Kyle Rittenhouse, previous owner of a Smith & Wesson M&P15

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kenosha-poli ... 23378.html

Kenosha police officer explains why he didn't arrest Kyle Rittenhouse when he tried to surrender after the shootings

A viral video showed Kyle Rittenhouse trying to surrender to police officers, who ignored him.

One of those officers testified Friday he heard gunfire and assumed an active shooter was still on the loose.

Officer Pep Moretti said he eventually drew his gun on Rittenhouse, while his partner pepper-sprayed the teenager.

Moretti also said Rittenhouse hadn't displayed the usual signs of surrender. Moretti said typically people who are surrendering will drop to their knees and follow commands. But Rittenhouse ignored their commands and continued approaching their vehicle, Moretti said.

"We were giving him instructions to get out of the roadway and essentially get out of our way so we could get to where we believed the problem to be," Moretti said.

The officer also shut down the notion that he and his fellow officer had treated Rittenhouse gently when the teenager disobeyed commands.

Moretti testified that when Rittenhouse approached the passenger-side window of the patrol vehicle, Moretti drew his gun on Rittenhouse and Moretti's partner in the passenger seat pepper-sprayed Rittenhouse.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/ju ... uxbndlbing

Jury hears from family of men Kyle Rittenhouse killed

Huber’s great-aunt Susan Hughes recalled a close relationship with her nephew, going back in testimony Friday to his childhood when he loved art, music, computers and Star Wars. As an adult, he called her regularly and often stopped by her Kenosha home.

Hughes lent him money when he got into a pinch and helped him practice for his driver’s license, which he obtained just a few days before his death.

“Even when he was a child we had a special connection,” she testified, telling jurors his 26th birthday was two days before he died.

One of Rittenhouse’s fellow self-appointed armed security told the jury Rosenbaum was “hyper-aggressive,” while another said he was a “babbling idiot” with whom nobody at the protest wanted to be associated.

Swart, however, described him as someone who made her laugh, even in tough times. The two were both homeless at the start of their relationship and lived in a tent in southeast Wisconsin, she said.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenh ... 18640.html

Kyle Rittenhouse trial live updates: Car lot owners deny making arrangements for protection with Rittenhouse

Brothers Anmol and Sahil Khindri had both met Rittenhouse and other armed men on Aug. 25, 2020 – the day Rittenhouse shot and killed two people. But both told the jury Friday afternoon they never asked or gave permission for anyone to watch over their properties that night.

Their parents, who are both involved in managing the business, have not been called to the witness stand as of Friday afternoon.

During questioning, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger showed a screenshot of a text message sent to Anmol Khindri, who goes by Sam. The message said:

“Hey Sam it’s Kyle do you need anyone to protect your business tonight im more then willing and will be armed i just need address.”

A second message read: “Me and my brother would both be thwre armed.”

The screenshot did not show a reply from Anmol Khindri. He told Binger he didn’t see the message until Aug. 26. He said he gave his number to countless people on Aug. 25 because the business received a flood of attention after one of its properties was destroyed.

Anmol Khindri said he and staff took steps to secure cars and other equipment on their properties Aug. 25, but never arranged for armed men to watch over it.

Sahil Khindri, who said he does not work at either of the three businesses, was photographed posing with Rittenhouse, Black and other armed men on Aug. 25. But Sahil Khindri said he only did so because he was impressed with their military-style equipment.

[Tiredretiredlawyer]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenh ... 18640.html

DNA analyst details testing of Rittenhouse’s gun

She explained how the crime lab received Rittenhouse’s gun along with DNA samples for Rittenhouse, Rosenbaum and Huber.

Only one source of DNA was found on the trigger of the gun and it strongly matched to Rittenhouse, Rasmussen said.

The barrel guard of the gun had a mixture of DNA, meaning there was DNA present from at least two people, she said.

