Why do you claim this? It does not follow from the legislative history.
The age restriction scheme was created in 1984.
The Dangerous Weapons statute was created in 1987 as part of Act 332, applying only to concealable firearms.
948.60 Possession of a dangerous weapon by a child. (1) In this section, "dangerous weapon" means any firearm having a barrel less than 12 inches long; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (4); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or amanrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends
In 1991, the legislature awkwardly grafted on the hunting certificate requirement while hunting and the age restriction limitations while hunting or for possession and use of firearms. The age restriction only applies to people less than 16 years of age. The exception for firearms with a barrel longer then 12 inches was kept, but moved from the definition to an exception in 3(c).
29.593 deals with a requirement for taking a hunter safety course before a person can legally hunt. Does 17 year old Kyle possess a Wisconsin Hunter Safety certificate? No. Therefore he is in violation of 29.593 and cannot claim exemption to 948.60, possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
Your argument appears to eliminate the possibility of being in compliance with a law when doing nothing.
It is to argue that everyone in Kenosha, who does not have a Hunter Safety Certificate, is in violation of 29.593. That does not make any sense.
Kyle was not hunting. He cannot be in violation of 29.593, as it only applies if he is hunting.
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.