I wrote earlier today about the problems with the gun charge in the Rittenhouse case and that it could be dismissed because Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t meet all the elements of the charged statute.
Under Section 948.60(2)(a) (“Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18”), [a]Any person younger than 18 years old who has or attempts to have a weapon of danger is guilty of a Class-A misdemeanor.
As my story explains, the problem was subsection (c).
This subsection applies to anyone under the age of 18 who is found with or has a firearm or shotgun. 29.304 and 29.593.”
Rittenhouse is presumed to have violated both Section 29.304 (or 29.593) since there’s no evidence of Rittenhouse violating Section 941.28. According to the defense, Rittenhouse violated Section 29.593 which is required for certification of weapons. However, he is not in violation of section 29.304, entitled “Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.” As the title indicates, the section makes it illegal for persons under 16 to use firearms. Rittenhouse was only 17 years old at that time, and the prosecution has not contest this fact.
Now since it didn’t meet 941.28, i.e. that it was a short-barreled gun, then it has to satisfy the other part — that he have no certification and that he be in violation of the restrictions on hunting and use of firearms while being under 16. While he had certification, he wasn’t under 16. The law was oddly designed, and it only applied to people under 18, but did not apply to those between 16-18 unless they were carrying a short-barreled firearm.
The judge pressed the prosecution this morning if they had any further proof to present that this gun was in any way short-barreled — which it wasn’t. The prosecution had nothing they could say since they knew that they didn’t have any evidence to support the elements of the charge. Judge dismissed the gun-charge.
Rittenhouse case judge dismissed Rittenhouse’s gun-related charge. pic.twitter.com/v1x1QTBrGf
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) November 15, 2021
Now we’ll have to see what happens as regard to the jury instructions and closing arguments today. But if the jury then finds there was self-defense and doesn’t believe the prosecution’s last attempt to obscure the facts with claiming provocation by Rittenhouse, then that could be it. But the judge did rule to allow the prosecution to argue provocation which could put the self-defense claim in jeopardy if the jury is taken in by the prosecution’s claim.
About Post Author
