When has the state or Federal government ever returned anything on time to victims of seizures or court trials? Also, it is not exactly clear where possession falls with respect to the rifle. Since it is registered to Dominick Black, he would logically be the one to receive it back. However, his court case has been delayed until January, so I tend to doubt he has it. If the state gave the rifle to Rittenhouse, and he signed the receipt, then this could be the trick that the state and Feds use to prove that the gun was obtained as part of a straw purchase. Don't fall for this Kyle. This would screw your friend, Dominick.
Once Black's case ends in his favor, just sell the rifle to a collector. It could easily fetch over six figures.
One side story that has slipped through the cracks is Ted Nugent's offer to supply Rittenhouse with a lifetime supply of ammo.
https://www.fox13now.com/news/national-news/ted-nugent-wants-to-give-kyle-rittenhouse-a-lifetime-supply-of-ammo
Ask Teddy for two bricks of 5.56mm ammo each week, and pass us a few unused cases. Personally I doubt that Ted can afford a $1000/wk outlay for a guy who is still a stranger to him.
Since Rittenhouse is now 18, Black could legally transfer ownership of the rifle to him. If that happens, then the "straw purchase" doesn't hold much water, since the intent all along was to comply with the law. He couldn't legally buy the gun himself, but he could legally carry it. More of an inconsistency in the laws than a straw purchase.
According to his interview with Charlie Kirk:
In an appearance on the conservative podcast “The Charlie Kirk Show,” Rittenhouse said Tuesday that the gun was being "destroyed right now.”
“We don’t want anything to do with that,” he said.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kyle-rittenhouse-says-destroying-ar-15-used-kenosha-protest-rcna7204Sounds like he's already been given the rifle.
It'll be interesting to see if the prosecutor also goes after his witnesses for the crimes they committed, too, and not just the person who bought the rifle and stored it until Kyle was old enough in a few short months.
We know Grosskreutz lied to police, lied in his lawsuit filings, and lied on the stand under oath. He also admitted to having a loaded pistol in his waistband after his CCW permit was expired.
We also know the prosecutors themselves lied about the drone footage and how the defense came to have a lower resolution, cropped version before trial. They also made statements in court that violated Kyle's Constitutional rights. They made statements about the case that were provably false based on the evidence, and had to change their theory of the night's events twice to match the evidence.
Their first theory was that Kyle went there looking to shoot people, threatened people with his rifle by pointing it at them, and used it when the rioters defended themselves. Then they tried to say he was an active shooter. Lastly, they said he "provoked" the actions of others by pointing the rifle at a couple of people before being chased.
Is anyone going to hold the prosecutor's office accountable for their refusal to drop the case after the evidence and statements proved the prosecution was wrong? This case should have been dropped before getting to court. As it turns out, it's a good thing they didn't. Otherwise, Kyle may have agreed to plea guilty to the gun charge, which was dismissed by the judge based on the law.
I think the live streaming has opened a lot of people's eyes to how twisted and evil some people in the justice system are. They spun facts, tampered with evidence, and violated the law just so they could win the case. These people pretend to seek justice, but what they really want is to win at the expense of sometimes innocent victims of the system.
Positive outcome, but a very negative view into the minds of prosecutors and the power they have over our lives once we are in their world.