Was Kyle Rittenhouse’s gun protected by the Second Amendment?


One item actually sticks to the list of charges against Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old man from Illinois was arrested during protests during the shootings of two men and the police shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, Wisconsin .

Along with five felony charges, including first-degree reckless murder and first-degree intentional manslaughter, Rittenhouse was also charged with a sixth felony: possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 years of age. And this would lead to an interesting rescue by him. Lawyer – One who is unlikely to succeed.

Ritehouse’s attorney, John Pearce of Pierce Bainbridge, planned to fight the occupation of the Under Army, arguing that at the age of 17, his client could be part of the “well regulated militia” outlined in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution . Put another way, Pierce would likely find that the ban on the possession of 17-year-olds in Wisconsin is unconstitutional because a 17-year-old minor is on the same second amendment as an adult.

Therefore, the argument goes, Wisconsin law unconstitutionally prohibits possession of Second Amendment-protected firearms. Pierce is the prospect that the American colonies would expect, and sometimes required, to possess and bear arms for civilians under the age of 18.

This would be an access for several reasons. In a 2008 Supreme Court case in District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia clearly stated that “like most rights, the rights protected by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.” During the 19th century, “commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not the right to keep and carry any weapon in any way and for any purpose,” he said.

Legitimate in Slalia’s opinion, “the long-held prohibition on the possession of firearms by goons and the mentally ill, or banning the carrying of firearms at sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or imposing conditions and laws on commercial sales Examples to do are listed. ” weapons. “

Possession of firearms was not specifically mentioned in that list, but the court stated that this “list is not meant to be exhaustive.”

In other cases on hail rights, since the Supreme Court has ruled Heller, federal courts have held that “fewer than 21” restrictions on the purchase of handguns have been “historically implied” and that “arms possession during the founding period” The right did not extend ‚ÄĚteenagers. “

It is true that many colonies permitted, and sometimes mandated, capture by minors for purposes of militia service. However, as stated by the Illinois Supreme Court, “at no time in the history of this nation do minors have the right to own and possess firearms.”

Even if the framers and colonists approved the possession of compulsory firearms by juveniles, this does not translate into an irrevocable right of their own or near them. Courts, and according to the Constitution, teenagers like Riflehouse clearly have a Second Amendment right to carry assault rifles more often than adults.

Danny Kavallos is an MSNBC legal analyst. Follow @CevallosLaw On twitter

Leave a Reply