“There was strong support of exclusion” of Rosenbaum and Huber, meaning their DNA was not detected, and strong support for inclusion of Rittenhouse, she said.

“The fact that DNA is not present in any of the areas of the firearm for Mr. Huber doesn’t mean that he didn’t actually touch it,” Chirafisi said.

“Correct,” Rasmussen said. “Whether DNA was detected from an individual or not does not mean that they did not touch that item.”

[Maybenaut]

Thanks for the news articles, TRL. I haven’t been able to watch the trial, so I’ve only heard bits and pieces.

I don’t really care that much about the verdict. I’m mostly interested in the procedural aspect, and that Rittenhouse gets a fair trial. If he gets a fair trial and he’s acquitted, so be it. If he’s convicted, he’ll get an appeal and the appellate courts will decide if he got a fair trial or not. The system will work whether one agrees with the ultimate result or not.

[andersweinstein]

I think the “he wasn’t hunting” argument is likely to fail. The prohibition on possession applies to people “in violation of” the short-barrel prohibition, and those “not in compliance with” the under-16 hunting rule and the hunter safety education rule. I don’t think it matters that he wasn’t hunting. In order to possess, he was required to be in compliance with the rule (unless he was target practicing under the supervision of an adult, or in the armed forces, of course).

Well, it depends on what the meaning of "is" "in compliance with" is. When talking of compliance, there are three possible states: what we might call "active" compliance, violation, and a third possibility, the rule simply does not apply to you ("compliance by default", we might call it). So, does "in compliance with" in the statute require active compliance, or does it include compliance by default? Well, what would we say, are you "in compliance with" the permit requirements for operating a restaurant if you are not operating a restaurant? It's a weird question. Arguably it is better to say you are "in compliance with" a rule that doesn't apply -- compliance by default -- than to say you are not in compliance with some regulation, which misleadingly implies some violation or omission on your part.

In fact there is an argument that "in compliance with" in this statute MUST be taken to include "compliance by default": it requires a 17 year old to be in compliance with the under-16 regulations. It's impossible for a 17-year old to be in active compliance with these. But they wanted some teens to fall under the exception, or it makes no sense. So "in compliance with" can't require ative compliance for the purpose of this statute, it must subsume compliance by default. And that means "in compliance with" here can be taken to be equivalent to "not in violation of ".

Next question: what exactly does it mean to be in compliance with the requirement of a hunter safety certificate for getting a hunting permit? People gloss over this like it's something clear. But on reflection it's also a very weird thing to say. There's no such thing as citing people for violating this rule. They could cite people for hunting without a valid permit, but that's an entirely different regulation. If you think about it, it primarily binds a government official who hands out hunting permits -- they have to see the hunter's ed certificate before they give it to you.

So it gets taken as a requirement for the hunter's ed certificate or, perhaps a hunting license. But, again quite arguably, it is a *conditional* regulation: IF you want a hunting permit, then you need this certificate. So, the argument would go, someone who is not going hunting is like the person above not operating a restaurant with respect to this regulation: has no need of a permit, so should count as in compliance with because in compliance by default.

That's the argument as I would make it, anyway.

After all that, the further argument is just that the law is ambiguous on this. Supposedly the "rule of lenity" compels them to interpret ambiguous laws in the way most favorable to the defendant. And no one can plausibly say this weird rule unambiguously bars possession of rifles by 16 and 17 year olds who are not hunting.

[Maybenaut]

Well, it depends on what the meaning of "is" "in compliance with" is. When talking of compliance, there are three possible states: what we might call "active" compliance, violation, and a third possibility, the rule simply does not apply to you ("compliance by default", we might call it). So, does "in compliance with" in the statute require active compliance, or does it include compliance by default? Well, what would we say, are you "in compliance with" the permit requirements for operating a restaurant if you are not operating a restaurant? It's a weird question. Arguably it is better to say you are "in compliance with" a rule that doesn't apply -- compliance by default -- than to say you are not in compliance with some regulation, which misleadingly implies some violation or omission on your part.

