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.
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.