Back in September of 2020 I noted the following:
The only potential charge that kept nagging at me until late today was the one about possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 (a misdemeanor).
WI law is somewhat confusing here…
941.28 is about the possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. Hence, it does not apply to Rittenhouse.
29.304 is about restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. While some people might claim he was hunting I can’t imagine his activities met the legal definition of hunting. Hence, this section does not apply to Rittenhouse.
29.593 is about requirements for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval. I’m certain hunting licenses are not being issued by WI fish and game for the state terrorists. Hence, there cannot be issue with any failure to acquire a certificate to get approval for a license.
Hence, the “possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18” charge is bogus.
I find it amazing the opinion writers, lawyers, and the judge are only recently deciphering the actual wording of the law.
Andrew Branca deciphered it long ago. Plus he thinks it is unconstitutionally vague.
Part of what’s amazing (as Branca discusses at length) is that there are standard jury instructions for this charge, and they don’t discuss the exception clauses at all.
This is why the defense pushed for corrected instructions, and the judge apparently agreed (adopting the draft text submitted by the defense).
It’s amazing what the word “and” does to the meaning and relationship of words in a sentence. This whole thing literally hinges on the fact the statute has “or” and “and” in it.
I thought the judge already said that, that law was so confusing to most lawyers that there was no way a seventeen year old could be expected to understand it. I think the judge will through it out in final instructions.
Pingback: Judge tosses underage weapons charge | The View From North Central Idaho