There's a lot of hot takes about how 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse was too young to open carry a rifle in Wisconsin

This @journalsentinel piece states it as fact, and plenty of other people have too

I'm pretty sure everyone has it wrong

Thread https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/crime/2020/08/26/wisconsin-open-carry-law-kyle-rittenhouse-legally-have-gun-kenosha-protest-shooting-17-year-old/3444231001/

This excerpt should have given the @journalsentinel pause

They state as fact that Kyle Rittenhouse violated the law

But then they cite a *lawyer who specializes in gun rights cases* who thinks an exception applies

The author should have listened to him!

Here's the relevant Wisconsin statute

It does say that "any person under 18 years of age who...goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a...misdemeanor."

But it has a number of exceptions, including one for minors who are carrying a rifle or shotgun—note subsection 3(c)

As I read it, Rittenhouse was under 18, but he was carrying a rifle

So to have violated the statute, he either had to be "in violation of s. 941.28" or "not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593."

Section 941.28 prohibits sawed-off shotguns/rifles. That doesn't apply

Section 29.304 only imposes restrictions on the possession of firearms by minors under the age of 16

Hard to see how Rittenhouse could violate that, it says nothing about 17-year-olds that I can see

And section 29.593 talks about the need to have a certificate to go hunting

Rittenhouse wasn't hunting, so it's hard to see how he could have been violating that statute either

So to bring it back to the main statute: Kyle Rittenhouse was under 18, but he was carrying a rifle, and not in violation of three other relevant statutes

As a result, based on my reading, he committed no crime by open-carrying a rifle in Wisconsin at 17

FIN