Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
There's a lot of people in this thread who are so confident of their opinion on this but they get basic facts wrong.
He did not cross state lines with a gun. He got it in Kenosha from his friend
|
That is different from some of the information presented. We'll go with this then, which doesn't change things other than the potential federal charge for interstate transport of a weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by accord1999
Based on the instructions that judge said he will give to the jury on that charge, it was legal in Wisconsin for 16-17 year old to posses and open carry an AR-15 as long as its barrel was 16" or longer.
|
That direction by the judge is not consistent with the law on the books. For Rittenhouse to have possession of the weapon he would have required approval by his legal guardian, not his "friend" who furnished the weapon. He also would have to have been accompanied by his legal guardian while in possession of the rifle. Neither condition existed. If he wishes to use the "hunting" defense, there is a requirement for him to have completed a training course and have the appropriate certificate to prove completion (Wisconsin RS 29.593 and 29.591. Rittenhouse had neither. The judge is asking for exceptions that Rittenhouse had not met. Just like the rest of his framing of this trial, this is inconsistent with what many judges would expect in their court rooms. This guy is a loose cannon, and I think the grounds are there for appeal on both sides because of the judge's actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
From what I read, the intent of that law is for hunting purposes, not vigilante purposes. Although I will admit that the wording is ambiguous and not clear.
|
It seems to be pretty clear. It is the judge's interpretation that appears to be unclear.