In fact there is an argument that "in compliance with" in this statute MUST be taken to include "compliance by default": it requires a 17 year old to be in compliance with the under-16 regulations. It's impossible for a 17-year old to be in active compliance with these. But they wanted some teens to fall under the exception, or it makes no sense. So "in compliance with" can't require ative compliance for the purpose of this statute, it must subsume compliance by default. And that means "in compliance with" here can be taken to be equivalent to "not in violation of ".

Next question: what exactly does it mean to be in compliance with the requirement of a hunter safety certificate for getting a hunting permit? People gloss over this like it's something clear. But on reflection it's also a very weird thing to say. There's no such thing as citing people for violating this rule. They could cite people for hunting without a valid permit, but that's an entirely different regulation. If you think about it, it primarily binds a government official who hands out hunting permits -- they have to see the hunter's ed certificate before they give it to you.

So it gets taken as a requirement for the hunter's ed certificate or, perhaps a hunting license. But, again quite arguably, it is a *conditional* regulation: IF you want a hunting permit, then you need this certificate. So, the argument would go, someone who is not going hunting is like the person above not operating a restaurant with respect to this regulation: has no need of a permit, so should count as in compliance with because in compliance by default.

That's the argument as I would make it, anyway.

After all that, the further argument is just that the law is ambiguous on this. Supposedly the "rule of lenity" compels them to interpret ambiguous laws in the way most favorable to the defendant. And no one can plausibly say this weird rule unambiguously bars possession of rifles by 16 and 17 year olds who are not hunting.

I know you’re not a lawyer, but can you cite to a single authority for any of this? I think the plain reading of the statute, which is where all statutory construction begins, is pretty clear.

[andersweinstein]

Because direct examination of Rosenbaums fiancee mentioned some stuff about his meds, defense wound up able to get in just a little about his mental health condition, for whatever that is worth. There was a short examination without the jury to see how much she knew about his meds, and defense wound up able to get in that he had a diagnosis of bipolar disorder, was on gabapentin for that, and also an antidepressant, and had been unable to fill the prescriptions. Cross also got out that he had no other place to stay and would have had an hour's walk to get to the protest location.

The whole point of calling her was evidence about the plastic bag, I think, in attempts to show it contained only harmless items.

[LM K]

Obviously he should have applied for a hunting license first, that would have cleared everything up and saved us all the expense of a trial.

A needless expense. Besides, I believe an AR now costs somewhere in the $600-$700 range. That probably cost the boy a month of his allowance from daddy.

And he had to give the money to a friend to purchase the gun for him. That little nugget of information will work against Rittenhouse, imo.

[sugar magnolia]

There's a reason people go to law school and are bound by their license and ethics and all that other stuff. It's so you can't just pull up something on Google and parse out the words and decide what the law is or how it should be applied.

[andersweinstein]

I know you’re not a lawyer, but can you cite to a single authority for any of this? I think the plain reading of the statute, which is where all statutory construction begins, is pretty clear.

Not sure what sort of authority you are looking for or where it would be needed. I was just attempting an argument that the best interpretation of the statutory text is such and such. You could say it is an argument based on logic and semantics of our ordinary understandings of words. It is certainly an attempt to make the case for the defense interpretation in terms of the plain readings of the words. Yes, I introduced some invented labels in an attempt to make it clearer, but did not mean to imply they were any kind of standard or established terminology. If there is some legal standard about how to understand "in compliance with" I would like to know about it. I know the issue came up in one of Binger's briefs and he didn't cite anything.

Either the argument presented is good or it isn't. If the argument is any good, then it is wrong to say the "plain reading" of the statute is clear. If it isn't good, well, then it isn't good. I am not seeing where in it I need to reference any authority. I'm playing ordinary language philosopher here, not lawyer.

