Nice try, but that's amateur level trolling. Before making yourself look like an idiot it is a good idea to see what the Wisconsin government says instead of some random person posting on Wikipedia.
Here is one example:
Persons under age 18 may not possess firearms for non-hunting purposes unless accompanied by an adult, except that persons ages 14–17 who have completed Hunter Education can possess legal shotguns and rifles without being accompanied by an adult.
Rittenhouse was accompanied throughout most of the evening by others, including people who were clearly adults. In addition, for all you know he has taken the Wisconsin hunter safety course.
If you go directly to the Wisconsin laws you will find that Rittenhouse has an even stronger defense to any claims of illegal firearms possession.
Wisconsin 948.60 makes it a misdemeanor for any person under 18 years of age to possess any firearm, with the caveat that "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."
Wisconsin 941.28 prohibits civilian possession of short barreled rifles and shotguns. That's clearly not relevant to Rittenhouse.
Wisconsin 29.304 restricts the use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. That's right, 16 years, not 17.
Wisconsin 29.593 requires a certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. That law has nothing to do with Rittenhouse's right to carry a firearm.
Under the actual Wisconsin law, as it has been amended over time, as a 17 year old Rittenhouse is not obligated to be accompanied by an adult, or take the hunter safety course. Apparently the DA was in such a hurry to draft up the complaint that he forgot to read the entire section of the law he is relying on.
Now that Kyle Rittenhouse has solid legal representation the DA will learn that sloppy, politically biased prosecution of citizens doesn't work.
Hopefully our fellow FReepers will stop repeating the incorrect talking points of the left.
Kaslin has made an a$$ out of himself this morning. Thanks for refuting the garbage he and a couple others have been spreading here. We can thank them for showing their true colors but not for advancing the false leftist media talking points.
This is my understanding of the law that I got from various sources, but I’m not a lawyer. One of the sources I read was a lawyer and they agreed with your interpretation.
Are you by any chance a lawyer?