Was Kyle Rittenhouse's possession of a gun protected by the Second Amendment?

[JonLP24]

One item really sticks out on the list of charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, the 17-year-old from Illinois arrested after two people were shot and killed during protests over the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

Along with five felony charges that include first-degree reckless homicide and first-degree intentional homicide, Rittenhouse was also charged with a sixth crime: possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18. And that will give rise to an interesting defense by his lawyer — one that is not likely to succeed.

Rittenhouse’s attorney, John Pierce of Pierce Bainbridge, plans to fight the underage weapons possession charge, arguing that at 17, his client could be part of the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Put another way, Pierce will likely argue that Wisconsin’s ban on firearms possession by 17-year-olds is unconstitutional because a 17-year-old minor is on the same Second Amendment footing as an adult.

Therefore, the argument goes, the Wisconsin law unconstitutionally restricts Second Amendment-protected firearms possession. Pierce will likely add that the American colonies expected, and sometimes required, citizens under 18 to have and bear arms.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1238918?__twitter_impression=true

I didn't post for the headline. The main issue with the story is his attorney plans to argue he was part of a "well regulated militia".

[msongs]

1. well regulated is regulations on age and criminal record nt

[emmaverybo]

2. Yes! Since "militia" only applies to right wing extremist groups, many of whom reject government,

seek to overthrow it, time to change language suggesting we legitimize armed domestic terrorists and their groups. What a precedent this case could set.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. Well regulated my ass. He was also in violation of a curfew.

Was the "well regulated" militia ever intended to be used against American civilians?

[TreasonousBastard]

5. Actually, it was-- back then there was a real fear of the federal govt trying to take...

over states, so the state militia existed to fight back.

And there was always the possibility of states going to war with each other, so a militia could be a defense. And maybe even the population in revolt. The army was normally used to put down revolutions and riots.

Just for fun, look up "Bleeding Kansas"

And for more fun:

https://www.history.com/news/6-violent-uprisings-in-the-united-states

And you thought things were bad now.

[Aristus]

10. State militias existed because no one trusted standing armies.

Ask these Rambo wannabes if they want to disband the U.S. Military. They'll call you un-American and unpatriotic before the words finish leaving your mouth.

They claim to be anti-government. They're just opposed to a government that recognizes the rights of all citizens, not just white citizens...

[struggle4progress]

4. "Our wonderful second amendment lets us drive armed children across state lines to kill people"

[Greybnk48]

6. It's not 1776 ffs, and he's not from Wisconsin!

He's a vigilante who came here and broke the law by illegally having a firearm and murdering two people and wounding a third. Fuck this kid and fuck his dipshit lawyer looking for his 15 minutes.

The murderer is not going to become a cause celebe, he's going down for these murders just like the domestic terrorist who murdered people with his car in Charlotteville VA. I'm not going to mention his name and help make him famous.

[crickets]

7. +1

[Archae]

8. According to Breitbart, his lawyer says it was legal for him to have the gun in WI.

Considering that the 'source" was Breitbart though, it's pretty much a given that this lawyer is simply full of it.

[lettucebe]

9. I believe well regulated militia was meant to protect against a repressive government

Not to attack other citizens and join the government (police). It's mind boggling how these fools have forgotten the whole point of arming themselves against the uprising of the government but here we are.

[apnu]

11. He's not a member of any "militia" regulated or not.

All the "militias" who were in Kenosha that day, including the boogaloo boys, denied Rittenhouse is a member.

No way he'll get a 2A protection under the "well regulated militia" part.

Granted the SCOTUS has added interpretations to the 2A that aren't in the text. Numerous rulings have stated that citizens have the right to carry firearms, but that doesn't take into account if Rittenhouse is allowed to possess a gun while being a minor.

Also not yet covered, but will in the trial, is how Rittenhouse got that weapon. That's not fully clear, but I see a number of stories that an acquaintance of Rittenhouse in WI gave him that weapon to carry around town. That's why Rittenhouse isn't facing charges of crossing state lines with an illegal weapon. But in WI law, its illegal for him to possess it at all, and its illegal to give it to him, regardless of what Rittenhoues's parents say.

So all the 2A nonsense is going to fail. There is no legal situation where a minor is allowed to have a firearm unsupervised by their parent or guardian.

[ScratchCat]

12. No, there is no 2A issue here

This is a ridiculous attorney grasping for ridiculous straws.

He violated a State law. He isn't even a resident of the State he was in. Again, he is a minor. Further, since he was illegally in possession of the firearm, he has no legal right to have been where he was "defending" a car dealership or whatever. He had no right to fire a gun in which he was illegally possessing. After firing the first shots, he was a "fleeing felon". A fleeing felon can't claim self defense, so he had no right to shoot the second and third individuals who were trying to detain him.

This isn't like a kid was at his home on his property and had to use a firearm to defend against an intruder - he left his home State, illegally possessing an assault rifle, shot a person, and then shot two more who were trying to detain him for the first shooting. There.is.no.2A.issue.

[roamer65]

13. No.

Absolutely not a 2nd amendment issue. He is a minor and is guilty of weapon possession crimes.

[Retrograde]

14. OK, let's say that argument stands

He's still accused of two counts of murder and at least one count of attempted murder.

IANAL, but somehow I don't think playing "Call of Duty" qualifies as being part of a well-regulated militia.