Also, if there are some principles of statutory interpretation that are relevant, then I also would like to know about them. I don't think the folks arguing the motion have appealed to any special principles so far, just plain reading, as you say, plus appeal to the "rule of lenity".

[Maybenaut]

I know you’re not a lawyer, but can you cite to a single authority for any of this? I think the plain reading of the statute, which is where all statutory construction begins, is pretty clear.

Not sure what sort of authority you are looking for or where it would be needed. I was just attempting an argument that the best interpretation of the statutory text is such and such. You could say it is an argument based on logic and semantics of our ordinary understandings of words. It is certainly an attempt to make the case for the defense interpretation in terms of the plain readings of the words. Yes, I introduced some invented labels in an attempt to make it clearer, but did not mean to imply they were any kind of standard or established terminology. If there is some legal standard about how to understand "in compliance with" I would like to know about it. I know the issue came up in one of Binger's briefs and he didn't cite anything.

Either the argument presented is good or it isn't. If the argument is any good, then it is wrong to say the "plain reading" of the statute is clear. If it isn't good, well, then it isn't good. I am not seeing where in it I need to reference any authority.

Well, if I was a judge having to decide this issue, I would want to see some authority on terms like compliance by default, and active compliance. Otherwise, I would give “in compliance with” it’s plain meaning, which is you’ve either done what the rule requires you haven’t.

I just think it’s unlikely in the extreme that the judge is going to make something convoluted, as you have, out of something that’s fairly simple.

[LM K]

I’ve been thinking about this illegal gun thing. I know a lot of people around here think that the gun is illegal merely because Rittenhouse was under 18, and that’s not necessarily so. Maybe I haven’t been following this closely enough, but here’s my understanding (someone correct me if I’m wrong, because I may well be - it’s been known to happen):

The defense moved to dismiss the gun charge because kids between 16 and 18 can legally possess a dangerous weapon in Wisconsin so long as they comply with hunter education requirements, which Rittenhouse had. The judge said words to the effect of, “yeah, sounds about right,” but didn’t rule on the motion. Why not? I’m speculating, but perhaps it is because whether Rittenhouse was in compliance was a question of fact for the jury.

Because the exception to the general rule is in the statute, and the government bears the burden to prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt, I personally think the burden is on the prosecutor to show that Rittenhouse hadn’t complied (as opposed to being on Rittenhouse to show that he had). In other words, Rittenhouse not being in compliance is an element the government has to prove.

I’m very interested to see how this plays out, from a criminal procedure perspective. I expect at the close of the government’s case the defense will renew its motion if the government doesn’t put on evidence that Rittenhouse was not in compliance. If the government doesn’t produce the evidence, denying the motion would effectively shift the burden to the defense.

Edit: ETA: If the defense is able to produce the evidence and Rittenhouse is acquitted of the gun charge, no harm no foul. And if he produces the evidence and he’s convicted of the gun charge, then the argument is that the judge’s ruling shifted the burden. And if he doesn’t produce the evidence, and neither does the government, then the evidence isn’t legally sufficient to support the gun charge.

Isn't the type of gun allowed for 16-18 year olds a question about this charge?

Rittenhouse had a friend purchase the gun on his behalf because gun shops deemed Rittenhouse too young to own such a riffle.

No one hunts animals with assault weapons. Assault weapons are specifically for use against humans.

[Maybenaut]

Isn't the type of gun allowed for 16-18 year olds a question about this charge?

Rittenhouse had a friend purchase the gun on his behalf because gun shops deemed Rittenhouse too young to own such a riffle.

No one hunts animals with assault weapons. Assault weapons are specifically for use against humans.

I really don’t think the type of gun matters. The only question is whether it is a “dangerous weapon,” and whether he falls into one of the exceptions. I don’t think anybody disputes that an assault rifle is a dangerous weapon. The question is whether he falls into one of the exceptions. The defense is apparently arguing that none of the exceptions apply to him, because he wasn’t actively hunting. I personally agree with the prosecution on this one. The purpose of the hunter safety exception is that the person knows how to safely handle a weapon. So I don’t think he has to be actively hunting in order for the exception to apply to him. To me, that’s just ridiculous.

