PolitiFact Refuses to Change Fact Check After Weapons Charge Dismissed Against Rittenhouse, Suggests Ruling Appears to be ‘At Odds With the Intent of Legislators’

Yesterday, we reported that Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed a misdemeanor gun charge, possession of a dangerous weapon, against Kyle Rittenhouse after some discussion as to whether it could be considered or not.

We also reported that PolitiFact had previously gave a “false” rating to a Facebook post made 2 days after the shootings last year that stated that “At 17 years old Kyle (Rittenhouse) was perfectly legal to be able to possess that rifle without parental supervision.”

It was expected that PolitiFact might issue a correction on the fact check and reached out to the organization for comment.

However, they got back to us and let us know that simply an update had been issued to the fact check.

The update did not reverse their previous decision at all and suggested that the “ruling does appear to be at odds with the intent of legislators.”

Politifact refuses to change their fact check – saying that they don’t believe Rittenhouse was planning on hunting with the rifle and therefore they are overruling judge Schroeder and saying he still broke the law, in an “update” https://t.co/VdJtSQd1TV pic.twitter.com/UvnmzRPlET

— Media Right News (@MediaRightNews1) November 16, 2021

“Editor’s note” provided today from PolitiFact on their Fact Check:

 Judge Bruce Schroeder recently dismissed a misdemeanor charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18 against Kyle Rittenhouse.

Readers asked us if this made the fact-check below invalid. We don’t think so. Here’s why. 

In August 2020, we fact-checked a claim that it was “perfectly legal” for Rittenhouse to possess an AR-15 without parental supervision. Our reporting found that it was far from perfectly legal, and that it was, in fact, legally murky. That’s why we rated the claim False.

Wisconsin law says that “any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”

In our fact-check, we cite the possibility of an exception for rifles and shotguns. The exception is aimed at letting children ages 16 and 17 hunt. But, as it is also clear, Rittenhouse wasn’t in Kenosha to hunt.

This same legal debate played out a couple of times during the Rittenhouse trial, according to the Associated Press. 

Rittenhouse’s defense asked Schroeder to dismiss the firearm possession charge during a pretrial hearing in October. Schroeder, according to the Associated Press, acknowledged the intent of the statute was murky but decided not to dismiss the charge.

The issue came up again on Nov. 15 as lawyers were debating instructions to the jury. 

Prosecutors argued that allowing an exception for hunting-style weapons would effectively eliminate the prohibition on minors carrying weapons.

But in this instance, Schroeder dismissed the charge, saying he had a “big problem” with the state statute.

In its reporting, the Associated Press quoted Kenosha defense attorney Michael Cicchini, who is not involved in the case. Cicchini said when statutes aren’t clear, they must be read in favor of the defense. “This is the price the government must pay when it is incapable of drafting clear laws,” Cicchini wrote in an article.

The ruling does appear at odds with the intent of legislators. In 2018, the Wisconsin Legislative Council Staff, a nonpartisan legislative service agency akin to the Congressional Research Service, wrote that, “Under Wisconsin law, with certain exceptions for hunting, military service, and target practice, a person under age 18 is generally prohibited from possessing or going armed with a firearm.”

These subsequent events show the grey areas of local gun laws — hardly a case of something being “perfectly legal.” Our fact-check remains unchanged.