[marktwain]

So then it is your argument that a 17 year old can walk down a public street with a rifle and not be considered "in possession of a dangerous weapon," but if he is hunting in the field without having taken a hunter safety course, then he is guilty of "being in possession of a dangerous weapon?"

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

[Yo-Yo]

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.

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.