What Does A Wisconsin Legal Will Look Like: Fill & Download for Free

People have the mistaken belief that Donald Trump is an idiot. While he may be intellectually challenged in some things, one thing he knows how to do is manipulate a system. He’s made a career of it.Trump knew this election would be close. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing with the mail ballot issue. Tell your supporters to vote in person and let the democrats vote by mail, except in Florida, Texas, and Arizona, where it benefited him. He knew exactly what the results would look like, counts on election day would be in his favor and “suddenly millions of ballots will magically appear”. Of course they will because they are mail ballots.His miscalculation was Georgia and Arizona. He never thought he’d be out those 27 votes. Those were ‘great states’ run by Republicans. His worst case was 273 or 279, but it was close enough he could still win. Failing winning, that left an easy target of assaulting ballots of only one state. Maybe Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. 306 wasn’t on his radar at all. Now, he’s spreading his resources very thin and the chance of overturning 36 votes is nil.Of course, Trump being Trump, he then attacks the politically allied Georgia SOS. He apparently hasn’t learned anything from attacking John Roberts. So Brad Raffensperger calls for a hand recount before anyone asks for one. That does two things. First, it beat Trump to making the call and doing all kinds of legal actions. Second, by starting when he did, the certification will be completed on time. Most everyone believes that, short of some real major error (that would have been apparent by now), that recounts don’t usually change results by much. But even if it did, he’d still have to come up with another 20 votes. Arizona isn’t enough. Wisconsin isn’t enough. Michigan isn’t enough. Only Pennsylvania would be enough and as of now, that is close to a 1% deficit for Trump, around 67k votes. That isn’t going to happen.But he lost this on his own. He played up the ‘rigged’ election, knowing that there was a potential for it to play out that ‘allegedly fake’ or ‘fraudulent’ mail ballots would make a difference. This was an intentional setup. He knew he could incite his base into believing that and that they would vote in person except in the states he said it was okay to vote by mail. One might think that would be a head-tilter to say that but somehow he got people to believe it.The whole thing was a calculated, well designed con but he blew it underestimating the general dislike he had created.

