It sounds like Black admitted to a straw purchase, but as far as I'm aware nobody has been charged federally [yet]. I wouldn't be surprised if Kamala has a conference call with the DoJ about this on her calendar for late January, though.
Wisconsin charged Rittenhouse with possession under 18 (948.60 (2)(a) , and they charged Black with a facilitator version of that same crime: 948.60(2)(c).
The defense counsel pointed out during the prelim hearing that the open carry law Kyle was charged under is not really applicable. He even took a verbal shot at the prosecutor, saying that when he (defense counsel) went to law school, they taught him to read the entire statute.
The logical problem with applying the Wisconsin possession/carry law to 16-17 year olds is as follows:
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1) [defines dangerous weapon]
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
...
(3)
(c) This section 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. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
The bold portions are what's critical relating to Kyle. 941.28 is about SBSs and SBRs. 29.304 is about minors under 16.
29.593 is what everyone's arguing about. It's an administrative provision that spells out certain requirements for obtaining hunting authorization (a hunting license in Wisconsin terms, I think). The problem is that it's unclear what compliance means when you're talking about an administrative regulation governing applications for hunting licenses, and you're not applying for a hunting license.
The operative section (1)(a) reads in its entirety:
(1)(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
In terms of mathematical logic, this count should absolutely fail. If the law said anyone subject to this section must have a hunter's education certificate, then it would apply. But the certificate is made conditional on applying for a hunting license, which Kyle didn't need, so...
I have no idea what a Wisconsin judge will make of this law, though. They make take it upon themselves to interpret the law such that you have to have passed hunter safety before you can open carry outside the context of hunting.
If the Wisconsin courts interpret it broadly, which from my limited knowledge of the law is improper but they might do it anyway, Black gets a felony while Kyle gets a misdemeanor. Even if Kyle's self defense claims are upheld by a jury, it doesn't look like self defense matters at all for downgrading Black's felony count(s), and Class H felonies are 6 years max vs 3.5 years max for Class I.
Another strange thing is that Black was charged twice, once for each of the people Rittenhouse killed, even though the act involved was the transfer of the gun to Rittenhouse which only happened once. I don't know how that works, but isn't there generally a principle that you can't charge someone with multiple identical counts for the same criminal transaction just because multiple crimes happen downstream? Not that that helps Black much. One state felony conviction is bad enough.
On the federal level, if Kamala encourages the DoJ to make an example out of them, which she might... Black gets charged with a straw purchase under whatever statute that is, and both Black and Kyle conspired on the straw purchase so they both get charged with 18 USC 371?
I don't think either of them admitted to anything that got them into deeper trouble under Wisconsin law. However, exposing themselves to federal charges was idiotic. If they'd both just shut their mouths, the feds might not be able to prove that it was a straw purchase. Now, though, even if the Wisconsin courts do the right thing and eventually dismiss all charges, I expect they're both screwed federally unless Trump pardons them before he leaves office.
They should have seen one of James Duane's talks on youtube, or read his book. It's too late now.
Next hearing, this time before the trial judge instead of the feckless county commissioner, is in a few days.
Also, that fool Ziminski (who has quite a misdemeanor and traffic and family court record), who fired a shot in the air while Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse, has a trial coming up. He had a felony endangering safety charge, but it was withdrawn or dismissed along with two other misdemeanors. He's now facing only a single misdemeanor. In a fair and just world, and in a state with better laws, he would be facing that felony charge for reckless endangerment (what goes up must come down), another one for conspiracy to assault Rittenhouse, as well as felony murder charges since he was involved in a conspiracy to commit a felony that resulted in deaths.
I'm not going to touch on how unwise Rittenhouse's actions that night were. Obviously he made a variety of mistakes, but mistakes and lack of wisdom are not crimes. As far as I can tell, his heart was in the right place. If everyone had behaved themselves within reasonable bounds, nothing would have come of Kyle's mistakes.
