 Section 246 of the United States Code, actually, every able-bodied male in the United States between ages 17 and 45 is actually part of the United States militia, and that is provided for under the Constitution and Congress has enacted that statute.”

Pierce addressed a possible plea deal: “We’re going to trial we’re going to win this case. If I’m the prosecutor, I drop these charges immediately. I think that this is a rush of judgment, and if I was the prosecutor, I would be terrified to take this case to trial. I do not believe that there’s a jury in this country that’s going to look at these facts and is going to find him guilty for murder.”

“It’s absolute 100 percent self-defense, and we’re going to prove it if we have to,” concluded Pierce. “It was legal for him to possess that weapon in Wisconsin.”

Source: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-legally-possessed-a-rifle-in-wisconsin/

Sounds like he’s got a good lawyer

It is about time the rule of law is used for the good guys!

glad this story is finally being told by someone with the facts and details and not just spun by the media to get max ratings and vilify anyone not trying to burn down the city.

I cant believe he needs a lawyer. Hopefully the county gets a new prosecutor after the election. This destruction and theft has to be brought to a stop. That will require violence.

To my knowledge, lawyers can practice in any state. They may have a few formalities to deal with buy over all, I do not think it's a big deal.

I would like to know if the guy that had his arm shot has been charged with any crime? He should be getting charged with rioting and assault at the very least.

X2

This is incorrect. Some states have reciprocity with others but many require a lawyer licensed in one state to sit for a full bar exam in their state. I have a customer who is a good 2A lawyer licensed in PA. He recently had to take the Maryland bar exam to get a license to practice law in that state. It was a long, drawn out affair.

It shouldn't have been. I think his reputation preceded him and the state of Maryland made it as difficult as they could. They don't want any 2A lawyers practicing in their state.

Wasn't that guy a lawyer himself???

Go Fund Me wouldn't allow his family to use their platform to raise money for his defence, but some christian organization did. They raised over 100k real fast.

IMO they need to give this boy more ammo.

Actually, it's yes and no. Regardless, My bad, I should have looked it up first. Need more coffee this morning.

Each State Has Its Own Bar, Requirements

Attorneys generally can only practice law in the state where they took and passed the bar exam. But there are a few exceptions. For example:

Practicing federal law. Attorneys can appear in a federal court outside of the state where they took the bar. However, the attorney must first apply for admission to appear before each district court. If admitted, the attorney is not required to take the state bar exam where the district court is located.
The Uniform Bar Exam. Unlike individual state bar examinations, the uniform bar examination (UBE) is standardized. Currently, 13 states administer the UBE. Attorneys who pass the UBE in one state can apply for admission to the bar in another UBE state by transferring their score. If the attorney's UBE score is high enough for admission in the second state, the attorney can be admitted to practice law there.
Reciprocity. Some states have agreements with other states that allow attorneys to practice in both states. For example, the District of Columbia allows lawyers who have practiced law for at least five years in any state to practice law in D.C. without taking the D.C. bar.

Source: https://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2015/03/can-attorneys-practice-law-in-any-state.html#:~:text=The%20simple%20answer%20is%20no%3A%20Attorneys%20must%20be,from%20one%20state%20to%20practice%20in%20another%20state.

It would seem that there is a sincere attempt to battle against all those who promote, "Come and take my gun from my cold dead fingers" with "we will lock you up if you use that weapon."

The 2nd amendment is only upheld as those officers of the court of the judicial system in America deem it - in the courts of this nation. So the battle wages.

At least they don't go after trapping anymore. We're really small fry.

I practice law in more than several states and not one has asked me what type of law I practice or whether I am pro 2A. The process just takes a while if you want admission to another state's bar.

Closer but you're making this too hard. If I need to be admitted for a case in another state, I can apply for limited admission for that case. I fill out an application, send in paperwork and pay a fee. I might have to associate with local counsel.

If I want to be admitted to another state's bar association, I fill out a huge application and either get reciprocity or take it's bar examination, if required. I also have to pay a fee.

States protect their lawyers and bar associations by not allowing other state's lawyers to just show up. They also want money. Alaska's pro hac vice fee, for example and if I recall correctly, is $600 for that case. Each year. Total rip off.

I am sure this kid's lawyer filled out the paperwork and, most importantly, paid his fee.

Maybe your reputation is not as good as his?

Good post. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm to lazy and have to much to do to check myself but I do wonder if the rioters that were shot lived in the area or were bussed in to cause havoc.

Wasn't he a convicted felon?Pretty sure they are not supposed to be running around with pistols.