Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[CJD]

(11-24-2021, 10:34 AM)michaelsean Wrote: It's not really a ruling, and I get your point, but you were always allowed to open carry at protests so this really changed nothing except that maybe more people know you can.  I was down on Main St here in Cincinnati when people were gathering for a scheduled protest back in 2020 and I saw several people wearing holstered weapons.  I don't know that it's that rare.

This is just my personal opinion, but I view wearing a holstered weapon on your hip as fundamentally different from having a rifle strapped to your chest. Not only do I think the layman would consider the latter more threatening, but I also think it conveys a different message entirely. With a holstered weapon, the person is at least a holster button (or some other kind of strap), a drawing of the gun, a pointing of the gun and a trigger away from threatening someone's life, whereas with a rifle, you are pretty much just a short point and trigger away from threatening someone's life, as both of your hands are on the rifle and its grips basically the entire time. There's just an increased sense of danger in the latter case for all the people in the area and I think it would be more appropriately categorized as brandishing than open carrying.

Under our current laws, what Rittenhouse did was not illegal and it was the correct decision in this case, but that doesn't mean the laws are perfect as they are. There is definitely room in there to tweak or interpret the laws to prevent a similar situation to occur. The interesting thing about our laws and constitution is that so much of what is and is not legal depends on interpretation of the laws, which is more of an art than a science. Both the right for citizens to own weapons and the right to women having abortions were determined to be constitutional based on the Supreme Court Justices of those times interpreting the relevant amendments in such a way to make those two rights constitutional. With different justices, we could have very easily seen the 2nd amendment be interpreted as only relevant when forming militias and the personal privacy of abortion not being enough to counteract that it can be considered "murder." 

If the interpretation of open carry was changed such that carrying rifles on your person with your hands on the grips was classified as brandishing rather than open carry, Rittenhouse would probably be in a prison cell right now. So, while I agree that this court decision does not fundamentally change the laws, it does change the people's perception and understanding of those laws. Now that we have precedent that the way that Kyle handled his gun is not brandishing and is, in fact, considered open carry, I think a lot more people are going to be willing to "open carry" at protests now, which may result in more deaths and/or suppressed willingness to protest out of fear for safety. And I don't like that.