Dominick Black is the friend who purchased an AR-15 using money that Kyle Rittenhouse gave to him. The case against Black has been postponed until next January, which means that his lawyers were not able to get the charges dismissed.

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/11/23/man-who-bought-ar-15-kyle-rittenhouse-wants-gun-charges-dismissed/8689543002/

Because of the twisted way that the court systems work, a dismissal of the misdemeanor charge for possessing an AR-15 by a minor (Kyle on August 25, 2020) may or may not result in a not-guilty verdict for Black. Attorneys for Black need to focus on this testimony, extracted from this source:

https://www.wisn.com/article/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-video-dominick-black-testimony/38139147#

Prosecution: On the day of August 25, 2020. The day when all this stuff happened, did he possess that gun?
Black: Yes.
Prosecution: How did it come to be that he gained possession of that gun?
Black: On August 25 my dad had took a lot of the weapons we had out of the safe due to all the writing and stashed them inside the house in case somebody were to come break into our house and that gun happened to be one of those weapons.
Prosecution: Do you know how the defendant took possession of it that day?
Black: I do not, all I'm aware of is that it was downstairs?
Prosecution: When did you first see the defendant with that weapon that day?
Black: When I was in the kitchen? So about I want to say a few hours before we left
Prosecution: and tell us what you saw when you were in the kitchen.
Black: Um, and I saw him coming up the stairs with it. Yes.
Prosecution: Did you hear him ask you permission to take that gun?
Black: No.
Prosecution: Did he ask? Did you hear him ask permission from your father?
Black: No.

Black did not give Kyle the rifle on that day. Kyle took it without getting verbal permission. Furthermore, this is not the straw purchase example that the media has been claiming since day one. The AR-15 was in the permanent possession of Black or his step-father most of the time. I see very little difference between an adult buying a weapon, and promising to give it to a friend or relative when they reach the legal age (and meet the requirements) for possession. This is a make or break case whose fate hangs on the quality of the defense attorney. I hope Black has the support of the same groups as Kyle had, but winning one battle does not mean you can win a second one (with lower visibility).

I think the judge/jury needs to look at the INTENT of the straw purchaser prohibition.

The idea of a straw purchaser is that you are buying a firearm in your name with the intention of giving that firearm to someone who is not eligible to buy the firearm themselves.

For example:  a gang member with a felony conviction is a "prohibited gun owner" -- they can't buy a gun legally.  So a girlfriend, fellow gang member or family member buys the gun in their name and GIVES the gun to the prohibited person.  The actual owner is the prohibited person, not the person who filled out and signed the 4473.

Black didn't do this.  He knew Kyle was under age and prohibited from owning the gun.  So Black bought the gun in his name and KEPT IT.  How Kyle got the gun in Aug 25th is not relevant to the straw purchase charge.  The law says Kyle was legally allowed to possess the firearm at age 17 and carry it in public, hence the dismissal of that minor with a firearm charge. 

The sticking point is that Kyle gave Black the money.  I don't see that coming into play as proof of anything since Black retained possession of the firearm.  If Dominick signed the 4473, and he borrowed the money from his mother, would he now be guilty of a straw purchase?  The person who pays for the gun is not always the person who signs the 4473, as is often the case of guns purchased as gifts.

I believe this case is going to be dismissed, for the simple reason that Kyle did not have unencumbered possession of the rifle once it was purchased.  He borrowed it to go shooting a few times and on the night of the riots, but it was obviously on loan from the owner.

Black and Rittenhouse obviously intended to follow the law and not let the gun be in Rittenhouse's possession as its owner until he was 18.  The entirety of the circumstances prove this was not a straw purchase, but rather a way to remain within the boundaries of the law and still have a firearm to use for occasional practice.

If the rifle resided with Rittenhouse at his home instead of at the Black's residence, then that would be a straw purchase.  It was not "Kyles rifle" YET!