There’s really one thing on the list of charges against 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhaus of Illinois after two people were shot and killed in protest of Jacob Blake’s police shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
With five felony charges, including first-degree reckless cow slaughter and first-degree intentional homicide, Rittenhouse was charged with a sixth felony: possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under the age of 18. And it will give birth to an interesting defense by his lawyer – one that is unlikely to succeed.
Rittenhaus’s attorney, John Pierce of Pierce Banbridge, plans to fight possession of underage weapons, arguing that at the age of 17, his client could become part of the “well-controlled militia” referred to in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. On the other hand, Pierce would probably argue that Wisconsin’s ban on gun possession by 17-year-olds is unconstitutional because a 17-year-old minor is in the same second amendment as an adult.
Therefore, it is argued, Wisconsin law unconstitutionally prohibits the possession of Second Amendment-protected firearms. Pierce would probably add that American settlements are expected, and sometimes, that citizens under the age of 18 are required to possess and keep weapons.
It will be accessible for many reasons. 200 Supreme Court cases, District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia, made it clear that “like most rights, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.” During the 19th century, “critics and courts regularly explained that no one has the right to possess and possess any weapon in any way and for any purpose.”
Examples of recognition in Scalia’s opinion include “long-standing restrictions on the possession of firearms by sexually and mentally ill people, or laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in sensitive locations such as schools and government buildings, or legal conditions and laws imposing qualifications on commercial sales.”
The list did not specifically mention juvenile possession of firearms, but the court added that the list “does not appear to be complete.”
In other gun rights cases since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Heller, federal courts have held that modern “21-year” limits on handgun purchases are “definitely historically” and do not “extend the right to own a weapon during the founding period.” Adolescents. “
It is true that for the purpose of military service many colonies were allowed armed occupation by minors, and sometimes compulsory. However, the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that “nothing like the right of minors to own and possess firearms has ever existed in the history of this country.”
Even if framers and immigrants have allowed the possession of firearms by teenagers, this does not translate into their immovable right to own or remain stationary. The courts, and according to the Constitution, have less amended second right to carry assault rifles than juvenile adults like Rittenhouse.
Danny Sevellos is a legal analyst at MSNBC. Follow Liked On Twitter.
