The question is, did the Rittenhouse judgement about whether he was able to carry a semi-automatic weapon at 17, set a precedent for the entire state?
i.e. Are you now expecting to see 16 and 17 year olds carrying AR-15's around? The answer I believe is a firm no. My interpretation is that would still be illegal, because it's subject to a law that needs updating for clarity sake.
Well here is a 16-year-old + her father, carrying an AR-15 around, literally right outside the Kenosha courthouse yesterday, in full view of police, media etc:
https://nypost.com/2021/11/21/armed-father-daughter-duo-seek-to-protect-anti-rittenhouse-protesters/
Looking for trouble? Clearly white privilege - if they were black then the police would have shot them (oh wait)...
I presume they're not part of the protest or don't necessarily agree with it but are just there because they were asked - that would be too much irony, what does that dad (a 2nd amendment supporter) expect to do if attacked.
Anyway, that the law might need to be changed IF politicians want it to only cover hunting doesn't negate that as it is currently written it does allow the carrying of long-barreled weapons.
Seems like it's "perfectly legal" right now, contrary to what the fact-checkers at Politifact might like to claim.
As per Deuse's post, I had read elsewhere (now on BBC) that the car was fleeing another scene and ended up on the parade route and then intentionally ran people over to try to get away.
OK fair enough, that's plausible too but surely both are speculation right now, I'm not sure that pointing out a plausible explanation is necessarily bad - this is a discussion forum after all