Who purchased and stored the rifle used by Kyle Rittenhouse, and what were the legal consequences for that person?

1. How the rifle changed hands: purchaser, payment, and storage

Court filings and contemporaneous reporting show that Black, who was 18 or 19 at the time and dating Rittenhouse’s sister, purchased the semiautomatic rifle at Ladysmith Ace Home Center in northern Wisconsin on May 1, 2020, and the criminal complaint states he did so with money given by 17‑year‑old Rittenhouse ^{[1] [3]}; prosecutors and later press reports say the two agreed the weapon would be kept at Black’s stepfather’s home in Kenosha because Rittenhouse lacked an Illinois firearms ID card ^{[2] [1]}. Those factual assertions were presented to jurors and investigators during the wider Rittenhouse prosecution and formed the basis for prosecutors’ claim that Black effectively made a straw purchase for a minor ^{[3] [8]}.

2. Charges brought against Black and the rationale for prosecution

Authorities charged Black with serious felony counts: two counts of intentionally giving a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 causing death — allegations linked directly to the two fatal shootings in August 2020 — grounded on the theory that Black supplied a weapon to a minor who later used it to kill two people ^{[1] [3]}. Prosecutors publicly emphasized that buying a firearm for someone known to be underage is a grave offense and noted they would continue to prosecute such conduct even after plea negotiations ^{[5] [7]}.

3. How Rittenhouse’s trial affected Black’s case

Legal developments in Rittenhouse’s murder trial materially altered Black’s exposure: Judge Bruce Schroeder dismissed the misdemeanor charge that Rittenhouse unlawfully possessed a dangerous weapon as a minor after defense arguments about statutory exceptions for long guns and barrel length, creating uncertainty about whether felony charges tied to giving a weapon to a minor could withstand the same interpretation ^{[9] [4] [10]}. Prosecutors and defense counsel both recognized that the judge’s ruling weakened the theory underlying the felonies against Black, and that reality influenced the later plea offer ^{[10] [6]}.

4. The plea deal and legal consequences for Black

In January 2022 Dominick Black agreed to plead no contest to a reduced, non‑criminal county ordinance citation for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a disposition that allowed him to avoid felony convictions and prison time; prosecutors dropped or did not pursue the heavier felony counts as part of that resolution ^{[4] [10] [5] [7]}. Officials framed the deal as pragmatic given the judicial ruling and the evidentiary/legal hurdles that would complicate a felony trial, while critics argued it let someone who facilitated access to a deadly weapon off too lightly ^{[6] [5]}.

5. Competing narratives, legal ambiguity, and what remains unsettled

Reporting reflects two competing frames: prosecutors asserting the seriousness of straw purchases and the need to hold buyers accountable, and legal observers noting how narrow statutory language and a judge’s interpretation in Rittenhouse’s trial narrowed the pathway to felony convictions for suppliers like Black ^{[5] [9] [11]}. Some commentators and outlets stressed that federal straw‑purchase laws could have applied and carry harsher penalties, while other sources emphasized that Wisconsin statutory quirks and the practical result of the Rittenhouse acquittal limited local prosecutors’ options — a dynamic that helps explain why Black’s ultimate consequence was a no‑contest plea to a lesser, non‑criminal citation rather than felony incarceration ^{[11] [6] [8]}. Reporting does not establish any further undisputed criminal outcomes for Black beyond the plea and dropped felony exposure noted in the cited coverage ^{[4] [5] [6]}.