Motions to dismiss charges 6 and 2 (Minor in possession of a firearm - Wis. Statute § 948.60 (2)(a)) & (Reckless endangerment in the first degree of Richie McGinniss - Wis. Statute § 941.30 (1)) were denied, but the arguments were heard due to the state accepting argument at this time.
Defense claimed that Rittenhouse was not wielding an SBR (short barreled rifle) nor a short-barreled shotgun, and therefore was exempt from liability to 948.60(2)(a), by referring to 948.60(3)(c) exemption. The defense was heard and prosecution countered that this defense was heard and denied prior to appealing this again. The state concurred that Mr. Rittenhouse was not hunting (as defense stated in their argument, specifically that the defendant was not hunting) and therefore the motion to dismiss charge 6 was considered moot as the 948.60(3)(c) exemption is specifically in reference to compliance to hunting regulations (compliance requires you to be hunting, if you're to be compliant of hunting regulations). The court concurred with the state, and the motion to dismiss was denied.
Defense claimed that Mr. McGinniss was not provably in danger, and made the mistaken claim that there wasn't any suggestion nor inference that McGinnis was ever in the line of fire from the complaint itself. The state countered that there was in fact language in the complaint that said explicitly that Mr. McGinnis was in the line of fire, and this was proven to be accurate upon reciting the paragraph in question within the original complaint. I believe the state at this point suggested to the defense that this is a preliminary hearing and not a trial, and the bringing of affirmative defenses were not appropriate to the standard of probable cause at this time. The court agreed, and charge 2's motion to dismiss was denied.
