It is difficult to believe you read the article which has links to the historical and current acts.
As difficult as it may be to believe, trust me, I did. I always read Dean Weingarten's articles because he is a very good source of information, and I usually agree with his opinions.
However, I disagree with his presumptions here, and his citations of definitions of what constitutes a dangerous weapon that are found in different areas of Wisconsin law that were intended to be definitions only for that particular section.
In the statute being argued by the Rittenhouse defense, the definition of a dangerous weapon for the purposes of the statute being argued, is given in 948.60 as "1) In this section, “dangerous weapon” means any firearm, loaded or unloaded;"
Dean argues that rifles and shotguns were never considered "dangerous weapons" under Wisconsin statute, yet here is a statute that states that any firearm, loaded or unloaded, is considered a dangerous weapon, blowing his entire article out of the water.
I am not going to reproduce all of my opinions, hyperlinks, and quotes here on this thread, but you can go to this prior thread and read all of my citations and arguments.