Prowler, Here's what Schroeder himself stated - that he was uncertain about the statute:
"I think it ought to have been mighty clear that I had big problems with this statute," Schroeder said. "I made no bones about that from the beginning. And there always was access to the court of appeals all along here. Well, I guess that's not fair for me to say because I was sitting on it. So shame on me."
So no link to the RCMP Web site?
No comment of the hunting rifle I posted?
No comment on your claim that the AR 15 is an automatic rifle?
But, Joe, I will address your post in hopes that you will learn something. Or choke on your own tongue. That would be cool too.
Here is a video of when the judge said that:
Start at 2:16.
Listen to what he says.
When he says that he has problems with the statute,
he is referring to the statute that prevented him from dismissing the charge based on a motion made earlier by the defense, not the statute that defines what guns are illegal.
That statute he did not like is the one that did not allow him to dismiss the charge earlier because of a legal technicality about the type of defense that was going to be present and/or the content of the complaint by the defense.
That statute is what prevented him from granting the motion earlier. I will concur that he does not make this crystal clear, but the lawyers there all know what he is talking about. And now that you know, you can re-listen to it with this understanding and grasp what he was saying.
At this point in the trial, he is now able to listen to the motion and grant it. That is why they can now proceed to check whether or not the firearm is legal.
Later, at about 4:10, he reads a bit from the statute that defines a
"short-barreled rifle", which is an illegal firearm.
When they determine that the firearm is legal, then he throws the charge out.
He has
never stated that he has a problem with the statute that defines what is an illegal rifle (barrel < 16 inches or overall length < 26 inches).
The reason the prosecution wanted this charge to go to the jury is because they wanted to appeal to the emotions of the jury by handling and talking about the gun as much as possible. They knew the gun would have to be handled and measured in front of them, which for some people would bring out some emotions. It is not because they thought the charge had legal merit.
It is the same reason the prosecution handled the rifle and pointed it at the jury during closing arguments. They wanted to scare people. They wanted people to associate the rifle with Rittenhouse and the fear that goes with it.
"
Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
...
“Short-barreled rifle" means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches.
...
No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
---
Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony.
"