[John Thomas8]

No one hunts animals with assault weapons. Assault weapons are specifically for use against humans.

Or target shooting, shooting competitions, TGM/TGM matches, etc, etc, etc. They are way over-powered when using mil-surp ammo for useful game hunting.

[John Thomas8]

The only question is whether it is a “dangerous weapon,”

Professional hitmen prefer .22 handguns. They're quite dangerous and long guns are way too unwieldly for covert use.

[andersweinstein]

Well, if I was a judge having to decide this issue, I would want to see some authority on terms like compliance by default, and active compliance. Otherwise, I would give “in compliance with” it’s plain meaning, which is you’ve either done what the rule requires you haven’t.

So how can a 17 year old be "in compliance with" the rules governing people under 16? To get the exception you have to be in compliance wth both referenced rules? A 17 year old can't do what those rules require.

I'm afraid you're being put off by this little apparatus I introduced. OK, so it didn't help. But it's inessential. My education is in analytic philosophy. I find it helpful to give labels to things when trying to expound some involved bit of reasoning. But they're just invented labels for defined concepts. If it's not helping, it's always possible to make the same argument without those labels.

I just think it’s unlikely in the extreme that the judge is going to make something convoluted, as you have, out of something that’s fairly simple.

More likely, if the issue is that convoluted, the judge will just conclude the statute is an unclear mess. But the defence is definitely making the case that the exception applies to 17 year olds when not hunting. So they are interpreting "in compliance with" in the way I presented an argument for.

[andersweinstein]

I really don’t think the type of gun matters. The only question is whether it is a “dangerous weapon,” and whether he falls into one of the exceptions. I don’t think anybody disputes that an assault rifle is a dangerous weapon. The question is whether he falls into one of the exceptions. The defense is apparently arguing that none of the exceptions apply to him, because he wasn’t actively hunting. I personally agree with the prosecution on this one. The purpose of the hunter safety exception is that the person knows how to safely handle a weapon. So I don’t think he has to be actively hunting in order for the exception to apply to him. To me, that’s just ridiculous.

The defense is arguing the rifle exception applies to him. Because on their reading the rifle exception exempts rifles from the ban unless the teen is violating a hunting regulation -- and he was not hunting, so not violating.

I've mentioned before that they may not have been envisioning "assault rifles" when they wrote these regulations.

BTW according to Washington Post, in 2014 30 states had no minimum age of rifle possession, and 3 set it at 16 or younger.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... r-shotgun/

[Maybenaut]

Well, if I was a judge having to decide this issue, I would want to see some authority on terms like compliance by default, and active compliance. Otherwise, I would give “in compliance with” it’s plain meaning, which is you’ve either done what the rule requires you haven’t.

So how can a 17 year old be "in compliance with" the rules governing people under 16? To get the exception you have to be in compliance wth both referenced rules? A 17 year old can't do what those rules require.

Nope. The statute says “or is not in compliance with [the under 16 restriction] and [the hunter safety requirement].” If it required a person to be in compliance with both the under-16 restrictions and the hunter safety requirement, it would render the statute meaningless for people between the ages of 16 and 18. One of the rules of statutory construction is that you can’t interpret it in a manner that eliminates any part of the statute if it can be interpreted in a way that does not. There is a boatload of caselaw saying the courts can interpret “or” to mean “and,” and vice-versa, when to do otherwise would render any other part of the statute superfluous.

I'm afraid you're being put off by this little apparatus I introduced. OK, so it didn't help. But it's inessential. My education is in analytic philosophy. I find it helpful to give labels to things when trying to expound some involved bit of reasoning. But they're just invented labels for defined concepts. If it's not helping, it's always possible to make the same argument without those labels.

