Kyle Rittenhouse is still a free man.
That fact still seems to rankle many a person on the left, it seems. While a few get the fact that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense and thus did nothing wrong, a large number are absolutely convinced that he got away with something.
As such, they’re calling for new laws, like in this op-ed from Bloomberg Law:
California recently took a bold step in the gun rights conversation when Gov. Gavin Newson (D) proposed an assault weapons law modeled after the new Texas anti-abortion law. The Texas measure allows private citizens to sue doctors who terminate pregnancies. Newsom’s proposal would allow a similar private enforcement mechanism to limit assault weapons.
It is often said where California goes, the country follows, due to its sheer size and economic force of the state. Progressive laws, including gun control laws, passed in California often become a model that is then adopted by other states to follow.
Considering this influence, California should make another bold move in the gun control conversation by filling a gaping hole in our gun laws revealed in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Lawmakers should make it a felony to carry a weapon in public during a curfew. Should a death result in such a scenario, prosecutors could then use the felony murder rule to hold the killer accountable.
The Rittenhouse trial illustrates the problem with our current gun laws. Rittenhouse, then 17, traveled to Kenosha, Wis., during a curfew in 2020. He used a rifle to protect used car lots. When he left private property, he killed two and injured a third.
Gun rights advocates saw Rittenhouse’s acquittal as a vindication of the Second Amendment. Gun control supporters saw it as a miscarriage of justice given Rittenhouse’s decision to inject himself into the chaos.
Notice how the author completely leaves out the fact that Rittenhouse was attacked by a mob? That if he hadn’t had that gun, he would likely have been the one killed?
That part remains completely and totally ignored, in part because it’s inconvenient to her narrative.
However, it’s also a critical piece of information. Rittenhouse wasn’t acquitted because of some legal loophole that needs to be slammed shut. He was found not guilty due to the fact that he acted to protect his own life after the mob tried to chase him down and after multiple assaults, including being hit in the head with a blunt object and another person trying to take his weapon.
A law that would have made it illegal for him to be armed may well have been a law that facilitated his murder, and anyone who looks at the video should have seen that.
The problem is that Rittenhouse stood on the wrong side of the issue. He opposed the burning and looting of businesses in Kenosha. For that, his every action was evil, regardless of the law.
I have little doubt that California will enact the law the author wants, mostly because it’s California and they’ve never seemed to be able to resist gun control. So yeah, I figure they’ll pass it.
Then when someone gets murdered because they couldn’t have the best tool available for self-defense, lawmakers will talk about what a tragedy it was, but never accept their role in it.
Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t take advantage of some loophole and get off on a technicality. He was found not guilty. The reason he was found not guilty was that the mob was trying to freaking murder him, you vacuous little twits.
New laws aren’t needed to prevent this. What’s needed are Democrats making it clear they won’t support rampaging, looking, arsonous mobs. Maybe if they do that, there won’t be a need for a Kyle Rittenhouse to try and protect private businesses when law enforcement won’t.