Posted on 10/27/2021 4:55:32 AM PDT by marktwain
Thank you. I’ll review your material.
That, sir, makes no sense.
It makes sense. If he is hunting, without the hunting certificate, without having been trained in the specific requirements for safety while hunting, then the firearm is treated as a dangerous weapon. It only applies to hunting. It does not apply when not hunting.
Legislatures do lots of things that do not make perfect sense. There are many compromises. Legislators cut corners, and you have strange things happen as various laws interact with each other.
Once a 17 year old reaches his 18th birthday, he can walk around all the urban areas not just with a rifle or shotgun, but with a pistol strapped to his waist.
In 1998, the Wisconsin people ratified the Constitutional amendment for section 25, which included security and defense as protected reasons to bear arms. Thus, target shooting and hunting are not the only legitimate uses for arms in Wisconsin.
Many weapons are not included in the definition of "dangerous weapons" Bows, crossbows, blowguns, knives, spears, clubs are not included. The definition is very specific and very limited.
There are other laws that have come into play. Previous to 2011, police routinely arrested people who were openly carrying firearms in urban areas and charged them with disorderly conduct. That power was taken away by the legislature because of abuses.
Part of what we see here is friction between the rural and urban areas of the state. The rural areas are used to see 16 and 17 year olds wondering around with rifles and shotguns. The rural areas don't want them categorically restricted. The urban areas see them
No, it is to argue that everyone who is 17 years old in Kenosha who does not have a Hunter Safety Certificate and is in possession of a rifle or shotgun (and is not under adult supervision, or is not receiving training by an adult) is in violation of 948.60.
That to a reasonable person makes complete sense. Perhaps, if Kyle does possess an Illinois (or any other state) Hunter Safety certificate, he could argue he was not subject to 948.60, since there are provisions in 29.593 to recognize certifications from other states.
Kyle was not hunting. He cannot be in violation of 29.593, as it only applies if he is hunting.
Again, then why would a 17 year old walking down a public street not be considered "in possession of a deadly weapon," but that same 17 year old who is squirrel hunting but does not have a Hunter Safety certificate is guilty of being "in possession of a deadly weapon"? The second instance would be in violation of hunting statutes, not possession of deadly weapon statutes.
As I have repeatedly stated, the statutory language could have been more clear, but it obvious by the inclusion of those two hunting-related statutes in the exemptions clause that the legislature intended to exempt a person under 18 in possession of a rifle or shotgun while in the course of hunting from from running afoul of the "possession of a dangerous weapon" statute.
You have made no alternative argument as to why exemption 948.60 3(c) exists, if not for the express purpose to exempt hunting activities from the possession of a deadly weapon statute.
Perhaps the legislature erred with their wording of the statute, and Kyle's defense will successfully argue that sufficiently vague so that it doesn't apply to rifle or shotgun-bearing persons older than 16 but younger than 17, but clearly the intent of the legislature was to exempt hunting activities from the statute, not to exempt rifles and shotguns per se from the statute.
No, sir, again, why would a minor in the act of hunting without a Hunter Safety certificate specifically be in violation of possession of a deadly weapon, but the minute he quits hunting and walks home with the rifle over his shoulder, he is no longer in possession of a deadly weapon? Why else does 948.60 3(c) exist? What other purpose could 948.60 3(c) serve, if not to exempt lawful hunting from the possession statue?
That is the logical fallacy in your argument.
It is obvious it exists to graft on the age restrictions to the dangerous weapon restrictions, and they did not want the exemptions in the law to trump the hunting regulations.
It is, no doubt a compromise.
In 2005, the law was changed to eliminate the appearance of conflict with the short barreled rifle and shotgun law. There are two ways the exemption can be revoked: if the person violates the short barreled rifle and shotgun statute or if they violate the hunting statutes.
This indicates the exemption was about more than just hunting.
Perhaps the legislature erred with their wording of the statute, and Kyle's defense will successfully argue that the statute is sufficiently vague so that it doesn't apply to rifle or shotgun-bearing persons older than 16 but younger than 17 18, but clearly the intent of the legislature was to exempt hunting activities from the statute, not to exempt rifles and shotguns per se from the statute.
Yo-Yo,
Hypothetically, if someone was stabbing Kyle’s mother in the street and he ran back into his house, grabbed a rifle, and sent back and shot the perpetrator would he be guilty of murder because he wasn’t legally entitled to carry a gun?
If a 14 year old child was sitting in his alone in his mother’s car outside a nail salon and a man waving a knife tried to break in the car and the teen accidentally ran over and killed the attacker while trying to escape by driving away would be be guilty of the assailan’s death?
The answer to both is “not guilty” and so the answer with Kyle Rittenhouse is “not guilty!
We cannot expect the law to be perfectly logical, as laws are a collection of compromises by fallible people.
There are reasonable rationals for the exemption. One is the dangerous weapons law for people under the age of 18 was always about concealable weapons, not rifles and shotguns.
Rifles and shotguns have always been treated differently in the law than concealable firearms, including the 948.60.
We will simply have to disagree.
Exempting rifles and shotguns from the statute is exactly what the legislature did for most of the history of the law and its immediate pre-cursors, starting in 1955.
This indicates the exemption was about more than just hunting.
Then we will have to agree to disagree on this point, because for the fourth time now, it makes no logical sense to invoke a "possession of a deadly weapon" charge while hunting, but not invoke that same "possession of a deadly weapon" charge when not hunting.
Possession of a deadly weapon is a much more serious charge than violation of a hunting licensure statute, and it makes more logical sense that the intent was to exempt hunting from the possession charge, rather than to invoke a possession charge due to a minor infraction of hunting statutes, and only when in the act of violating hunting statutes.
It is clear to me that the legislature intended to exempt hunting from the possession charge, but it is equally clear to me that they crafted the exemption so poorly that reasonable people like you and me can disagree as to the legislative intent.
I agree to disagree.
No, he would not be guilty of murder because he wasn't legally entitled to carry a gun, and Kyle isn't guilty of murder for defending his life against those people attempting to attack him. Both examples are clear cut cases of justifiable homicide while in the defense of one's life or that of anothers.
But in your hypothetical, he would be guilty of possession of a deadly weapon if he were under 18 and didn't have a Hunter Safety certificate.
“People aged 16 and up have always had a right to carry them openly.”
I was in HS in the mid-70’s in Wisconsin. Anyone that had a driver’s license and their own vehicle almost always had a .22 rifle in the trunk or mounted across the back window of their truck. It was NORMAL. And no one ever, EVER gave it a second thought OR would even THINK of harming anyone. And no one ever did.
Also - kids as young as 10 can deer hunt in our state, with a rifle, with a parent or other adult. Beau had an 8 year old boy, hunting with the group and his Grandpa, shoot a black bear (about #200) out of a tree this past season. (Beau had to finish it off, but still, the kid did it!) The kid was THRILLED, and very mature about the whole thing; he pretty much wanted to spend the rest of the fall up north hunting with Beau!
This is the way we live. This is the way NORMAL people live in other states, too.
Kyle never should’ve been charged. That kid should be given a MEDAL. This is so transparently, ridiculously POLITICAL it’s sickening.
Just try to get a jury to convict on that Yo-Yo.
You are in love with legalism but our ancestors came up with "trial by jury of his peers" to address this particular mental disease of judges, bureaucrats, and petty tyrant a55holes.
Educate yourself on your legalism perspective:
Well that last comment of mine sure shut you up. What are your thoughts?
Bookmark interesting tidbit
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.