I just think it’s unlikely in the extreme that the judge is going to make something convoluted, as you have, out of something that’s fairly simple.

More likely, if the issue is that convoluted, the judge will just conclude the statute is an unclear mess. But the defence is definitely making the case that the exception applies to 17 year olds when not hunting. So they are interpreting "in compliance with" in the way I presented an argument for.

But it’s only convoluted because you introduced all the stuff that makes it convoluted. To me, it’s pretty clear. Don’t get me wrong, I make these kinds of arguments all of the time in my work. But they hardly ever succeed. But you have to do what you have to do. Rittenhouse’s defense attorneys are doing what they have to do. But it’s not going to work.

[andersweinstein]

[
So how can a 17 year old be "in compliance with" the rules governing people under 16? To get the exception you have to be in compliance wth both referenced rules? A 17 year old can't do what those rules require.

Nope. The statute says “or is not in compliance with [the under 16 restriction] and [the hunter safety requirement].” If it required a person to be in compliance with both the under-16 restrictions and the hunter safety requirement, it would render the statute meaningless for people between the ages of 16 and 18. One of the rules of statutory construction is that you can’t interpret it in a manner that eliminates any part of the statute if it can be interpreted in a way that does not. There is a boatload of caselaw saying the courts can interpret “or” to mean “and,” and vice-versa, when to do otherwise would render any other part of the statute superfluous.

Ah, I have thought of this, and I think there's a good rebuttal from the legislative history. The first version of this exception, in 1991, read:

948.60 (3) (c) This section does not apply to a child who possesses or is armed with a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer and who is in compliance with ss. 29.226 and 29.227. T

Those are the same references as today, the under-16 regs and the hunter safety requirement, they just had different numbers. So, in the 1991 they similarly demanded compliance with BOTH regs. As if to say "in compliance with any applicable hunting regs". Which is a reasonable thing to mean.

So what happened? Final revision to date came in 2005. Apparently the definition of short-barrelled gun here (barrel <12") was inconsistent with the somewhat more involved definition in another statute banning short-barrelled rifles and shotguns. So they rewrote this exception at that time to reference that other statute. This is labelled a minor change.

When they did that, it looks like they wanted to use the language of "violation" of that short-barreled ban. So, I think, they just changed the sense of the exception clause with intent to keep it exactly equivalent otherwise. Broadly speaking, they rewrote "shall not apply to p" to "shall only apply to not p" -- which is logically equivalent. That makes the logic more convoluted. But I think the meaning was the same: it "shall ONLY apply to a teen with a long-barrelled rifle if it is not the case that: (they are in compliance with both A and B)".

That is the way you get the new text from the previous version. And again, the meaning is roughly "not in compliance with all applicable hunting regs". But on this view they really did mean an AND all along, from the original version.

Also, it is not clear why changing the "AND" to "OR" is a BETTER interpretation than the one above, which fixes things by a different fix, adjusting the interpretation of "in compliance with", but makes the law come out in accord with a consistent rationale (rifles not dangerous weapons for 16-17 year olds to possess, but if you hunt with them, better get safety ed. )

[pipistrelle]

There's a reason people go to law school and are bound by their license and ethics and all that other stuff. It's so you can't just pull up something on Google and parse out the words and decide what the law is or how it should be applied.

In RWNJ world, expertise and experience are for elites. Why bother when you can “research” on Google?

[MN-Skeptic]

There's a reason people go to law school and are bound by their license and ethics and all that other stuff. It's so you can't just pull up something on Google and parse out the words and decide what the law is or how it should be applied.

Off Topic

x 100

Back when the question arose about Obama's eligibility for office, I turned to the internet to research that question. I quickly realized that the true experts on the subject were the rational, experienced lawyers explaining why Obama was eligible and that the naysayers were a minority of lawyers along with rwnj's whose only knowledge came from reading interet postings without the background necessary to discern the truth.

