Well we all also know thats a lie.

CRAPDigital is a known POS pathological liar along with the low IQ Coleslaw?

Coleslaw takes it up the ass daily from CRAPDigital....right here?

-------------------------
The REAL truth is....both of the forum idiots are OWNED.
-BOTH of them have no clue who their owner is.
-They are both card carrying narcissists.
^These are PROVED facts.

Edited: 10/27/2021 at 06:53 AM by Fish Killer

He had to edit that one as well. LOL

It is unkind to call the retarded dumb, Hap, you need to apologize to fish tard.

-------------------------
I was right.

Get out of your bubble and research the statue you are claiming he is in violation of. What you listed is only partially true (shocker).

Wisconsin statutes 940.60 only forbid people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short-barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.


Then there's Wisconsin's Constitution which states

Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose

Guess we'll have to let the courts decide on this one.

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

"Its easier to fool people than to convince them they have been fooled" - Mark Twain

Edited: 10/27/2021 at 07:12 AM by OBX

I saw that, but he wasn't hunting animals, so that point is moot.

This judge is already biased in his favor and he will most likely walk after you guys pay his legal fees and fines.

-------------------------
I was right.

So he was hunting? He didn't have a rifle?

I don't think the judge is as biased as you may think. A lot of the stuff in the article was exaggerated.

A bit difficult to call an AR a concealed firearm (that was given to him to use by a resident of the state) to help defend their store from BLM and antifag rioters!

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

that was given to him to use by a resident of the state

You mean bought for him illegally.

-------------------------
I was right.

They really like defending criminals. Just like that crappy old couple on brandishing weapons on their lawn that plead guilty and had to turn over their weapons to the law. They were criminals yet they still back them. They are not the "law and order" party. They are "the do wtf we want if it fits our agenda" party.

They go: "you guys support this criminal dem, yada yada". Dems respond: "Nope, if they are guilty, lock them up." They really do support crime.