It’s hard to predict. To narrow things let’s run with some pre-determined factorsTakes place within the next 10 yearsTakes place in the current system of governmentNo radical changes (nuclear war, worse pandemic, meteor)I think there are a few ways this goes.The civil conflict optionsThis one is the most likely. I think we could see this boil up within the next few months as the next election draws near.Imagine this scenarioNovember comes. On election night Trump wins big in every swing state. Trump declares victory and begins his victory tourBiden surrogates and media refuse to concede the election. Biden himself also refuses to concede publically or privately.Activists use the pretext of Trump’s victory to incite riots. In every city, protests break out. Around 7–10% of demonstrations are violent. Buildings burn, police are overwhelmed, and cities sound like warzones as violence spreads.As mail-in ballots come in over the next week things change. Suddenly swing states get close and a few go to BidenAccording to the popular vote and electoral college, Biden has won but just barely.Trump says that the mail-in ballots are fraud and refuses to accept the election results or concede.Neither side can come to terms and as December approaches it is unclear who is President.The Democratic protests get bigger and we begin to see some protests by the alt-right as well in counter to the Democrat protests.The Supreme court is called on to decide the election. The elect Donald Trump with Trump's 2020 appointee serving as the tie-breaker.Violence erupts nationwide. The police are completely helpless to stop the violence and violent clashes break out between people in the streets in nearly every city. Hundreds die the first night, thousands are seriously hurtThe media blows up right-wing or left-wing violence. This only makes things worse.The next day anti-fa turns out big with intent to harm the militia. Both groups are arming and the conflict has now become dangerous. Amateur protestors either get weapons or head home due to the danger.Now the violence is worse. Trump is forced to send in the National Guard. The media (those on the left most of all) play up right-wing violence. They show national guardsmen attacking left-wing protestors while leaving out footage of them also dispersing right-wing protests. The media claims Trump is using the national guard to only attacked leftists.This causes division in the military which leads to more conflictNow you start getting armed left-wing terrorist organizations as well as increasingly more powerful alt-right organizations. Tens of millions refuse to accept Trump’s win and heavily blue states continuously defy the federal government.From here it is anyone’s guess. States could unite and rebel or the US may deal with an insurgency for years. Either way, we would see violence for months. Maybe winter would delay and halt things but it's unlikely. Let’s assume that eventually, the physical nation-wide violence stops. There will be acts of terror but no large scale battles.In this scenario, Trump wins. He is the legally elected President though many disagree.During his second term, he will get no love or acceptance from the left. There will be physical resistance, states will refuse to follow certain laws, there will be constant assassination attempts, and everything will continue to break down- even after the violence.Then in 2024 Democrats will likely win. It will also be a close contest and this time Republicans will refuse to accept the election. They will find their own justification to resist violently and this will be how things go.People will have the option to not accept election results based on whatever justification they are provided by the party. The peaceful transfer of power became a relic of past politics- like empty and understanding.Each election will be followed be intense violence. Eventually, outright civil war as the army splits.Now I don’t think this is possible- I would say it is probable. I really hope this does not happen but this answer may serve as prophetic. If I am right this election wills serve as the start of a generalized civil conflict between the political parties- one that eventually boils over into outright civil war.Us citizens have more guns than the North Korean military and even trying to take them away starts a civil war. We are on a powderkeg- we have the means to fight a civil war and every day it seems like we have the desire as well.It’s hard to say what a civil war would look like. It would depend on a lot. The military leans right but would likely split almost in half or just stay completely loyal to one side. One thing history teaches us is that militaries are not big fans of fighting their own people.It could never devolve into state-on-state violence and the 2nd American civil war may just be decades of instability and civil conflict between citizens (like the troubles in Ireland) followed by an autocratic dictator who restores order.People really like this state-on-state thing so I will try my hand there- originally I deleted it because it was so hypothetical.Middle America and the South are deep red. In a conflict between states these states will side with the GOP.The Northeast and West Coast will go blue.Now states like Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illonois, and Michigan and New Mexico are tough. These are traditionally blue states but many are nearly evenly split. They are also surrounded by red states.This means they are exposed and easy pickings for the GOP side.The GOP has certain advantages as does the DemGOPThe military leans heavily right, by an insane margin in factRed states produce the most food. Cali is a major food producer but it is cut off from the populous Northeast. Red would not need for food during the warRed states produce a ton of oil- meaning there will be no need to importDemsBig tech and most large corperations will be in blue states- meaning their supply networks can be of use to the blue statesBlue owns the West Coast meaning they can get supplies rather easilyMajor naval bases are in blue statesIn terms of how a war would break out it’s hard to say.I’d guess most the military will side with the GOP with a significant portion siding with the Democrats. From there militia’s will form the backbone of both war efforts.The GOP has the advantage there though. As the pro-gun party, most firearms are in the hands of the red states. It would be easy for them to form a militia though Democrats certainly can get guns and form militias as well.I would given the advantage to the GOP here but only slightly. I don’t think either side really wins.The GOP can cut off and take the Northeast easily. There will likely be many hungry people up there and little in the way of military protection.With the Northeast taken the fight for the West Coast will begin. It will be long and bloody. The West Coast can import required goods and has a huge population base to work with. It would be a serious struggle to take the West Coast for the GOP.The West Coast negocaites independence and peace is secured.

Is it legal for a 17-year-old to openly carry a loaded assault rifle in Illinois or Wisconsin?Yes, Wisconsin permits persons 16 and up to possess longarms. Wisconsin does not exclude so called “assault weapons” from that class.On the assumption that you are specifically inquiring about Kyle Rittenhouse, Rittenhouse was not the owner of the firearm in question. It was legally owned by a Wisconsin resident, and was not possessed by Rittenhouse in the State of Illinois.As to the shootings, I don’t know enough to comment, though it is apparent that at least one of the shootings is clearly self defense under the statutes, and probably 2 of them. If as reported, there was a shooting at the car dealership, without more details and evidence there is not clear call on that one. That will be up to the jury.Edit: I have since seen video of the shooting I missed before. From what I saw, it sure looks like legit self-defense. So, all 3 shootings appear from my perspective to be legitimate acts of self-defense. A New York Times analysis of all extant video, concurs with my position, as well as subverting the narrative , and that Kyle Rittenhouse was not a terrorist of any stripe. According to a defense statement, Rittenhouse worked in Kenosha, and was asked by the car lot owner, to help defend his property, along with his friend. This video includes new information on the Kenosha shootings…