Law isn't the only area of professionalism where knowledge and experience are key. Any scientific area of study is just as prone to internet misinformation as law is. We see that in the history of the universe (vs young earth believers), climate change, and the pandemic. After my Obama investigation, I realized that I don't need to understand the underlying law or science in order to know what the truth is. I just need to figure out who the experts are and listen to them. They usually aren't the ones who fit their theories to the answer they want. They are the respected, experienced practitioners in their field. They follow the law, or the science, to suss out the truth, whether they like the result or not. With science, as knowledge increases, scientists may change what they say, but, again, they are following the science, not some preconceived idea. So when Dr. Fauci or Dr. Michael Osterholm speaks, I listen.

[andersweinstein]

Ah, I have thought of this, and I think there's a good rebuttal from the legislative history. The first version of this exception, in 1991, read:

948.60 (3) (c) This section does not apply to a child who possesses or is armed with a firearm having a barrel 12 inches in length or longer and who is in compliance with ss. 29.226 and 29.227. T

There are other considerations from the history that buttress the defense's interpretation (which otherwise seems strained, I grant). The dangerous weapon ban descends from a ban on underage possession of *pistols*. Historically they didn't ban teens from long guns.

In 1987 they expanded it to add various exotic weapons - nunchucks, tasers, martial arts stars, and also some exceptions (target practice), But they still didn't care about long guns. The topline definition of dangerous weapon read "In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weaponconsisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal ..."

So they still exempted rifles. But they had those hunter safety requirements and under 16 requirements on the books as well (since 1984)

The suggestion is that the 1991 version just kept the status quo, relocated the rifle exemption from the top-line into a separate exception, in a way that integrates the two statutes. It did not intend to ban 16 and 17 year olds from rifle possession for the first time in WI history. And it was not a "hunting exception" it was a rifle exception. It was put in to avoid hitting teens possessing rifles unless they hunted unsafely.

If you think the 1991 version did intend to ban 16 and 17 year olds from rifle possession for the very first time, there are some problems. The main one is that the under-16 regs include a careful exception to allow 12-15 year olds to carry their gun to a hunter's ed course. But there is no such exception now to allow 16 and 17 year olds to do that. Also, 12-15 year olds can possess rifles if accompanied by a parent or designated adult (though this seems not widely appreciated, I have to say). But 16 and 17 year olds now are cut off from that.

So you wind up with a regime in which 12-15 year olds can do more with guns than 16 and 17 year olds, which is absurd given the general pattern of graduated restrictions.

Always possible that was just an oversight of course. But also possible they never intended to change the status quo, in which rifle possession was unrestricted over 16 unless violating hunting laws. Then there is no problem and this is a reasonable way to write the law.

[I don't think even the defense lawyers are getting into the weeds this far. But they do have a motion to reconsider pending that includes something from legislative history, so who knows]

[Maybenaut]

You’re free to interpret this however you want. I’ll wait and see what the judge says. If Rittenhouse’s defense counsel convince the judge that the law doesn’t apply to him, or whatever, good for them. They’re just doing their jobs. I’d probably make the same argument if I were them. But I wouldn’t expect it to get any real play. But that’s me.

[andersweinstein]

You’re free to interpret this however you want. I’ll wait and see what the judge says. If Rittenhouse’s defense counsel convince the judge that the law doesn’t apply to him, or whatever, good for them. They’re just doing their jobs. I’d probably make the same argument if I were them. But I wouldn’t expect it to get any real play. But that’s me.

Oh, I fully understand that no one is going to give it that much attention. I would think it much more likely to win on the ground that it's a mess or ambiguous.

Still their case depends crucially on claiming you can't say he was "not in compliance with" the requirement of certificate of accomplishment for hunting approval, because he was not hunting, so it doesn't apply to him. Legislative history could help them a bit with that.