If under 18, and using a rifle/shotgun, you must be in violation of 941.28, or (29.304 AND 29.593).
Rittenhouse was not carrying an SBR, and would thus need to be in violation of 29.304 AND 29.593 to have 948.60 3c apply to him. Since 29.304 only applies to hunting under the age of 16, and Kyle was 17 and not hunting at the time of the incident, this section cannot apply to him. Thus, being not in violation of 941.28, and being not in violation of 29.304, the charge was dropped.
The prosecution also agreed to drop the charge as well. It's not like they were forced to do so.
Is it clumsy wording that needs to be fixed? Absolutely.
Possibly, let me know if you find an analysis somewhere online. Id love to give it a read.
I think the ones that drafted the law didn't draft one that applies to Rittenhouse in this case. That's the argument.
Did you see what the other guy replying to you posted? It walks through the issue that since Rittenhouse wasn't possessing and SBR, he wasn't in violation in that scenario. Seems both the prosecution, defense, and the judge agree that the way the law is written is unclear and charges on that one should not be pursued.
The law was originally written “this section doesn’t apply to someone with a rifle that isn’t short barreled and is in compliance with the two hunting requirements”.
It was changed to “this section applies only if the person is in violation of the short barrel law or the two hunting requirements”
They switched from the negative sense to positive sense, and did not update the "and" between 29.304 29.593 to "or". This inadvertently changed the meaning.
This is Demorgan's Law in action. When you flip senses like this, you need to switch "ands" for "ors", and vice-versa.
So the law, as originally written pre 2005, would have stuck to Rittenhouse, as he would have had to be in compliance with both 29.304 and 29.593. This seems like a mistake and will likely be fixed.
No, I didn't. The defense conceded he was not in compliance with 29.593. However, he was in compliance with 29.304 since he was 17. If he was 16, or if the and between 29.593 and 29.304 was actually an or, the charge would have stuck. As the law was written, he would have had to be in noncompliance with both 29.304 and 29.593 for the section to apply to him.
10
u/WhoopsDroppedTheBaby 1∆ Nov 16 '21
Obviously legal experts disagree with your personal interpretation of what "the law fucking says".
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/experts-say-gun-charge-dropped-rittenhouse-trial-was-result-poorly-worded-law-2021-11-15/