I don't need expertise to understand the basic facts of the case, nor do I need expertise to do a simple reading of the statutes. Law is not some secret, sacred text that can only be interpreted by priests. This is all information that you, the random reader, can google in about 5 minutes and learn for yourself. There's no need to rely on "experts" and news articles to provide truthful, unbiased, and clear information. The firearm was never in KR's permanent possession; it lived in WI in his friend's safe. It was never brought across state lines, and the obsession of those who have only been listening to biased narratives over state lines is strange and irrelevant. Wisconsin 948.60(3)(c) clearly states that it was legal for KR to open carry the rifle, and KR testified that he carried the rifle instead of a pistol because carrying the pistol would have been illegal.
How do you feel, knowing that the illegal possession charge was removed for exactly this reason after you posted this?