Firstly, the judge didn't find a bylaw - that's not what judges do. The judge made a decision on the bylaw that the defence lawyers found. The defence found loopholes in the legal wording of the law and a confusing statute.
The overarching law reads:
“Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.”
with a dangerous weapon being defined as any firearm loaded or unloaded. So far so good. Rittenhouse is guilty of a misdemeanour. The defence then found a subsection. Which reads:
“This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28
Prior to 1987, Wisconsin banned children from possessing pistols. Then-Gov. Tommy Thompson, a Republican, signed a law that year that expanded the prohibition to include short-barreled firearms, electric weapons, brass knuckles, throwing stars and nunchakus. Four years later, Thompson signed another law extending the prohibition to any firearm. But that law also allowed minors to possess long guns for hunting as long as the barrels were at least a foot long.
That subsection was written in, as you've suggested, to allow children to be able to go hunting. The question the judge had to contemplate is whether or not the gun is legally owned, not whether the person hunts deer, elk or humans. You have to stick to the questions that are being asked not moral judgments that aren't relevant.... and in this case, it looks like bias from the judge - but if you go back and read the law, that wasn't the case.
The defence demonstrated the length of the barrel was in excess of 16 inches meaning it met the requirements for an exemption. The wording of the statute is confusing and the judge said as much, but it's why judges have to make a judgment in law. Faced with a confusing badly written statute the judge sided with the defence, which is what judges do when the law isn't clear and he dismissed the charge. So let's be clear, it wasn't the judge hunting for a law with which to dismiss the charges - it was a diligent defence doing their homework and arguing the law. You might not like it, but that doesn't make it unfair.
You and I can both agree that the exemption is stupid. I can think of no good reason why children should have guns with barrels of any length... but then I don't live in Wisconsin, I don't hunt and I don't want to own a gun and I didn't have a hand in crafting those laws. All I can look at is the information in a legally impartial way and draw my own conclusions. And the judge was right. Annoyingly. Stupid law. Clever defence.
Change the laws, not the verdict.
