Replies

I was just noticing the same thing that she points out at the link - the misdemeanor for possession of a firearm is bogus. He can't be charged with that the way the law is written. Consider the first part of the law under which he was charged:

948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)

In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); 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 weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.

(2)

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.

(3)

(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.

(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Note that it says "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

So, the question is - what do sections 941.28, 29.304 and 29.593 say?

941.28 is about the "Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle" - Kyle was clearly not in possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle, so he's not in violation of 941.28.

29.304 is about the "Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age" - Kyle is not under 16 years of age.

29.593 is about the "Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval" - Kyle wasn't hunting, so he doesn't need a certificate for hunting approval.

Since the section of the law they charged him under says that the entire section only applies to a person under age 18 who is in violation of one of those three sections of the law, then the entire section appears not to apply to Kyle Rittenhouse.

Oh, and someone might make the argument that if Kyle's parent gave him the rifle or transferred the rifle to him, then the parent is guilty of a crime, but I don't think that could possible be true.

Kyle lives in Illinois. Illinois law on the possession of a firearm by a minor is quite different than Wisconsin law. This is the relevant part of what Illinois law says:

§ 24-3.1. Unlawful possession of firearms and firearm ammunition.

(a) A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or firearm ammunition when:

(1) He is under 18 years of age and has in his possession any firearm of a size which may be concealed upon the person;

Since Kyle was not carrying a concealable firearm, he's not guilty of anything in Illinois, and I doubt that there's any legal prohibition against his parent giving him access to a non-concealable firearm. In other words, if it's legal for Kyle to possess a rifle in Illinois, then it can't be illegal for a parent to let him possess it.

Since any transfer of the firearm in question from a parent to Kyle is extremely likely to have happened IN ILLINOIS, then Kyle's parent can't be guilty of illegally transferring possession of a firearm to Kyle under WISCONSIN law.