>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. 941.28oris not in compliance with ss. 29.304and29.593.
>Let’s unpack it further. It’s the “and” that makes Rittenhouse’s carrying of the rifle legal.
>Rittenhouse isnotin violation ofs.941.28because that’s the statute that explains that the rifle must be short-barreled to be illegal, and no one is arguing his gun was short-barreled, not even prosecutors.
>Moving on, then, the “and” means the state must show he was in violation of BOTH 29.304and29.593.
>That’s how we, the defense, and the judge read it. 29.304 makes it illegal for anyone under 16 to carry a gun.But Rittenhouse was 17.The last part, 29.9593, relates to not having a hunter’s safety certificate. Rittenhouse concedes he did not.
>Thus, he does not meet 2 of the 3 exceptions, but because of the way the law is word (“and”), the state needed to show he was either in violation of the short-barreled provision OR both the age and hunter’s safety certificate elements. They have not, and can not, do so. This is what the jury will be instructed, the judge indicated in court.
Thus, if they are following the law, they must acquit.